Slashdot Mirror


The Demise of Model Rocketry?

Mark Lytle writes "Due to restrictions imposed by the rather broad Homeland Security Act, the hobby I suspect many Slashdotters, being technology buffs, grew up with, the Estes Model Rocket is now firmly on the endangered species list. The little cardboard rockets I learned science with in high school are evidently suspected of being potential weapons of mass destruction. Go figure. Perhaps by getting involved, we can stop this sillyness... Anyway, i hope so...."

669 comments

  1. Not very inconvenient - by Omkar · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Build your own with instructions taken off the 'Net. Nobody will lock you up - problem solved.

    1. Re:Not very inconvenient - by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      Read the article! The problem is not the rocket but that shippers won't ship the solid fuel motors any longer because their employees would have to get licenced with the ATFE.

      How are you going to build the motors?

    2. Re:Not very inconvenient - by hplasm · · Score: 1
      Build your own with instructions taken off the 'Net

      This refers to building the motors. It is easy.

      --
      ...and he grinned, like a fox eating shit out of a wire brush.
    3. Re:Not very inconvenient - by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If it's this much hassle to launch a *model* rocket, what does that bode for any privateer trying to put a real payload into orbit?

      This is sort of like the hassle it's getting to be for the "amateur" trying to obtain reagents, solvents, glassware, etc. Already been searched for a "meth" lab once by the Task Force, Sheriff, GBI, etc. (Actually they were looking for a 17 yo female (my gf), but they would have LOVED to find crank in that context, the fucking perverts) I was *almost* sorry to disappoint them.

      --rgb, from the land where football players and other retarded jocks rule, so help them God.

    4. Re:Not very inconvenient - by gruber76 · · Score: 3, Informative

      According to the link above:
      Amateurs who make their own ammonium perchlorate composite propellants will also need an ATF permit to move ammonium perchlorate composite propellant within the state it is made.

    5. Re:Not very inconvenient - by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If you choose to "build your own", you will run into the following road blocks:

      1. If you live in an urban / suburban area, such activities are likely to be outright banned.

      2. If you live in a rural area, you will likely require some sort of explosives permit. The training, filing time will probably require you become a professional at building rocket engines. You then get the headaches Estes is running into now.

      3. In any event, your activities will probably get you "good neighbor" visits from the local sheriff, county police, state troopers, even the ATF or EPA (you are working with environmentally hazardous materials, remember!)

      If you decide to go "full steam ahead" in spite of all the above, eventually expect a visit from the people mentioned in #3 above. In these post 9/11 times, expect to receive a long "all expenses-paid" stay in a state or federal prison!

    6. Re:Not very inconvenient - by Treebeard+the+Ent · · Score: 2, Funny

      expect to receive a long "all expenses-paid" stay in a state or federal prison!

      a.k.a.: Pound me in the ass prison.

      --
      Never argue with an idiot. They will just bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.
    7. Re:Not very inconvenient - by misterhaan · · Score: 1
      This refers to building the motors.
      i'm sure you meant to say engines, as motors are powered by electricity and tend to produce a spinning motion . . .
      --

      track7.org has all kinds of interesting stuff!

    8. Re:Not very inconvenient - by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I saw a picture of some university making rocket motors out of powdered rubber off old tires.

    9. Re:Not very inconvenient - by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Charcoal, sulfur, and potassium, ground extremely fine with a rock tumbler.

      Think I'm kidding?

      Look up the Teleflite manual on building rocket motors.

      The only drag is the blast deflector they recommend, out of 3/4" steel.

      That requirement made me reconsider 'rolling my own'.

    10. Re:Not very inconvenient - by Fig,+formerly+A.C. · · Score: 0, Flamebait
      a.k.a.: Pound me in the ass

      How is that any different from the treatment free citizens already get from the government?

      --
      Murphy was an optimist.
    11. Re:Not very inconvenient - by mmol_6453 · · Score: 1

      No, they're called rocket motors.

      An engine is something else.

      --
      What's this Submit thingy do?
    12. Re:Not very inconvenient - by mmol_6453 · · Score: 1

      Actually...All expenses are not paid. The prisoner has to pay room and board, except for the days he does onsite labor, such as laundry or kitchen duty. Never been there, but I've got a friend who just got out.

      --
      What's this Submit thingy do?
    13. Re:Not very inconvenient - by Dielectric · · Score: 1

      I did this for Science Fair when I was in high school. The blast deflector isn't that bad, it cost about $50 from the local welding shop. The guy zipped it together in about 15 minutes, working from the sketches in the Teleflite book. 3/4" steel would be massive overkill, I used 1/2" which he said would stop a 30-06 rifle round. I made the casings from wallpaper paste and paper grocery bags, igniters from matches and steel wool, and a stationary test stand.

      The charcoal, sulfur, and potassium mix is just black powder, and pretty much sucks for model rocketry. Stinky and low-yield. There are a lot of other recipes out there that work a lot better.

      It's a shame, but you could never get this approved in today's high school environment. This was back in 1994 or so, and my chemistry teacher still made me do the construction at home.

    14. Re:Not very inconvenient - by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Never been there either, but I'm currently writing a friend who's doing some time in a state prison.

      It's worse than that, even. They take 10% of any money she receives (sent by family, friends, whatever to help with expenses)to help pay for their "stay". They take half of anything earned onsite.

      She reports to me that 20 envelopes cost $10; a 30 minute phone card costs $20 (WTF! when I can buy a 256 minute card outside for $10); she has to buy her own laundry soap and everything that one would have to buy on the outside, but at hugely inflated prices and with them already taking some of her income.

      Let me ask you - with the 10% rule, who's really getting punished here? The offender; or her family and friends?

      Meanwhile it costs - supposedly - $60k/yr/person to keep them imprisoned.

      I smell huge profits for someone....

    15. Re:Not very inconvenient - by cetan · · Score: 1

      You should probably rent "Office Space" to understand the quote.

      --
      In Soviet Russia...michael would be rotting in Siberia!
    16. Re:Not very inconvenient - by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What is this anal fixation you have???

      Get a fucking grip. Or are you one of those credulous fools who buy the prop that "9/11 'changed everything'?"

      --rgb

    17. Re:Not very inconvenient - by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I smell huge profits for someone....

      That would be CXW and other private prison administrators.

    18. Re:Not very inconvenient - by misterhaan · · Score: 1

      maybe you live in a different country than i do, but every time i bought them, they said 'model rocket engines' on the package. also, your link to the definition of engine, while it shows that the word can be used to mean something else, also shows that it applies here. of course by the definition of motor, it could apply here as well, but in all the places i've lived, motor has always been electric, and engine is pretty much everything else.

      --

      track7.org has all kinds of interesting stuff!

    19. Re:Not very inconvenient - by Fig,+formerly+A.C. · · Score: 1
      I got the quote, I was just trying to make the point that people who follow that law are getting a good shafting too.

      I own Office Space on DVD (I bought it used to avoid contributing to the MPAA members), it is a great movie. The guy's boss is disturbingly similar to my boss here, however.

      --
      Murphy was an optimist.
    20. Re:Not very inconvenient - by garf · · Score: 1

      Then use these hybrid motors http://www.mars.org.uk/bkflamer.html or http://www.mars.org.uk/static.html

      --
      H&Ks Garf
    21. Re:Not very inconvenient - by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's called slave labor. The mayor of my town claims it saves the city all kinds of money. I guess so, they don't have to pay even minimum wage for honest citizens to do work for the city. It doesn't seem to be decreasing my taxes or my utility bills any, though.

      I'd raise more of a fuss, because it really is reprehensible for private profit to be made off of incarceration, but the ladies (most of whom are in for dope or habitual violater type stuff) seem to enjoy getting outside the walls. Never mind they mostly shouldn't be there to begin with.

      --rgb

    22. Re:Not very inconvenient - by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, mondern use of "engine" is nothing like the historical usage either.

      When applying an old word to a new device (or variation of an old one), pretty much anything goes. I rember reading somewhere that a definition (probably not even THE definition, surely this varies) of practical utility is that a rocket motor uses solid propellant and a rocket engine uses liquid propellant. Surely this is a useful technical distinction. For non-technical uses, surely it matters not at all? For hobby rockets, I imagine the marketing department has more say on the title than the technical people who designed it (and are maybe frustrated at the incorrect naming???)

      I don't remember anyone using the word 'engine' to refer to something electric (they seem to be always a motor?), but on the other hand I've heard gasoline powered engines called 'motor's too, heaps of times. Motor-sport anyone?

    23. Re:Not very inconvenient - by Fig,+formerly+A.C. · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Flamebait? Oh, please.

      The notion that a free citizen can have a harmless hobby like model rocketry effectively destroyed by a not-very-well-thought-out law certainly should indicate something about the treatment the government dishes out.

      A politician (or a group of them) passed a knee-jerk law to make it appear as though they were doing something relevant and productive in order to glean votes, and the citizens pay the price.

      Look at most of the post 911 "security" legislation to see what I mean.

      A politician is perfectly happy to shaft citizens to further his career... Haven't you ever heard of "screwing your way to the top"?

      Maybe I needed to elaborate more in my post, but the connection I was trying to show is certainly not "flamebait". Sheesh.

      --
      Murphy was an optimist.
    24. Re:Not very inconvenient - by cetan · · Score: 1

      Ah, see, that's why I should get rid of this Jump To Conclusions matt...I do that too often.

      --
      In Soviet Russia...michael would be rotting in Siberia!
    25. Re:Not very inconvenient - by gruber76 · · Score: 1

      Read the whole article and you discover that purchasing the motors would also require a license.

    26. Re:Not very inconvenient - by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Harmless? I don't know about you, but the whole point of model rocketry when I was a kid was to install a network of gossamer antenna wires and exercse my microwave powered mind control over the sleepy prairie town where I lived. I'll show you "harmless"...I'll show you ALL.

      I also really wanted one of those ones with the camera in the nose-cone so I could do surreptitious aerial surveillance and mebbe even peer down girls' cleavage, but I could never afford it.

    27. Re:Not very inconvenient - by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uhhh... you don't get out much do you?

      Get hip on popular culture. Now. Please. Before we all die from boredom listening to your highly uninformed comments.

    28. Re:Not very inconvenient - by Capsaicin · · Score: 1
      but in all the places i've lived, motor has always been electric

      Strictly speaking a 'motor' is something (or in fact someone) which causes motion. Furthermore I'm surprised, despite the fact of where you been, that you have never heard of a 'motor vehicle,' or of a 'motor mechanic.'

      --
      Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
    29. Re:Not very inconvenient - by Capsaicin · · Score: 1
      I smell huge profits for someone....

      Yes, but what we really need to boost returns to our shareholders is for the several legislatures to pass a raft of new legislation criminlising everything from swapping music to flying model rockets ... Oh wait!

      --
      Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
    30. Re:Not very inconvenient - by A55M0NKEY · · Score: 1

      No big deal. Just use sugar + kno3 fuel.

      --

      Eat at Joe's.

  2. What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Funny, are these things more dangerous than the guns you americans are so fond of?

    1. Re:What? by Alan+Partridge · · Score: 5, Insightful

      also, wasn't 911 carried out with the aid of BOXCUTTERS? Wouldn't it be more sensible to ban scissors than toy rockets?

      --
      That was classic intercourse!
    2. Re:What? by yog · · Score: 2, Insightful

      An anonymous coward wrote:
      > Funny, are these things more dangerous than the guns you americans are so fond of?

      My, what an "insightful" remark. I'm simply overwhelmed.

      I shot off Estes model rockets in my youth. I think the primary danger of these things is to the operator, not to any site they might be targetting. The range is in the hundreds of feet. A slightly larger scale missile might be dangerous if it could be fitted with a payload and launched in the direction of a school, police HQ or the like. I don't think it's appropriate to ban Estes models however. Actually, how many people even use those things anymore? I thought model rocketry was pretty much dead.

      --
      it's = "it is"; its = possessive. E.g., it's flapping its wings.
    3. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      What they don't want is rocket powered box cutters, imagine the damage they could do.

      I for one am glad to see the US government taking such a positive stance on potential problem substances and technologies.

    4. Re:What? by warpSpeed · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Wouldn't it be more sensible to ban scissors than toy rockets?

      How about BIC lighters? Each one containes enough butane to make a nice little bomb! Carry a few on board with you... Well I do not want to give anyone any ideas. The restrictions placed on airline travelers are moronic, because they will only catch morons. So now it seems that the moronic restrictions are going to expand to everyday life. I guess cigarettes should now be deemed a weapon of mass destruction too. Just think of the cancer/children/humanity/whatever...

    5. Re:What? by moonboy · · Score: 4, Insightful



      Yes and No.

      Yes because in the hands of the right (or in this case wrong) person, they could certainly be used as a "weapons delivery system". They can reach altitudes high enough to distribute chemical or biological agents over a broader area than might otherwise be possible. They are (or at least have been) more inconspicuous than say a crop duster which has also come under scrutiny as a possible delivery method.

      No because it is people that kill, not guns. Guns (be they fully automatic assault rifles, handguns, shotguns or hunting rifles), automobiles, rockets, baseball bats, hammers, knives, and many other implements/tools can be and are used to kill people. Do we outlaw automobiles, rockets, baseball bats, hammers, knives? No, of course not. We regulate their use and punish those who use them wrongly. The key is to punish and punish effectively. We Americans have plenty of laws to punish the law breakers, it is just that they are often not enforced or the sentencing is too light thus causing recidivism (IMHO).

      --

      Co-founder and designer at Music Nearby: http://musicnearby.com
    6. Re:What? by Treebeard+the+Ent · · Score: 1

      Hmmm... let's ban all things that could potentially be used as weapons against us:

      Guns of all kinds (including potato guns, bb guns, and paintball guns), scissors, knives (including butter knives), forks, spoons, sporks, fans, cars, boats, planes, rocks, trees, food (it could get poisoned ya know), and air as it can be used to deliver biological agents.

      Of course, I am being sarcastic, but how far are we going to take this? I understand that we have to be careful in these post 9/11 times, but where do you draw the line?

      --
      Never argue with an idiot. They will just bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.
    7. Re:What? by will_die · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If you want to carry a sharp weapon type thing on a plane, just get a music CD precut it in shape and then sneak it in with some others. Just make sure you are not using a CD-R you don't want to get the RIAA mad at you.
      But then again it would be far easier to get a ceramic knife through.

    8. Re:What? by Ontopic · · Score: 0
      How about BIC lighters? Each one containes enough butane to make a nice little bomb! Carry a few on board with you...

      Yeah, and the moment you attempt to assemble them you are tackled by the other passengers and the flight attendants... just ask the shoe-bomber: his shoes were ready to go, he only needed to light them, but even that was impossible to do due to the vigilance of his seat-neighbor.

      Well, before you tell me that's what the washroom is for, think for a moment. Do you really believe that there is still a plane left without a hidden camera on the loo?

    9. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bats, hammers and knives are not outlawed or controlled because they were not designed nor are they marketed as items that kill. Guns are. A gun's sole purpose is to kill. THAT is why guns are regulated, and why many other more sensible nations control them very tightly. The analogy that you make (as do many others) with other common items that "can kill" is flawed. What is the LIKELIHOOD that an attack with a baseball bat will end in fatality as compared to an attack with a firearm? Pretty damn low.

      Yes, punishing those that misuse firearms is good thing, but a BETTER thing would be do eliminate the firearms completely.

      Just my opinion, but it happens to be the RIGHT opinion.

    10. Re:What? by misterhaan · · Score: 5, Insightful
      I understand that we have to be careful in these post 9/11 times [ . . . ]
      why is it that so many people believe that we need to be any more careful now than we needed to be a year and a half ago? i most certainly say that we do not!

      it was great to see the way the nation reacted by coming together and helping each other out in the days following the attack, but everything more recent than about two weeks after has just been getting worse. we have been dishonoring the memories of those who lost their lives for no good reason by slowly whittling away the freedoms that made the usa something we could be proud of, and by breeding fears of another attack.

      the plain simple truth is: terrorism most likely will not affect you! certainly the entire country mourns for the losses families suffered, but how many people were really directly effected by either knowing well someone who died, or witnessing the event? i think that it's well and good for americans to be upset by such events, and to help each other out when they happen, but until it happens again, remember that most of the threats we're supposed to be cowering in fear over aren't really that bad, don't affect a very large area, and are very unlikely to affect you directly.

      thank you.

      (no offense meant to the parent)

      --

      track7.org has all kinds of interesting stuff!

    11. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Yes because in the hands of the right (or in this case wrong) person, they could certainly be used as a "weapons delivery system". They can reach altitudes high enough to distribute chemical or biological agents over a broader area than might otherwise be possible. They are (or at least have been) more inconspicuous than say a crop duster which has also come under scrutiny as a possible delivery method.

      Yeah - over about 0.25 square miles...

      Model rockets are great science toys. When I have kids, I hope my sons and/or daughters will have as much (supervised) fun with them as I did.

    12. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >No because it is people that kill, not guns.

      yeah, but guns are made for killing people. unlike cars, knives and hammers, they have no real uses except killing. you could argue that killing can be okay if you're a hunter, a policeman or a soldier, but then you'd have to outlaw guns that are not intended for such purposes.

      >The key is to punish and punish effectively.

      punishment is important, but as america shows, in most cases punishment doesn't prevent crime (it may even lead to an increase in crime if people are punished unreasonably hard), and it certainly doesn't help the victims. punishment alone won't solve the problem, the solution is a good mix of preventive action and punishment.

    13. Re:What? by Anonamused+Cow-herd · · Score: 5, Funny

      in the hands of the right person, they could certainly be used as a "weapons delivery system". They can reach altitudes high enough to distribute chemical or biological agents

      I hate to be the one to point this out, but if you have produced chemical or biological agents and you are still using a 12-year-old's toy as a weapons delivery system, you are such an incompetent terrorist that you deserve the misfire your under-powered, chemical-agent-laden hobby rocket is going to produce shortly before those chemical agents are sitributed to a very small area surrounding your person.

      --
      -----[0_o]-----
      We are not amused.
    14. Re:What? by swillden · · Score: 1

      A gun's sole purpose is to kill.

      No, it isn't. Well, to be precise, *some* guns are designed for killing people, some are designed for killing animals and many aren't designed for killing at all (and frankly aren't very effective at it, though they can do it).

      Here's a friendly suggestion: you can keep yourself from looking like a fool by doing a little research before posting.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    15. Re:What? by kalimar · · Score: 1
      What is the LIKELIHOOD that an attack with a baseball bat will end in fatality as compared to an attack with a firearm? Pretty damn low.

      Do you have statistics on that?
      I'm wondering because it seems to me that if you carry a baseball bat with the intent on harming (but not specifically killing) someone, you are more likely to kill them simply by getting 'caught up' in the moment of hitting them with a bat. Where as with a gun, unless you are specifically trying to kill someone, you probably won't be firing repeatedly.
      Granted, if you go out with the specific intent of killing someone, the chances of the victim dying to probably even regardless of what weapon you use unless they 'defeat' your attack in some way (kicking your ass, killing you, etc).

      However, the first part of your statement is correct. Bats, hammers, (eating) knives are not controlled because they aren't designed for the specific purpose of killing. Depending on the state you're in, long knives are regulated to some extent. For instance, you aren't allowed to walk around town with your favorite butcher knife without drawing a lot of attention (regardless of whether or not the blade is bare). However, a swiss army knife swinging from a keychain will hardly get a glance.

    16. Re:What? by Treebeard+the+Ent · · Score: 2, Insightful

      (no offense meant to the parent)

      I understand no offense was intended, but I do disagree with you.

      I think it would be rather selfish of us to think of only ourselves. I mean, think of it, on 9/11, did you think to yourself, "Thank goodness it wasn't me on one of those planes. I know this could have been prevented with tighter airport security, but that would have inconvienieced me. I certainly hope they don't start tightening airport security now."?

      So many people complain about how inscure Microsoft software is, but then complain about our country making it's self more secure. Personally, I'd rather have a secure country than secure software...

      --
      Never argue with an idiot. They will just bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.
    17. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Same goes with drugs.
      It's not drugs that kill, it's people who takes
      drugs..

    18. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No because it is people that kill, not guns. Guns (be they fully automatic assault rifles, handguns, shotguns or hunting rifles), automobiles, rockets, baseball bats, hammers, knives, and many other implements/tools can be and are used to kill people. Do we outlaw automobiles, rockets, baseball bats, hammers, knives? No, of course not.

      Did it occur to you that automobiles, baseball bats, hammers, knives all have purposes other than being weapons? Whereas a gun's purpose is to inflict physical damage to a living being? Thus the falicy of your argument.

    19. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mr. Heston, please tell us what many guns "aren't designed for killing at all".

    20. Re:What? by baldwang · · Score: 1

      I fail to see how any of the new laws make the country a more secure place? All the government has done is strip away our rights and leverage their power. The Patriot Act is an attrocious piece of government garble, and if the excerpts of The Patriot Act II are accurate, it's going to get way, way worse.

      Can somebody please explain to me how any of these new bills/agencies (The Office of Homeland Security? gimmie a break...) make the country "more" secure? If these bills and agencies existed at the time of 9/11, do you think it would have prevented a 747 flying at 450 mph into a building? The answer, plainly, is no. How can you predict such an attack? These new bills/agencies will most certainly NOT make the country more secure, all they will do is take away the rights and freedoms of honest citizens.

      At the end of the day, we have to keep in mind that it's Poindexter that was the big pusher for the Homeland Security Act, and naturally, the Information Awareness Office. This is the same Poindexter who lost his job as National Security Adviser and was convicted of conspiracy, lying to congress, defrauding the government, and shredding evidence of the Iran Contra affair.

      Wow! I feel so secure!

    21. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Being a geek, you should know the difference between sole purpose and common purpose. The sole purpose of a gun is to fire a projectile. If it's sole purpose was to kill, why doesn't it have legs, a brain, and the ability to fire itself?

    22. Re:What? by Treebeard+the+Ent · · Score: 1

      do you think it would have prevented a 747 flying at 450 mph into a building

      We'll never know. But I do know that with the new security standards in airports and on air craft it is much less likly to happen again? Do you want us to wait until some nut exploits another one of our security flaws until we do something about it? Will we ever be completely secure? No, but let's not use that as an excuse to not try.

      Would people not get up in arms if IE or Windows had a security flaw that MS knew about but did nothing about it? Answer, Yes... It happens on /. all the time. But they will never be 100% secure either... so why don't they stop putting out security patches.

      --
      Never argue with an idiot. They will just bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.
    23. Re:What? by raretek · · Score: 2, Funny

      "I for one am glad to see the US government taking such a positive stance on potential problem substances and technologies."

      Spoken like a true coward.

      "Oh help me government, save me from the potential dangers in life! Please, for God sake! Ban shit now, before it's too late! But please, for the Love of God, don't stop doing all the jacked up things you've done to make me a target. Please don't! I just want to be less free, I don't really want you to do anything that could make me less a target."

      --
      Show me an effect without cause and then I'll believe in chaos.
    24. Re:What? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Why do we hate Islamic nations?
      I was under the impression that it was because we valued freedom above all, and they stood for the antithesis of this. Perhaps someone could explain to me exactly how we can fight them by restricting our own freedom? If we allow our freedom to be taken in the name of freedom, then the terrorists have won already.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    25. Re:What? by swillden · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Mr. Heston

      You have the wrong guy; I work for a living.

      please tell us what many guns "aren't designed for killing at all"

      Go do your own research.

      I will give you a couple of hints, though. There are many other examples, but I'll let you find them yourself. Look up target rifles and you'll find that they have numerous characteristics that make them far from ideal as weapons, both the styles used in shooting competitions and the styles used in athletic competitions, such as biathlons. Do some reading on the design features incorporated into common .22 caliber sport rifles and you'll see that their ability to kill anything is not on the list of design criteria.

      On the flip side, do some research into what features are desirable for guns intended to be used as weapons, particularly anti-personnel weapons, and then take a look at which firearms incorporate those features. What you'll find is that very few of them do.

      Like any other piece of technological equipment, guns are designed for specific applications, and they're most effective when used as intended. And, the point here is, *many* of those applications don't include killing people, so blanket statements that "a gun's sole purpose is to kill" are simply ill-informed.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    26. Re:What? by Treebeard+the+Ent · · Score: 1

      nice... it's been a little while since I saw a "the terrorists have already won" troll.

      --
      Never argue with an idiot. They will just bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.
    27. Re:What? by the_bean42 · · Score: 1

      I really hope you don't "hate Islamic nations"

    28. Re:What? by the_bean42 · · Score: 1

      Do you have statistics on that?
      I'm wondering because it seems to me that if you carry a gun with the intent on harming (but not specifically killing) someone, you are more likely to kill them simply by getting 'caught up' in the moment of shooting them with a gun.

    29. Re:What? by your_mother_sews_soc · · Score: 1

      Crimey! My stupid dog loves to eat other people's trash and then poop in the snow.

      Are you telling me that now my brandy new TORO snow-and-poop blower is a weapons delivery system? When the winds were gusting Sunday that deadly mix went clear over to Lark Dri...

      Damn, someone's banging at the door. I'll be right back...

      --
      My user name was a mistake. Input wasn't restricted, my bad.
    30. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes because in the hands of the right (or in this case wrong) person, they could certainly be used as a "weapons delivery system". They can reach altitudes high enough to distribute chemical or biological agents over a broader area than might otherwise be possible.

      Someone has been watching Vin Deisel in XXX, haven't they?

    31. Re:What? by stilwebm · · Score: 2, Informative

      Butane does not create a very good pressure wave when combusted, especially not compared to the black powder used in most rocket engines. It is liquid in the lighters, but must be oxygenated to combust well. That is why butane is used to make flames in lighters and torches, not explosives. As a kid we used to blow up lighters by throwing them in fires (don't try this at home hehe). They typically make a large flame (1m long) or fireball (~1/4m diameter) for less than 1/10 second and fly a few meters in the air. A truckload of lighters would make a bigger fireball, possible break some windows and produce a neat rumble, but wouldn't take down buildings or spread some WMD very far. And it would take a lot of work to make sure all that butane had plenty of oxygen to burn quickly. Otherwise it would just burn like a large gas fireplace.

    32. Re:What? by nothingtodo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I really doubt someone wanting to do trouble would use a model rocket of all things. If you go with the typical stock you get from a hobby shop, you are limited to 16 ounces of payload (IIRC) and maybe 3000 feet or so.

      --
      -- After all is said and done, more is said than done.
    33. Re:What? by secret_squirrel_99 · · Score: 4, Informative

      How about BIC lighters? Each one containes enough butane to make a nice little bomb!

      First off.. not nearly enough butane to do any damage. Second they are already restricted. You maye carry up to two (2) butane style lighters on board an aircraft. The complete list of what is/isnt allowed can be found here

      http://cryptome.org/tsa021403.txt

      The relevant text is:
      (9) Lighters (maximum of two, fueled with non-refillable liquefied gas (Bic-type) or absorbed liquid (Zippo-type).
      (10) Matches (maximum of four books, strike on cover, book type).

      --
      If privacy had a tombstone it would read "We did it for your own good" . -- John Twelve Hawks
    34. Re:What? by Ezrem · · Score: 2, Interesting

      As a part-time employee of a hobby shop, I can tell you that model rocketry as a hobby is practically dead. In a community of ~200,000 potential customers, I can count on one hand the number of times anyone purchased model rockets as a hobby. However, many area teachers still purchase bulk orders (we're talking hundreds of dollars worth) of rockets and engines for their science classes.

    35. Re:What? by fatboy · · Score: 1

      I'm wondering because it seems to me that if you carry a gun with the intent on harming (but not specifically killing) someone, you are more likely to kill them simply by getting 'caught up' in the moment of shooting them with a gun.

      That's why you don't shoot anyone unless you are justified in killing them.

      --
      --fatboy
    36. Re:What? by Melantha_Bacchae · · Score: 2, Insightful

      misterhaan wrote:

      > why is it that so many people believe that we need to be
      > any more careful now than we needed to be a year and a
      > half ago? i most certainly say that we do not!

      There is nothing wrong with ordinary people being reasonably careful and observant. If everyone drove like that, it would save a lot of lives. The problem is being fearful. People who build a plastic bubble around their homes out of plastic sheeting and duct tape are being fearful, not careful.

      Being fearful only helps a terrorist control you. Please note that "terrorist" has nothing to do with blowing up things, but rather using terror to control people (either blowing things up, or telling people some evil "terrorist" might blow them up). Oppressive governments almost always rule by fear.

      > it was great to see the way the nation reacted by coming
      > together and helping each other out in the days following
      > the attack,

      America is great not because of its bombs or military, but because of the compassion and courage of its people. On September 11, 2001, terrorists killed thousands, but compassion and courage saved tens of thousands.

      > we have been dishonoring the memories of those who
      > lost their lives for no good reason

      And the lives lost for the best of reasons, to save others. Don't forget Flight 93. Or the firefighters.

      > by slowly whittling away the freedoms that made the usa
      > something we could be proud of, and by breeding fears
      > of another attack.

      There *was* another terror attack, just this weekend, in Chicago. Only no Al Qaeda members were involved. Yes, the moronic security guard that sprayed the crowd with pepper spray is responsible, as is the owner of the club that violated every fire code in the book. But the government and the media are also responsible for the fear they have been breeding with their stupid terror alerts (based on lies to begin with). Terror and panic killed those poor people, and turned that club into the same horror that the World Trade Center became. Department of Homeland Insecurity: this is the fruit of your color-coded crying of "Wolf!".

      > the plain simple truth is: terrorism most likely will not
      > affect you!

      As long as you define "terrorism" as a real Al Qaeda attack (blowing up stuff, hijacking planes, assassinations, etc.) you are quite right. The average American is far more likely to die from auto accidents or medical malpractice.

      Al Qaeda are at heart bullies and thugs. Bullies don't bother those who stand up to them, and ever since Flight 93 and the capture of the shoe-bomber, Al Qaeda has seemed reluctant, even too chicken, to bother with airborne attacks in the US itself. Airplane hijacking has ceased to work with Flight 93, so Al Qaeda appears (from my personal observations of the news) to have moved on to other kinds of attacks outside the US.

      The fear of terrorist attacks is a concern for the average American. If fear is getting to you (you feel an irrational desire to buy lots of duct tape and/or have nightmares about attacks), you need to do something about it. Start by turning off CNN (or whatever sensationalist news source you watch) and get your news from places that are less sensationalist, and more balanced. Combat your fear with facts. And if you still have problems, you might want to get some professional help. Living in constant fear is not good for you, even if it never gets to the point of giving you a heart attack.

      > remember that most of the threats we're supposed to be
      > cowering in fear over aren't really that bad, don't affect a
      > very large area, and are very unlikely to affect you
      > directly.
      >
      > thank you.

      No, thank you for doing your part to calm people. :)

      "The path of peace is yours to discover for eternity."
      Japanese version of "Mothra" (1961)

    37. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Here's a friendly suggestion: you can keep yourself from looking like a
      >fool by doing a little research before posting.

      here's a friendly suggestion: if you want to convince people that your position is correct (instead of convincing them that you're an ignorant ass), don't give them friendly, condescending suggestions.

    38. Re:What? by Cranx · · Score: 1

      Actually, I think the problem is too much empathy. "What if?" and "Oh those poor people."

      Empathy is good at times, but right now it's driving the U.S. into the ground with fears and prevention activities.

      Be selfish. Demand your civil liberties and don't feel the pain of others so much over 9/11 that it drives you in a panic to create a giant padded wall of safety within which you have no freedom but to atrophy and die.

    39. Re:What? by Scratch-O-Matic · · Score: 1

      Nobody has banned model rockets. Nobody has tried to ban model rockets.

      --


      Evil is the money of root.
    40. Re:What? by swillden · · Score: 1

      here's a friendly suggestion: if you want to convince people that your position is correct (instead of convincing them that you're an ignorant ass), don't give them friendly, condescending suggestions.

      Can't come up with any arguments, huh?

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    41. Re:What? by patbob · · Score: 1
      Actually, how many people even use those things anymore?

      Well, the low budget science fiction movie industry for one. They'll be totally bolloxed without Estes rockets to use for missles.

      --
      Welcome to the net of 1000 lies. Upgrades are scheduled soon that should bring us to the 10,000 lies mark.
    42. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cigarettes are better used as a delay fuse...that is unless you are a suicide bobmer ;)

    43. Re:What? by lamontg · · Score: 1
      Yes because in the hands of the right (or in this case wrong) person, they could certainly be used as a "weapons delivery system". They can reach altitudes high enough to distribute chemical or biological agents over a broader area than might otherwise be possible. They are (or at least have been) more inconspicuous than say a crop duster which has also come under scrutiny as a possible delivery method.

      Actually, No. You aren't going to be able to get enough chemical, biological or radiological agents into a model rocket. You are going to have a difficult time dispersing them. Even after you disperse them, even the slightest wind will render the attack very ineffective.

      Chemical, biological and radiological agents are very difficult to use for terror or even to weaponize for warfare. You typically need to drop tons of chemical weapons in an area to start killing people. You need to weaponsize biological agents and you need to keep them in sufficient concentration (if the wind blows them until they're too dilute, or if they fall to the ground they aren't going to kill anyone). Radiological weapons would probably be your best bet, but due to the cleanup effort that would follow them.

      It would be much more effective to use chemical, biological or radiological attacks in a tunnel or other closed environment. Even there, the sarin attack in Tokyo shows how difficult it is to kill a lot of people in a closed space. I really doubt any terrorist would bother with using model rockets as a delivery vehicle -- it would just waste their valuable (to them) toxins.

    44. Re:What? by Bob+Hellbringer · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Of interest to this discussion from Defense Tech:

      HAMAS TOYS WITH DEATH
      A leading Palestinian militant has been killed by, of all things, a remote-controlled toy plane. Hamas chieftain Nidal Farahat and others had been working on a way to load explosives onto such toys and use them as weapons of terror.

      On Sunday, Farahat appeared to fall victim to his own designs. He and five other Hamas operatives died in a Gaza City car bombing. A toy plane was found inside the vehicle.

      "This is an assassination done by Israel," Dr. Mahmoud al-Zahar, a leader of Hamas, told the New York Times.

      In January, DebkaFile claimed that Yasser Arafat was arranging for the deployment of new weapons: "Model planes packed with explosives and operated by remote control."

      Last month, Palestinian toy importers in Jerusalem and Ramallah were told to order hundreds of these toys for distribution to Palestinian children in hospitals. Subsidies from European Union member-governments could legitimately be allocated to this humanitarian purpose. The model airplanes were purchased in Europe and shipped quite openly to the Palestinian shopkeepers.

      According to our sources, not a single toy reached an injured Palestinian child. The model planes were sent to Palestinian workshops for conversion into miniature air bombers with explosive payloads.

      DebkaFile estimated that the modified toys could fly for about a kilometer, and an altitude of 300 meters.
      posted: 5:14 PM

      --

      - i fart in your general direction -

    45. Re:What? by Moofie · · Score: 1

      Please explain the difference between a gun designed to kill a person and a gun designed to kill animals. Be specific.

      I am a huge proponent of the second amendment, but splitting hairs about what guns are "designed" to do weakens the case. It also makes stupid laws like tha "assault weapons" ban.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    46. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not a troll if its true, jackass.

    47. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is NEVER justification to take the life of others. That's half the problem. American people who think they have the right to get what they want to the detriment of your fellow man.

    48. Re:What? by baldwang · · Score: 1

      "Would people not get up in arms if IE or Windows had a security flaw that MS knew about but did nothing about it? Answer, Yes... It happens on /. all the time. But they will never be 100% secure either... so why don't they stop putting out security patches." You make a good point in your posts, however (and lets just take this argument at face value. ;) MS isn't racially profiling it's users, disallowing certain groups of people from using it's software, or videotaping you when you search the web... know what I mean? I believe in filling the holes which cause a compromise of security, but putting everybody into what is essentially a public, government supervised prison is not going to solve anything... if anything, it'll create an uprising of the people... that is, once they realise what has been done.

    49. Re:What? by dogbertsd · · Score: 1

      Next they'll ban duct tape. I mean, how else are you going to mount the box cutter to your model rocket.

      Oh, but I forget, duct tape is an integral part in our terrorism defense. Now if we can just get the terrorist to put mercaptan in their biological and chemical weapons so we know when to use the duct tape. Surely we can regulate this!

    50. Re:What? by swillden · · Score: 1

      Please explain the difference between a gun designed to kill a person and a gun designed to kill animals. Be specific.

      I'm not a gunsmith or any kind of an expert and I'm not going to go do the research to provide an authoritative answer, but I'll give it a shot off the top of my head. Someone more expert is welcome to correct me.

      The main relevant differences are in caliber, muzzle velocity, shape, size, weight, barrel length and thickness, rate of fire and magazine size. There are other differences in ammunition, but we're talking about guns. Oh, and I'm going to mostly ignore shotguns and handguns. This post will be long enough as is.

      Guns designed for hunting big game are generally a little larger in caliber than is necessary for people. Basically, an 800 lb elk is harder to kill than a 200 lb person. Ideal muzzle velocity varies based primarily on the typical target distance. Higher velocities yield a flatter trajectory which makes dealing with a wide range of distances easier, but higher velocities also require higher chamber/barrel pressures and, for a bullet of a given weight, greater recoil (technically, muzzle velocity is really determined more by the cartridge than the receiver and barrel, but guns are designed with a range of cartridge loads in mind). Big game rifles are designed for highly accurate, moderately long-range shooting which dictates an intermediate muzzle velocity. The large, heavy bullet and elevated velocity means they have to be large, heavy guns as well, to damp the recoil. A long, thick barrel also helps with accuracy, but makes the gun harder to carry, so these tend to have moderate barrels. Big game guns also don't generally bother with large magazines, semi-automatic actions or other rate-of-fire enhancers, since more than one or two shots is unlikely.

      Small game is more often hunted with a shotgun, but when rifles are used they are almost invariably the same small caliber: .22 inches. You can't hit a small target well at long range anyway, so these weapons are generally designed for short range and have very short, light barrels and somewhat lower muzzle velocities (possibly even subsonic, though I'd have to look that up to be sure). Because ammunition is cheap and casual target shooting and "plinking" is another common application of these guns, they're often semi-automatic and have large magazines (though the ban makes the really large magazines a little bit expensive -- I have a 50-round banana clip that I take very good care of).

      In target shooting, the goal is extreme accuracy at a well-defined range, rate of fire and weight are irrelevant, recoil is bad because it may cause the shooter to flinch, etc. So, target rifles have very long and extremely thick barrels, heavy stocks and small calibers. They're very heavy (not something you'd want to carry up a mountain) and they're optimized for making very neat holes in paper. I'm not sure about muzzle velocity, but I'm sure it's selected based on what gives the most consistent trajectory, which may not be flat at all. I'd imagine velocities are high to maximize spin and thereby minimize tumbling, but as I said, I'm not sure.

      For shooting people, there are all kinds of different weapons used depending on the situation, but for a so-called "assault rifle", small to medium calibers, high rate of fire, light weight, small size for close quarters, low recoil, large magazines and moderate accuracy from short through moderate ranges are the design criteria. To that end, these weapons have fairly small, light bullets but high muzzle velocities and incorporate features not common in any sporting rifles, like buffer springs to absorb recoil, flash suppressors and pistol grips (to facilitate a wider variety of firing positions). Sniper rifles do bear a passing resemblance to big game rifles, except that they're larger, heavier and designed for much longer ranges and even higher accuracy. Older military rifles bear an even greater resemblance to big game rifles, and are frequently converted into big game rifles by shortening the barrels, lightening the stocks and making other modifications to the bolt and receiver to accomodate a telescopic sight, but I think that supports the point that those big game rifles really aren't well designed for shooting people, since militaries have moved away from those designs. Submachine guns go for extreme light weight and small size to make them more usable in tight quarters, and they trade away pretty much all hope of accuracy at any kind of range beyond what would be considered point blank to longer guns.

      If you want to talk about handguns, there's at least as wide a variety of styles and purposes as for rifles, but I'm even less knowledgeable in the specifics of that realm. Shotguns are out there as well, and they're very poorly designed to kill people except at very close range, in which case their length is a disadvantage (hence sawed-off shotguns). Also, their large shells mean that magazines must be low in capacity (or enormous), which drastically reduces sustained rate of fire. Police often carry shotguns, but that's more because they're very intimidating than because they're an especially good design for use against people. Police place much more focus on the threat of force they can project than on the reality, since they don't really want to shoot anyone.

      The Point. The point is that there are a large number of decisions that must be made in the design of a gun, and that guns are explicitly designed for various purposes. Thus, it is not accurate to say "the only purpose of a gun is to kill people" or even, "the only purpose of a gun is to kill". Many, many guns are designed, built, sold, fired and maintained without any intent to kill anything, and the vast majority are never intended to shoot people.

      I am a huge proponent of the second amendment, but splitting hairs about what guns are "designed" to do weakens the case. It also makes stupid laws like tha "assault weapons" ban.

      Oh, absolutely. In fact the point of the 2nd amendment is that we need to have a right to possess *arms*, which, by definition, are weapons for killing/hurting/controlling *people*. And the "assault weapons" ban is silly and pointless. In general, trying to stop crimes by criminalizing more things is pretty counterproductive. Trying to stop people from killing one another by getting rid of the weapons is foolish in multiple ways, because deadly weapons abound and because criminals won't obey the law anyway. Murder is a societal problem, not a result of having too many guns. Accidental deaths are another issue, but there are better ways than getting rid of the guns.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    51. Re:What? by Moofie · · Score: 1

      Way to be totally long-winded, and wrong.

      While there are dozens of rifle cartridges on the market, the 7.62mm NATO round is very very popular with hunters, and is very common in battle rifles and light machine guns all over the world. If you're a decent shot, it doesn't take a larger round to take down an elk versus a man. The vital areas are about the same size.

      In other words, trying to separate hunting rifles from "assault weapons" or military rifles is just silly, and meaningless. When you talk about pistol grips and flash hiders, you're talking about items that are almost exclusively cosmetic enhancements. (Anybody who uses a pistol grip rifle to fire from the hip isn't at all interested in hitting anything, and flash hiders are only vaguely useful in their designed function of protecting the shooter's night vision from the hot gas plume coming out the front of the weapon)

      The bottom line is, for each of the criteria you list, I can come up with a weapon that breaks those rules. The difference between one rifle and another (with the exception of light "plinking" rifles) is much smaller than the difference between two shooters.

      In other words, I'd rather be shot at by an incompetent boob behind a PSG-1 than a professional marksman with a cheap Romanian AK-47, although the PSG-1 is a far more accurate and slightly more powerful weapon.

      It's equally disingenuous to try to argue that guns are designed to kill. As a matter of fact, one of the "advantages" to the 5.56mm round the US Army (and USMC) use is that it's supposed to wound, rather than kill outright, its target. By administering a grave wound, the theory goes, not only do you disable the target, but you disable two of his friends who now have to take him off the battlefield to get medical attention. Three for one.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    52. Re:What? by c4tp · · Score: 1

      I really doubt any terrorist would bother with using model rockets as a delivery vehicle -- it would just waste their valuable (to them) toxins.

      Not to mention their valuable time building the rockets. I spent like a day trying to put the decals on one, only to have it break right before launch.

      I guess they could buy the prebuilt ones, but those don't go as high and are a lot more expensive. And if they're "smart" enough to think of using model rockets, they wouldn't dare buy the kiddie prebuilt rockets!

    53. Re:What? by swillden · · Score: 1

      Way to be totally long-winded, and wrong.

      Thanks for being brief and clear :-)

      However, I don't think I'm completely washed up, so I'll be long-winded again... I enjoy it, even if you don't.

      While there are dozens of rifle cartridges on the market, the 7.62mm NATO round is very very popular with hunters

      Sure, the .30 caliber bullet has been popular for over a century, both for military and hunting purposes (although I'm not quite clear exactly which of the common hunting rounds the NATO cartridge is equivalent to. Do you know? The 30.06 is clearly the most common civilian round, and it looks about the same size as the M60 ammo I used to hump, but there are plenty of others) but that's not the point. The point is that different weapons *are* designed for different purposes, and the design criteria for, say, the M60 machine gun and a Ruger 30.06 are quite different, even if they happen to chamber the same round, and even if both are perfectly capable of killing a man.

      Further, although 7.62mm may be common around the world for military purposes, it's becoming less so. The US, for example, is phasing it out in many areas in favor of the 5.56mm (yes, the 7.62mm M240 is the official replacement for the M60, but in many areas it's actually being replaced by the 5.56mm M249 while the M240 is replacing the venerable .50s). I'll grant that that's probably more for logistical reasons than weapons capability reasons, but the fact remains that modern militaries around the world are moving away from the larger, heavier weapons. As someone who was a 60 gunner and got transitioned to a SAW, I can tell you there are some very nice practical benefits as well. Sure there are still a ton of Kalashnikovs around, which are bigger and heavier, but that's inertia and the fact that the weapons are cheap and tough. And those also have many disadvantages from a hunter's point of view (the barrel is too short and light for good accuracy, the magazine is bulky and in the way and, frankly, the weapon is ugly. Sport weapons are typically much prettier, because beauty is a completely irrelevant characteristic for military arms).

      OTOH, there is no such movement in the sport shooting world. Why? Because it doesn't make sense. The newer military designs are inferior from the point of a big game hunter.

      Different weapons are designed and intended for different purposes.

      When you talk about pistol grips and flash hiders, you're talking about items that are almost exclusively cosmetic enhancements.

      Actually, they're not. Which is why militaries buy them. I'll expand on your two examples:

      Anybody who uses a pistol grip rifle to fire from the hip isn't at all interested in hitting anything

      Of course not, but that doesn't make pistol grips useless. It's much easier to fire blind around a corner or over the edge of a foxhole with a pistol grip. Such unaimed suppressing fire does have value for military weapons, and none for hunters. Weapons with pistol grips are also easier to carry in a ready position on long marches. Hunters just sling the rifle on their back.

      flash hiders are only vaguely useful in their designed function of protecting the shooter's night vision

      If that were their only function, but it's not. The main purpose of a flash hider is to reduce the flash from a six-foot tongue of flame shooting out of the barrel to a small flash that jets out perpendicularly. The small flash is still quite visible, but nothing at all like the view a flanking enemy would get with an unsuppressed weapon, and if you have flank concealment you can fire completely unobserved except by an enemy almost directly in front of you. Again, completely irrelevant if your game isn't shooting back.

      The bottom line is, for each of the criteria you list, I can come up with a weapon that breaks those rules.

      Not so far, you haven't :-)

      The difference between one rifle and another (with the exception of light "plinking" rifles) is much smaller than the difference between two shooters. In other words, I'd rather be shot at by an incompetent boob behind a PSG-1 than a professional marksman with a cheap Romanian AK-47, although the PSG-1 is a far more accurate and slightly more powerful weapon.

      Certainly. "There are no dangerous weapons, only dangeous people". But what bearing does that have on whether or not weapons are designed for specific purposes? I'm not saying that my little Ruger .22 can't be used to kill -- I'm quite certain I could kill a man with it, out to maybe 100 yards, further if he's unlucky -- but that that is not, in fact its purpose.

      It's equally disingenuous to try to argue that guns are designed to kill. As a matter of fact, one of the "advantages" to the 5.56mm round the US Army (and USMC) use is that it's supposed to wound, rather than kill outright, its target.

      An excellent point, and one that I knew but overlooked. Even military weapons aren't necessarily designed to kill.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    54. Re:What? by MidnightBrewer · · Score: 1

      Remember that outlawing something only keeps it out of the hands of law-abiding citizens. Do you think somebody willing to kill themselves and thousands of others is going to say, "Gee, too bad it's illegal to buy model rockets, guess we'll have to cancel the jihad?"

      --
      "Give a man fire, and he'll be warm for a day; set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life
    55. Re:What? by Moofie · · Score: 1

      OK, OK, I surrender. You have several good points, and they're much more clear in your second post. Thanks for taking the time to make 'em.

      I think we're going to wind up arguing similar points, and we're certainly on the same side of the second amendment, so let's talk some more about modern firearms.

      My argument hinges on the point that "assault rifles" or any issue military rifle is no more or less "deadly" than commonly available "sport rifles". My contention is that any distinction one tries to make between such weapons is used to undermine the intent of the Second Amendment (which, as I'm sure you'll agree, has nothing to do with the right to shoot animals).

      You are absolutely right. Battle rifles are designed for extended carrying with large ammunition loads, and have several features that are not necessary (or even very useful) to a sport shooter. However, none of those features have anything to do with their /lethality/.

      Case in point: I just read an article on how the M4 carbine's very short (14"?) barrel is very ineffective in the ground war in Afghanistan.

      Me, I'm wondering what the hell the troops are doing with a CQB weapon for fighting in the mountains, but I'm not a quartermaster. What the heck do I know? (Except which gun I'd want in the same situation: Gimme an M-16A2 or an H&K G3)

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    56. Re:What? by swillden · · Score: 1

      I think we're going to wind up arguing similar points, and we're certainly on the same side of the second amendment

      I think you're right...

      so let's talk some more about modern firearms.

      Any time! As I said earlier, I'm really not an expert by any stretch, but I have used a variety of military and civilian weapons, enjoy shooting, and am always up for talking about them.

      My argument hinges on the point that "assault rifles" or any issue military rifle is no more or less "deadly" than commonly available "sport rifles".

      I'm in 100% agreement. One last time before I drop it: My contention was with the AC's statement that "A gun's only purpose is to kill", and my point is that there are many purposes, and that those purposes are reflected in the weapons themselves. Form following function and all that...

      However, there's no doubt whatsoever that a CO2-powered pellet and the M85 .50 caliber machine gun on a Bradley fighting vehicle will kill you just as dead if the projectile hits you in the right place, and it's likely that not even a forensic expert could distinguish between a wound caused by a single round from an M240 and my grandpa's old deer rifle -- unless it's that the M240's full copper jacketed bullet would probably do less damage than the mushrooming softpoint typically fired from a deer rifle.

      I just read an article on how the M4 carbine's very short (14"?) barrel is very ineffective in the ground war in Afghanistan.

      Eh? It's 14.5", BTW, I looked it up.

      Me, I'm wondering what the hell the troops are doing with a CQB weapon for fighting in the mountains

      That is a little odd. I can think of two reasons, but I'm not sure how good they are: First, I think the special forces have largely switched over to the M4 as their primary duty weapon because of its flexibility, particularly with the new rail mounts and all of the different sight/light attachments they permit. So they might have used it just because that's what they train with. Second, maybe they thought they were going to be doing a lot of close-quarters fighting in caves? That seems like a bad reason, since the goal should have been to avoid fighting their way through the caves. Dunno. It certainly seems like a poor choice for mountain/desert combat.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    57. Re:What? by dwillden · · Score: 1
      I just wanted to comment on one part of this.
      flash hiders are only vaguely useful in their designed function of protecting the shooter's night vision
      If that were their only function, but it's not. The main purpose of a flash hider is to reduce the flash from a six-foot tongue of flame shooting out of the barrel to a small flash that jets out perpendicularly. The small flash is still quite visible, but nothing at all like the view a flanking enemy would get with an unsuppressed weapon, and if you have flank concealment you can fire completely unobserved except by an enemy almost directly in front of you. Again, completely irrelevant if your game isn't shooting back.
      Actually the correct term is not flash supressor, at least not on the M-16, M-4, M-240, M-249, and M-60. Other weapons I can't speak for but on these weapons the correct term is Muzzel Compensator, and the purpose to to stabilize the barrel against upward recoil motion. The muzzel compensators have five exhaust ports pointing out two to the side, two at 45 degrees or verticle and one to the vertical. No vents face downward (relative to the weapon of course).
      They do as a side benfit reduce the flash slightly which helps the gunner retain his/her night vision, but do absolutely nothing to hide the shooter's position. In short, you put it on burst and can expect to have an easier time keeping on target, but the bad guys are going to know exactly where you are fireing from. They have a nice five prong burst of flame to point directly at the end of your barrel. (Note the Five vents are on the M-16, and M-249, I don't have an M-4 or M240 or other weapons handy to verify otherwise.
      --
      I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
    58. Re:What? by swillden · · Score: 1
      Hi Bro!

      but do absolutely nothing to hide the shooter's position

      Are you certain of this? That nice five-prong burst of flame isn't directed along the same axis as the bullet, is it? My understanding was that the idea of the flash suppressor was not really to reduce the brightness or intensity of the flash but to spread it out and turn most of it perpendicular to the direction of fire so that it didn't create a flame that would poke right out of your firing position.

      Now that you remind me, though, I definitely remember the muzzle compensation effect, beginning with the M16A2. I'm pretty sure the A1 that I started with had four ports, equally-spaced. And I was trained to brace my hand above the weapon when firing on full auto, because it was gonna rise. Actually, we were mostly trained not to use full auto. Burst mode is much more useful, if not nearly as much fun.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    59. Re:What? by dwillden · · Score: 1
      Are you certain of this? That nice five-prong burst of flame isn't directed along the same axis as the bullet, is it? My understanding was that the idea of the flash suppressor was not really to reduce the brightness or intensity of the flash but to spread it out and turn most of it perpendicular to the direction of fire so that it didn't create a flame that would poke right out of your firing position.

      It's a nice half star directly perpindicular to the axis of travel. Basically its like looking at a wall, and seeing the gun port the barrel was sticking from. Except that at night, it's five streams of fire jetting out from the end of the barrel. Put several rounds in that general direction and the shooter is going to at least be hugging the ground a bit tighter still you stop.
      Now that you remind me, though, I definitely remember the muzzle compensation effect, beginning with the M16A2. I'm pretty sure the A1 that I started with had four ports, equally-spaced. And I was trained to brace my hand above the weapon when firing on full auto, because it was gonna rise. Actually, we were mostly trained not to use full auto. Burst mode is much more useful, if not nearly as much fun.
      I do believe your right. My unit had A1's the first few years after basic as well. Those were alot of fun. Especially as being a pistol shooter I was usually only firing them when we were burning excess ammo(and not having to clean them after). I still take that opportunity when ever possible, but it's not as much fun on burst. I find that while I could actually hit the occasional target on full auto, I can rarely do so on burst. Auto gave you time (though oh so little) to fight the barrel back down on target. On the ranges in burst I can hit the 50 m targets with consistancy, but not the 100 or beyond whereas with full auto I could hit the 100 and even the occasional 150 by using my hand over the barrel (with a glove of course)to help fight the barrel back on target. By no means was this ever accurate, but it's nice to see the occasional target go down when burning through magazines as fast a spossible.
      Then there was the time I drilled with my guard unit before basic. That year they had the tracers to actually do a night fire. A very nice fomrer SF Captain let me shoot hiw weap for a few mags of "Full Auto Familiarization" And he loaded the Mags almost solid Tracer. As opposed to the normal one in three. Talk about a way to lock in a new recruit.
      --
      I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
    60. Re:What? by Peterus7 · · Score: 1

      Well, if they're wanting to ban nerds from potentially dangerous toys, you might as well take away their graphing calculators and the cords. You can choke people with those things!

    61. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      nice... it's been a little while since I saw a "the terrorists have already won" troll.

      Let me guess, it was the last time you posted the "but I will give up my freedoms to be safe troll."

    62. Re:What? by Moofie · · Score: 1

      Yes. We have come full circle.

      I know I'm picking nits, but I've got to maintain that the overwhelming majority of firearms were built to kill (or maim or disable) mammals. Yes, there are differences in design and suitability for various tasks, but that's really what they're FOR.

      Yes, target weapons, but I'd bet you a quarter that there are more AK-47's on this planet than target weapons.

      The M4's versatility is great...but there's no reason you couldn't use the same receiver, even the same handguard, on the M16. Sure, it's not the weapon for going all tunnel-rat, but for having a firefight in a mountain valley, you need some range!

      I'm not a big fan of the new OICW. I think it's going to be far too expensive to train soldiers on it appropriately. I mean, it'll be great if a) it doesn't break and b) soldiers get to learn how to use it, but I think the development $$ would have been better spent building a world-beating bullpup assault rifle (with downward ejection!) so you can get a usefully-long barrel with a short overall weapon length.

      The British L81 was pretty bad when it came out, but they say it's now been sorted. The Israelis have a new toy too, and of course there's no reason not to just license built the Steyr AUG, which is an altogether superb weapon.

      And, for the non-front-line troops, FN P90's for everybody. That is one bad ass SMG.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    63. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...
      (9) Lighters (maximum of two, fueled with non-refillable liquefied gas (Bic-type) or absorbed liquid (Zippo-type).
      (10) Matches (maximum of four books, strike on cover, book type). ....

      With know-how and a few rubber balloons you can make
      an aerosol bomb to take the plane down. With more
      creative use, you can comandeer it. If somebody(s) are willing to sacrifice their lives, regulations
      are useless in stoping them but very effective in
      harassing all the rest.

    64. Re:What? by Y2KDragon · · Score: 1

      Um, actually it did to me.
      I do government contract work.
      I was working about 3 blocks from the US Capital building on that day. Ok, maybe some won't consider that a direct connection, but it's hitting very close. Everyone is affected because it's makes them think about such things. As a friend of mine put it, the terrorists have already won, we now live in a constant state of fear.

    65. Re:What? by mpe · · Score: 1

      It's equally disingenuous to try to argue that guns are designed to kill. As a matter of fact, one of the "advantages" to the 5.56mm round the US Army (and USMC) use is that it's supposed to wound, rather than kill outright, its target. By administering a grave wound, the theory goes, not only do you disable the target, but you disable two of his friends who now have to take him off the battlefield to get medical attention. Three for one.

      Much the same applies to landmines...

    66. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The parent didn't mention what it was designed to kill. People or animals.
      And what is the purpose of these guns which are not designed to kill ?

      Look into history for a second.. Do you think the people who invented the cannon, gunpowder and eventually the rifle and pistol were designing a cute toy ? A display piece?

      No - they were creating a weapon with which to intimidate, wound, and ultimately kill their enemies.
      The fact that there are guns which are better at this than others doesn't change their origins.
      You can keep yourself from looking like a fool by doing a little research before posting. :)

    67. Re:What? by Moofie · · Score: 1

      Which, FINALLY, are falling out of favor with the US military as too costly a weapon (in terms of noncombatant casualties) to justify.

      Bout darn time.

      Yes, there are still some cluster-bomb area denial weapons being employed, but I believe that they are designed to detonate on timers. I need to do some more reading on those.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    68. Re:What? by swillden · · Score: 1

      what is the purpose of these guns which are not designed to kill ?

      I covered that pretty thoroughly in another post.

      The fact that there are guns which are better at this than others doesn't change their origins.

      The historical applications of firearms have no bearing on their uses today, any more than the fact that the first non-toy rockets were designed specifically to kill people means that the sole purpose of a rocket is to kill. The claim was that the purpose of a gun (implying any and every gun) was to kill (probably implying people), and that is simply not true. The purpose of some guns is to kill people, the purpose of some is to kill animals of various types, the purpose of some is to put holes in inanimate objects and the purpose of some is merely to look good and not to be fired at all.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
  3. That is silly by Neophytus · · Score: 5, Funny

    Next thing I know my model plane will be considered a spyplane if I mount a video camera on it. Actually, I shouldn't give them ideas.

    1. Re:That is silly by PeDRoRist · · Score: 3, Funny

      Hmmmm no, i guess your model plane will be fine unless you let a model-terrorist come aboard. Lame comment.. Yeah i know

      --

      Anything you do can get you slashdotted, including nothing.
    2. Re:That is silly by jkrise · · Score: 5, Funny

      No - what happens next is "Slashdotters" will be considered potential terrorists!! Simple reasoning: why would a website help you build personal submarines and personal rockets?? I see a new slashdot-race developing - everyone who values personal security - better start reading slashdot.

      Why? Because nobody is trustworthy anymore! What if my BOFH sysadmin builds a personal submarine and threatens me (the boss)? Can you see it now? We all need peronal submarines, rockets, nuclear reactors and personal 1024-bit encryption to our grey cells. Till then we can't be secure.

      --
      If you keep throwing chairs, one day you'll break windows....
    3. Re:That is silly by AmigaAvenger · · Score: 2, Informative
      I've done that quite a bit, and I'm just waiting for the FBI to show up, toss me in solitary, and take my spy planes of mass distruction!

      (video at http://www.ryankramer.com/planes/se/sefull.avi if you want to see it. inverted flat spin at 6:40 is definitely something a terrorist would do!)

    4. Re:That is silly by phil+reed · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I realize you said it in jest, but there have been reports of anti-Israeli terrorists planning on using remote-control model planes as flying bombs. See here.

      --

      ...phil
      "For a list of the ways which technology has failed to improve our quality of life, press 3."
    5. Re:That is silly by override11 · · Score: 1

      As soon as we let our fears dictate what freedoms we loose, we are no longer free...

      --
      No I didnt spell check this post...
    6. Re:That is silly by deblassc · · Score: 1

      There already has talk about this on http://www.rcuniverse.com about the effects of the homeland security and the genral paranoia of the public.

      the main concern is someone attaching some kind of payload to a RC plane and flying it over a large gathering of people.

      if they start cracking down on RC then I'm moving.

    7. Re:That is silly by dalran · · Score: 1

      Hmm,

      as far as I recall here in Sweden it is not permitted to take aerial pictures without permission from the authorities. Yes this also means pictures taken from the window of a commercial flight...

      This may have changed lately but I'm pretty sure it did apply not too long ago.

      So... yes your modelplane with a mounted video camera would indeed (have been?) a spyplane ;-)

    8. Re:That is silly by LucVdB · · Score: 1

      Debka? You know this publication has somewhat of a reputation of being on the fringe side, don't you?

    9. Re:That is silly by Safety+Cap · · Score: 1

      Too late!

      --
      Yeah, right.
    10. Re:That is silly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well...I guess we haven't been free for a long long long time. Such a shame since our anthem proclaims us to live in the land of the free.

    11. Re:That is silly by phil+reed · · Score: 1
      Debka? You know this publication has somewhat of a reputation of being on the fringe side, don't you?

      Oh, sure. But you filter out the over-the-top hysteria and add it to the mix, same as any other news source. (They were right about the model planes - check the CNN reports about the past few day's worth of fun and games in Gaza. It seems that some Palistinians blew themselves up while working on something referred to as a "drone".)

      --

      ...phil
      "For a list of the ways which technology has failed to improve our quality of life, press 3."
    12. Re:That is silly by Iamthefallen · · Score: 1

      No you can take pictures just fine in most cases, but, an airport is classified as a object that's crucial to the nations security. So yes, over airports and the surrounding airspace (or other objects of military interest) it is usually illegal to take pictures. Not that the law is enforced much, skydivers and hobbyist pilots take pictures of their doings constantly.

      --
      Wax-Museum Fire Results In Hundreds Of New Danny DeVito Statues
    13. Re:That is silly by deblassc · · Score: 1

      hehe somethin' extra... fun plane. should never have got rid of mine.

      I think this is the best defence we have against terrorists using RC planes against us.... they will get so hooked on flying them that they wont have time to attack us.

      (scene.. two middle eastern men standing in a field)
      "habib... were is the chemicals we need for the bomb, didnt you buy them with the money..."

      "I bought a new plane instead its a 40% cap 232"

      "what the... why"

      "old one wouldnt torque roll... watch"
      (shot of plane doing a torque roll tail touch with smoke on)

      "ooohhhhh pretty.. maybe we should use the money we got for the anthrax to go to the TOC this year instead."

    14. Re:That is silly by Enrico+Pulatzo · · Score: 2, Funny

      Is a model terrorist a well-behaved terrorist or an ill-behaved terrorist?

    15. Re:That is silly by radtea · · Score: 1

      It gets worse. Your model plane (say a quarter-scale model) is a potential cruise missile.

      About ten years ago I invented a fast, robust image registration algorithm ("psuedo-correlation") that let me do near-real-time alignment of low-quality images on a 100 MHz 486. I was working in medical physics at the time, and my goal was to allow near-real-time (a few seconds) evaluation of patient setup in radiotherapy using online portal imaging (portal imaging is taking x-rays of people during radiotherapy using the therpeutic beam, so you can tell which bits you're hitting.)

      After publishing, I realized I'd invented a terminal-phase guidance system for cruise missiles that would run on commodity hardware. Over the past ten years things have only gotten worse: I expect that a not-insignificant fraction of /. readers would be able to build such a device for ~$10K U.S. All you need is a quarter-scale model, a GPS, a camera and a laptop. It wouldn't be elegant, but it'd do the job.

      I'm comfortable posting this because it isn't news: similar ideas have been covered in the mainstream media over the past year.

      The genie is well and truly out of the bottle, and our only true security will be found in building a society where the vast majority genuinely support the status quo, so they have no incentive to use the destructive power that everyday technology places in their hands.

      --Tom

      --
      Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
    16. Re:That is silly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is an ill-tempered terrorist. With laser beams attached to its head.

    17. Re:That is silly by JustAnOtherCodeSerf · · Score: 1

      Don't laugh too hard... it already is.
      They call them UAV's

      http://homepage.ntlworld.com/hjcurtis/uavs.html

      These might look familiar ;)
      http://www.micropilot.com/Projects/CustProject s.ht ml

      The military didn't stop with the Preditor and Global Hawk.

      I don't think the Homeland security goons are going to be dropping by my local flight park anytime soon, but still.

      --
      -=sig=-
    18. Re:That is silly by JustAnOtherCodeSerf · · Score: 1

      Perhaps a Google cache link would have been better.....
      http://216.239.39.100/search?q=cache: wr-6HfL-OZEC: homepage.ntlworld.com/hjcurtis/uavs.html+miniature +uav+military&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

      --
      -=sig=-
    19. Re:That is silly by lazira · · Score: 1


      not to mention that weapon-of-mass-destruction known as the /. effect...

    20. Re:That is silly by fraudrogic · · Score: 1

      Depends, is a well-behaved terrorist one who terrorizes and an ill-behaved terrorist who makes people feel safe and secure?

      Kinda like Dr. Evil wanting Scott to be more evil, he was semi-evil, he was the margarin of evil, The Diet Coke of Evil, just one calorie, not evil enough..

      --
      I only mod up parents of "mod parent up" posts...
    21. Re:That is silly by phaedrus · · Score: 1

      Actually, last year here in the Salt Lake City area, the use of model planes was restricted during the Olympic games as a security measure -- and there were no cameras involved.

    22. Re:That is silly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      what did BOF originally stand for?

    23. Re:That is silly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually your model plane can fly higher and carry a bigger payload than most model rockets. It can also be guided. It should have been first on the list.

    24. Re:That is silly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      we could always let the model pilot carry a model handgun in the model cockpit

    25. Re:That is silly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why do the vast majority have to support the status quo?

      I see two other, more realistic, options. Those who don't support the status quo do not use destructive, ineffectual means to express their lack of support for the status quo. Or those who attempt to use them face a strong deterrent.

    26. Re:That is silly by The-Perl-CD-Bookshel · · Score: 1

      On the other hand, there is that guy that builds the rail guns, and potato cannons that can lauch a golf ball into orbit.

      --
      I don't keep a lid on my coffee so when I walk around I look busy -me
    27. Re:That is silly by mpe · · Score: 1

      Actually your model plane can fly higher and carry a bigger payload than most model rockets.

      As well as further, quite likely an important criteria if you are a terrorist.

  4. Gasoline and Soap? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Wait until they realize what happens when you mix those two together and strike a match!

    Little chance of gasoline being outlawed (if it were this whole war business would be out the window), so I guess soap has to go.

    1. Re:Gasoline and Soap? by Alan+Partridge · · Score: 1

      sorry, you're gonna have to help us with a definition of this "soap" you're talking about.

      this IS Slashdot, you know

      --
      That was classic intercourse!
    2. Re:Gasoline and Soap? by trash+eighty · · Score: 5, Funny
      so I guess soap has to go.


      excellent! a plan with no drawbacks! oh yes i am european.

    3. Re:Gasoline and Soap? by sxpert · · Score: 0, Redundant

      well, there is one particular drawback... those americans that are fond of their body cleanliness will now be extremely stinky...

    4. Re:Gasoline and Soap? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What an excellent idea! Since I can't order D engines any longer, I'll start experimenting with homebrew engines made of gasoline and soap, inside some kind of pressure vessel with a nozzle at one end. I should be able to construct something considerably more powerful and with much higher range than the small and relatively safe motors that my government doesn't want me to have access to any more.

      Any success that I have I am sure to make available for all the world to read, so outlawing safe (but weak) hobby engines is really a blessing in disguise, and should advance model rocketry to the point where we can all build gasoline-powered launch vehicles that are powerful enough to carry multiple-pound payloads several miles easily and inexpensively.

    5. Re:Gasoline and Soap? by josecanuc · · Score: 1

      Who cares what happens when you mix gasoline and soap together and strike a match? The same thing happens with just gasoline.

      Boom.

      (Yes, I know what dish soap does to gasoline.) ;-)

    6. Re:Gasoline and Soap? by unborracho · · Score: 1

      Did you know if you combine equal parts of gasoline and frozen-concentrate orange juice you can make napalm? one can make all sorts of explosives out of common household items.. if one were so inclined.

      --
      "You had this look that of an angel, it was such a bad disguise" --Dishwalla
    7. Re:Gasoline and Soap? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      sounds like a quote from the fight club, isn't it ?
      most of the recipes given in this movie are however failing in some way, else the movie would have been forbidden.

    8. Re:Gasoline and Soap? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Won't America then be just like France?

    9. Re:Gasoline and Soap? by theophilosophilus · · Score: 3, Funny

      Soap + Gasoline + Fireworks + WD40 + ... + Estes model rocket + lego guy in the payload compartment was a favorite when I was a kid. That'd make Tom Ridge raise an eybrow.

      --
      Why have 1 person driving a backhoe when you could employ 20 with shovels?
    10. Re:Gasoline and Soap? by PyroMosh · · Score: 1

      Now, ancient peoples found that clothes got cleaner when they washed them at a certain point in the river. Do you know why?

      No.

      Because, human sacrifices were once made on the hills above this river. Bodies burnt. Water seeped into wood ashes to create lye. This is lye, The crucial ingredient. Once it mixed, with the melted fat of the bodies, a thick white soapy discharge crept into the river. Can I see your hand please.

      What is this?

      This is a chemical burn. It will hurt more than you have ever been burned, and you will have a scar.

      What are you doing?

      Stay with the pain, don't shut this out.

      No, No. Oh, God!

      Look at your hand. The first soap was made from the ashes of heroes. Like the first monkeys shot into space. Without pain, without sacrifice, we would have nothing.

    11. Re:Gasoline and Soap? by unborracho · · Score: 1

      Yeah.. but I just wanted to see who would figure it out first, make someone feel special :P

      --
      "You had this look that of an angel, it was such a bad disguise" --Dishwalla
    12. Re:Gasoline and Soap? by Blimey85 · · Score: 1
      I use Irish Spring myself. Works just as good as any other that I've tried, and it has that wonderful spring-time-fresh scent.

      Even us depraved souls appreciate a nice spring-time-fresh scent. Now if only I could get gasoline that didn't smell so much like... well, gasoline.

      --
      How is it that one careless match can start a forest fire, but it takes a whole box to start a campfire?
    13. Re:Gasoline and Soap? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Okay, so saying that Europeans don't wash themselves is funny. Saying that people who have decided to use Linux don't wash themselves is troll.

      Maybe the latter message should have been moderated redundant, because saying that a Linux user doesn't wash himself is just that.

    14. Re:Gasoline and Soap? by zapfie · · Score: 1

      Except they aren't banning rocket motors at all. The issue is that UPS is placing restrictions on shipping them, and it looks like other shipping companies may follow suit. Using the rocket motors is still quite legal. Shipping them is still quite legal too- the only issue is that companies would have to license their employees with the ATFE under new regulations to be able to ship them.

      --
      slashdot!=valid HTML
    15. Re:Gasoline and Soap? by evilviper · · Score: 1

      Yes, but not only soap... Just about any strong household cleaner can be mixed with one or more others to make hi-explosives. I think it would be far more dangerous if the 7th-grade science teachers can no longer buy the rocket supplies, and have to show the students how to make explosives for themselves.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    16. Re:Gasoline and Soap? by Chazmati · · Score: 1

      if it were this whole war business would be out the window

      Well, according to Ari Fleischer, if the potential war with Iraq were about the oil then the administration would just lift the embargo and let the oil flow. (Time magazine, a week or two ago)

      Anyone believe that?

    17. Re:Gasoline and Soap? by homebru · · Score: 1
      ...equal parts of gasoline and frozen-concentrate orange juice ...

      Sounds more like a recipe for flash-fried orange popsicle.

      Mmmm... popsicle.

    18. Re:Gasoline and Soap? by Guitarsenal · · Score: 0

      "so I guess soap has to go."

      I think the French are already taking this approach!

      KP

    19. Re:Gasoline and Soap? by Soul_destroyed · · Score: 1

      "Did you know if you combine equal parts of gasoline and frozen-concentrate orange juice you can make napalm?..." Another way is to dissolve expanded polystyrene in gas.Watch as it sticks and burns....quality DIY napalm or so i heard.

    20. Re:Gasoline and Soap? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      outlaw soap? what are we the French?

    21. Re:Gasoline and Soap? by evilandi · · Score: 1
      AC: Little chance of gasoline being outlawed ... so I guess soap has to go

      Owning gasoline and soap is not illegal. Shipping them ready mixed without licenced safety procedures is.

      Same with this law. Owning model rocket motors will still not be illegal. It will just be illegal to put them in the US post without licenced safety procedures.

      I fly my Estes rocket once a month or so, they're great fun if you can find a field big enough not to loose them in the descent. I knew there had to be at least one bonus for living out here in the sticks so far from broadband... :-)

      --
      Andrew Oakley - www.aoakley.com
    22. Re:Gasoline and Soap? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're right. It's also about a personal grudge with Saddam.

    23. Re:Gasoline and Soap? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Aw, that's no good - you'd actually have to pay for it then. Why bother when you can just take the place over and sell it yourself?

    24. Re:Gasoline and Soap? by rworne · · Score: 1

      Oh, great...

      Gasoline and orange juice,
      Gasoline and soap,
      Gasoline and styrofoam.

      Which is it already to make Napalm? I need to find out before the water heater in the garage starts up again... I

      --
      I tried every decent and legal way I could think of to resolve the issue w/the business before I rented the chicken suit
    25. Re:Gasoline and Soap? by Ryan+Amos · · Score: 1

      My elite crew of super-ninja spies picked up some notes from Ari Fleischer's office. Here's how they read:

      1. Lift oil embargo
      2. ???
      3. Profit!

    26. Re:Gasoline and Soap? by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 0

      Well, according to Ari Fleischer, if the potential war with Iraq were about the oil then the administration would just lift the embargo and let the oil flow. (Time magazine, a week or two ago)

      Well, what do you expect from a liar? The war is partially about Iraqi oil being priced in euros, which won't be changed by turning the pumps back on. The fact that oil is mostly priced in dollars and that everybody is dependent on it is a good portion of what makes the dollar so strong. If too many people price their oil in euros, the dollar loses demand and may inflate a whole lot due to the sudden oversupply of currency.

      Or maybe Dick Cheney just wants to give Haliburton a chance to rebuild Iraq's oil infrastructure again.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    27. Re:Gasoline and Soap? by EatHam · · Score: 1

      Gasoline and a thickener. So soap and styrofoam work fine. Never tried OJ. Cornstarch works too. Napalm is basically jellified gas.

    28. Re:Gasoline and Soap? by baldass_newbie · · Score: 1

      Really?

      --
      The opposite of progress is congress
    29. Re:Gasoline and Soap? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Guess you totally disregarded the safety rules/contract that's included with every Estes rocket kit (or at least every model kit I ever built).

    30. Re:Gasoline and Soap? by Magus311X · · Score: 1

      Melt soap and ditch the tallows. What's left? Glycerine.

      Want nitric acid? Frozen orange juice concentrate.

      Mix them together? Nitrogylcerine.

      Why, with enough soap, you could blow up just about anything...
      -----

    31. Re:Gasoline and Soap? by The_dev0 · · Score: 1

      Shampoo & styrofoam for me.

      --
      Never fight naked, unless you're in prison...
    32. Re:Gasoline and Soap? by JonMartin · · Score: 1
      Which is it already to make Napalm?

      From a handy site: 21% benzene, 33% gasoline, 46% polystyrene.

      --
      Serve Gonk.
  5. The end of an era by 3liter914-6 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Maybe it's for the best, what with the future of the space program in jeopardy and all. Why turn children's eyes to the heavens when they have no chance of ever making it there. Still it's sad that millions of young people will never know the joy of sending live crickets hurtling into the wild blue yonder.

    1. Re:The end of an era by mrpuffypants · · Score: 2, Insightful

      naw, the cricket one wasn't the coolest...I loved the one with the camera in the nose cone that, when the charge to pop out the parachute fired, it took a picture facing down...now that was cool to see myself looking up at it. It will NOT be cool if I can't take my kids out to fire these things off one day in the future without getting a police excort for the fuel packs that I bought at Hobby Lobby.

      Hobby Lobby = Bin Laden Bazaar =[

    2. Re:The end of an era by Dr.Enormous · · Score: 1

      On the plus side: if we outlaw enough fun, any terrorists in the country will gladly beat themselves into blissful oblivion just to end the monotony.

    3. Re:The end of an era by mmol_6453 · · Score: 1

      I see it as an excellent oppertunity to make liquid-fuel rockets more popular as a hobby.

      With solid fuel rockets, you don't have any dynamic control over thrust.

      --
      What's this Submit thingy do?
    4. Re:The end of an era by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To be humane, you should cauterize their eyes with a magnifying glass. This way the grasshopper does not see anything and is much calmer through the launch and re-entry.

    5. Re:The end of an era by rynthetyn · · Score: 1

      I don't think the parent should have been modded funny. To me it's kind of depressing...

      I grew up launching model rockets. Thanks to rocketry, in elementary school, I knew way more physics than a 1st or 2nd grader normally knows (heck, it was more than most American adults know about physics). Where else can a 6 or 7 year old kid play with explosives legally? I don't know, but I suspect that model rocketry was what sent me down the path of becoming a geek--it started me thinking about the sciences.

      Even better than launching crickets was the time when one of my brother's rockets went higher than expected, and ended up hitting a bird--when it came down, a fin was nicked up.

      However, I can see why the feds might be concerned with people launching rockets. When we'd launch them, we'd pack the parachutes full of baby powder because it looks really cool when the chute deploys. Baby powder really spreads when it's released at a height--imagine what would happen if someone were to launch a rocket with weapons grade anthrax in packed into the chute instead of baby powder. If it was launched over a croweded area (say, launching it in to Disney World), it could make a lot of people very sick.

      --
      Eagles may soar, but weasles don't get sucked into jet engines...
    6. Re:The end of an era by mpe · · Score: 1

      I see it as an excellent oppertunity to make liquid-fuel rockets more popular as a hobby.

      The irony is that liquid fueled rockets are a lot more likely to explode.

      With solid fuel rockets, you don't have any dynamic control over thrust.

      You don't have to deal with the fuel sloshing around and messing up stability either.

  6. What's next model blimp restricitions? by nickyj · · Score: 1

    Try and stop me from using my 12 foot blimp.

    --
    Causing Chaos Everywhere,
    Nik J.
    The strange world of a loner, in a populous city, drowning in society
    1. Re:What's next model blimp restricitions? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      or your remote-controlled cropduster.

  7. great. by cap'n+foolsy · · Score: 1

    now this is just ridiculous. one of those rockets is hardly a "weapon of mass destruction". i'm sure people have broken windows or maybe injured themselves using these, but they can hardly be used in an offensive way, right? or maybe i'm just underestimating the inventiveness of kids these days...

    i'm glad i live in the philippines, where you're free to blow up your hands with fireworks however you can.

    --
    It might look like I'm standing motionless, but I'm actively waiting for my problems to go away
    1. Re:great. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, they can be extremely effective weapons. The problem is that so can just about anything else. McGuyver was not all that far fetched. Ever seen a real potato gun. A few months back some late night show had one they were pulverizing things at 50 feet with. Homemade napalm? I can think of four recipes off the top of my head. What everyone needs to realize is that yes, life is dangerous. If you want to lead an active life, you're gonna have to take that risk and not ban everything in the world. Think about it, HOW THE F*** do you hijack a plane with box cutters???? At most the blades are an inch long. I think it says more about the real courage of the passengers on the plane than it does about the dangers of small pointy pieces of metal. People are not automatically heros simply because they die. Those on the flight that crashed in PA could be argued. The other flights, it's a lot harder to know.

    2. Re:great. by homebru · · Score: 1
      ...but they can hardly be used in an offensive way, right? ...

      Well, General Motors managed to get very offended when an NBC news program assaulted a Chevy pickup (and the truth, generally) with model rocket engines.

  8. Worse than the UK! by Big+Mark · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Over this side of the pond getting hold of engines bigger than the Estes D-size is a nightmare, you need to have licences to handle explosives, have your address registered as a storage area for explosives etc before you can even think of buying them. Shipping doesn't appear to be a problem - they stick them in a van and have them driven to you, for a princely sum - but it is an utter fucking nightmare to get hold of the big 'uns.

    I don't see why they do it either, D-class motors aren't exactly likely to propel a warhead any significant distance. Then again, we have had the IRA and friends (and enemies!) on our doorstep for over twenty-five years now...

    -Mark

    1. Re:Worse than the UK! by sxpert · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Then again, we have had the IRA and friends (and enemies!) on our doorstep for over twenty-five years now...

      if only the brits would stop trying to seize a piece of ireland like they have been for the last, say, 400 years, there would be no IRA to talk about

    2. Re:Worse than the UK! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      if only the brits would stop trying to seize a piece of ireland like they have been for the last, say, 400 years, there would be no IRA to talk about

      So thats where we've going wrong!

      Idiot.

    3. Re:Worse than the UK! by JonathanBrickman0000 · · Score: 1

      C-class motors were used on all of the Estes 'stock' 5500-footers twenty years ago.

      --

      J.E.B.
      Joshua Corps

    4. Re:Worse than the UK! by sxpert · · Score: 0

      well, that's proper history...
      re-read real history books, not those rewritten by the UK gov...

    5. Re:Worse than the UK! by Alan+Partridge · · Score: 1

      Britons COULDN'T GIVE A FUCK about Northern Ireland. It constitutes an ENORMOUS drain on UK resources, about 1 million feuding fuckwits and a bunch of sheep. Just about the only thing that NI's got going for it is a couple of decent motorbike road races, and even they're not as good as the TT.

      95% of the British would gladly turn NI over to Eire tomorrow - it's the biggest pain in the arse ever.

      --
      That was classic intercourse!
    6. Re:Worse than the UK! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We don't want it, thanks. The republic's economy is doing o.k.-ish right now, NI would sink it.

    7. Re:Worse than the UK! by spinlocked · · Score: 1

      I second that. What makes Northern Ireland so unappealing is the Northern Irish. Especially the Loyalists - if they want to be British, I want to be something else.

      And that revolting accent. Ugh.

      The sutuEErshun nuie is tohtuly unuxEErptubul.

      --
      # init 5
      Connection closed.


      Oh... ...bugger.
    8. Re:Worse than the UK! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My apologies, our government is always making little changes to the output of the state run printing industry. What a ludicrous notion.

      'Real' history would involve citing sources and attempting to evaluate them without prejudice. Try it some time.

    9. Re:Worse than the UK! by Lynn+Benfield · · Score: 1

      You are a national broadcaster trapped in the body of a regional disc jockey. There's no operation that can save you. Not on the NHS, anyway.

    10. Re:Worse than the UK! by kfg · · Score: 1

      And the IRA and their friends have all the access to gasoline, styrofoam, old rags and empty coke bottles that they could possibly want.

      The only way to regulate explosives would be to ban exothermic chemical reactions.

      Which just might have some unintended consequences. Care for some lunch?

      KFG

    11. Re:Worse than the UK! by cms108 · · Score: 1

      But that said; the contents of a couple of D engines ground up and stuck in a steel pipe capped at both ends makes a fairly big bang.

    12. Re:Worse than the UK! by Alan+Partridge · · Score: 1

      not to mention a soft target...

      --
      That was classic intercourse!
    13. Re:Worse than the UK! by Graff · · Score: 1
      the contents of a couple of D engines ground up and stuck in a steel pipe capped at both ends makes a fairly big bang.

      So do the contents of a few boxes of matches, or maybe a bit of fertilizer and some diesel fuel, or even some finely powdered flour floating in air. You can make a bomb out of any number of common ingredients. The answer is not to choke off all possible sources of rapidly exothermic chemical reactions, but rather to find those that are collecting these compounds in large amounts. I have no problems with governments asking me what I'm doing with ton lots of fertilizer, but when they put up barriers for me obtaining a tiny 10 gram solid fuel rocket motor for a hobby, that is just going too far.
    14. Re:Worse than the UK! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which just might have some unintended consequences. Care for some lunch?

      Can't today. I forgot to renew my metabolism license.

    15. Re:Worse than the UK! by Alan+Partridge · · Score: 1

      by the way, Lynn, can you call Bill Oddie...

      --
      That was classic intercourse!
    16. Re:Worse than the UK! by kfg · · Score: 1

      :) I was wondering if perhaps I was being a bit too subtle there for the masses. Glad to know someone "got" it.

      Rather amusingly too.

      KFG

    17. Re:Worse than the UK! by lostchicken · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but the contents of 8 A engines is the same as a couple of D engines, which is the same as an E class engine. What's your point? It's like saying that having 1 gram of the stuff is a hazard, so we'll ban more than 500mg/box. You can buy, two, though.

      --
      -twb
  9. Also being banned ... by SuperDuG · · Score: 5, Funny
    Toy weapons (IE: Guns and Swords), as obviously these will be used for terrorist training devices. Why use the real thing, when you can go plastic.

    Richard Simmons Videos - obviously a terrorist, have you see all those fat people "suffering to the oldies". Excercise is unamerican.

    Chess Boards - Obviously the game of chess is nothing more than a war-game simulation with black and white pieces, obviously increasing racial tension.

    Linux Operating System and all GNU Products - If I didn't know any better I'd suspect that someone must be funding these "free" projects, obviously since it's not American to give things out for free, it must be terrorism funding.

    PokeMon - it's anime, obviously unamerican.

    Honorable Mentions Include:

    Duke Nuke Um Forever
    The Flying/Electric Car
    The True OJ Story
    And ... silly putty (ain't nothing silly about it)

    --
    Ignore the "p2p is theft" trolls, they're just uninformed
    1. Re:Also being banned ... by edwilli · · Score: 1

      I say give all the kids guns.
      http://www.ny.lp.org/guns4tots.htm

    2. Re:Also being banned ... by Ratbert42 · · Score: 1
      Toy weapons (IE: Guns and Swords), as obviously these will be used for terrorist training devices. Why use the real thing, when you can go plastic.

      Already done.

  10. Ah, the memories by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When I was in college, we used to glue fins and the little straw directly on the engines, and made a rocket launcher out of a poster mailing tube. A nine-volt battery and a Radio Shack switch for a trigger and we were ready to go. There was a construction trailer down the road and we used it for target practice.

    Good times.

  11. Who was Joseph Claude Appleby ? by Ontopic · · Score: 0

    Does anybody know?

  12. ARSA has bigger problems than shipping rockets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Like the stupid name, for example. Also their lawsuit with the National Association of Rocketry.

    All that said, I think the Patriot act restrictions that people transporting explosive cargos should be trained to deal with them safely is incredibly stupid. Would you expect a train driver to know how the storage requirements for HF? I thought not. Why require a truck driver to know the same thing for model rocket engines?

    1. Re:ARSA has bigger problems than shipping rockets by MarvinMouse · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What do they really need to be taught?

      I just see it as:

      "Okay, you see these engines... and now you see this flame. Don't put the engines near flame. Fire Bad."

      It's like duh! It's not that hard to transport model rocket engines. But apparently we need to train them to Defcon 5 level Top Secret Marine training so they can drive those engines around without someone fearing a terrorist attack by the amazing Axis of Evil.

      Man, the news in the states is reading more and more like a comicbook everyday. With Weapons of Mass Destruction, Axis of Evil, Terrorist attacks, etc. It's just a big farce now.

      --
      ~ kjrose
    2. Re:ARSA has bigger problems than shipping rockets by FrostedWheat · · Score: 1

      the news in the states is reading more and more like a comicbook everyday

      Tell me about it! Sky in the UK have recently started carrying a new comedy channel called 'Fox News'.

      At least I think it's comedy. There sure ain't any news on it.

    3. Re:ARSA has bigger problems than shipping rockets by Oggust · · Score: 1
      Also their lawsuit with the National Association of Rocketry.

      That's not ARSA, that's Tripoli (aka TRA) that co-suing the ATF with the NAR.

      /August, TRA 6604.

      --
      "An object declared as type _Bool is large enough to store the values 0 and 1." -- 6.1.2.5, C99 standard.
    4. Re:ARSA has bigger problems than shipping rockets by LuxFX · · Score: 1

      I don't think it's as obvious as you think it is. I orded a book from half.com last year (Scott Adams' God's Debris), and when it arrived the shipping envelope and back cover of the book were just wet char. The whole package had been on fire and was then doused. It was a sad and dissappointing mess, and all I got from it was a prefabricated note of apology.

      --
      Punctanym: alternate spelling of words using punctuation or numerals in place of some or all of its letters; see 'leet'
    5. Re:ARSA has bigger problems than shipping rockets by lazira · · Score: 2, Informative
      "Okay, you see these engines... and now you see this flame. Don't put the engines near flame. Fire Bad."

      Actually, model rocket motors are unbelievably safe. You can literally set them on fire, and nothing will happen (Yes, I tried). Few things except an actual igniter can set them off; they're made to require a certain pressure and heat level that is otherwise very hard to reach.

  13. They should be already by sharkey · · Score: 2, Informative
    The background checks will be more stringent than those used for baggage screeners at airports.

    'Nuff said.

    --

    --
    "Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
  14. It might sound silly... by dreamchaser · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...but when I was a teenager oh so many years ago, we actually did make destructive devices out of model rockets. No guidance system, but boy did they go BOOM when they hit their target (usually wrecked cars at a local junkyard) and the makeshift warhead went BOOM.

    However that may be, outlawing them seems to be going a bit too far. A determined terrorist doesn't need a kit to build a bomb or even a crude missile.

    1. Re:It might sound silly... by mpe · · Score: 1

      However that may be, outlawing them seems to be going a bit too far. A determined terrorist doesn't need a kit to build a bomb or even a crude missile.

      A determined terrrist isn't going to be concerned about bombs or missiles being legal to build in the first place.

    2. Re:It might sound silly... by mithras+the+prophet · · Score: 1
      However that may be, outlawing them seems to be going a bit too far. A determined terrorist doesn't need a kit to build a bomb or even a crude missile.

      I believe the government agrees with you. As you no doubt know from reading the article, no one has banned model rockets.

      Rather, the government is implementing more stringent guidelines on the shipping of hazardous material. Some shipping companies might elect to simply refuse to ship rocket motors, rather than ensure that their employees have undergone the safety training and background checks required to handle explosive materials.

      In other words, people who play with model rockets might have to use expensive special shipping, or go pick up the rocket themselves.

      --
      four nine eighteen twenty-7 thirty-nine forty-7 fiftyeight sixty-nine seventy-9 eighty-8 one-hundred-and-nine one-twenty
    3. Re:It might sound silly... by Snotnose · · Score: 1

      I have to agree. My friends and I got back into model rockets in my mid-20s. We had money then, and got into contests to see who could make their rockets go the highest. I made this monster, 3 stage, each stage had 3 D engines. It was out of sight before the first stage gave out, and that first stage was the only part of the rocket we ever found.

      We'd also do fun stuff like put M-80's in the nose cones of rockets we were done with (use a booster engine), shove a C engine into the neck of a beer bottle (hint: it's much more fun if you also tape a long stick to the bottle before igniting it), and gluing fins to a bare AA engine.

      We also did "normal" stuff. I got pretty good at multistage rockets, and could make heli-rockets. These went up like a rocket, when the engine ejected the fins turned into wing-like dealies and the rocket twirled slowly to earth. My buddy actually made a rocket he could launch underwater. I tried to make a MIRV, but couldn't get the engines to fire reliably.

      It all ended when they bulldozed our launch pad, it's covered with office buildings now. Sigh.

      For all intents and purposes it's been illegal to shoot rockets around here for years. I belive it falls under "incindiary device in a populated area" or somesuch, there just ain't nowhere close to launch from anymore.

    4. Re:It might sound silly... by Gojira+Shipi-Taro · · Score: 1

      Me too. Spent more money on kits that met questionable ends than I can remember.

      They're not outlawing them though (as has been pointed out) just heavily restricting shipping. Theres an entrepreneurial opportunity there for the person who wants to specialize in shipping these things at a reasonable rate.

      --
      "Oh my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my Presidency. I'm fucked."; ~ Donald J. Trump
    5. Re:It might sound silly... by aborchers · · Score: 1

      Not making any value judgement here (which would make me a hypocrite because I too was involved in some backyard munitions back in the day) but what you were doing - making warheads for the rockets - was against model rocketry association rules and probably already illegal at the time. Laws to prevent weaponizing what is otherwise a valuable scientific (and fun) toy are arguably reasonable, but I agree with other posts that banning the rockets themselves is about as sensible as banning soap.

      --
      Trouble making decisions? Just flip for it.
    6. Re:It might sound silly... by wfrp01 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      A determined terrorist doesn't need a kit to build a bomb or even a crude missile

      A determined terrorist doesn't need bombs and missles either. I'm convinced the threat of terrorism is overstated for one simple reason: if anyone in the US were really keen on causing death and destruction, it would be easy. I don't want to enumerate all the possiblities here, lest someone conclude I spend too much time thinking about this stuff; but really, if you want to kill, maim, and destroy, it wouldn't be that hard - our current police state's silly lockdown tactics notwithstanding. Gasoline and a match, ya know? The fact that we don't see trains derailing all over the place and so forth gives me some confidence that Ashcroft/Ridge/Cheney/Bush et al. have their heads up their butts.

      Are there bad people in the world? Yup. Do some of them hate Americans? Yup. Are some of them planning to do bad things to the US? Yup. Is the free world in danger of being destroyed by these yokels? Nope. Should we go get them? Yup. Should we mobilize many many billions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of troops and our military's finest and best to isolated whackos dispersed around the globe in various loosely confederated pockets of extremism? Nope. This is a job for CIA snipers, not heavy bombers and tanks. There are other dangers to the homeland besides whacky religious fundamentalists from abroad. Like AIDS. Like social security. Like child welfare. Like the economy. Like our own heavy handed police-state thugs like Ashcroft. The US needs new management badly.

      --

      --Lawrence Lessig for Congress!
    7. Re:It might sound silly... by localman · · Score: 1

      Amen brother.

    8. Re:It might sound silly... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agreed. I've often sat in a crowded theatre and worried that 2 sticks of dynamite in a 5lb bag of nails could kill most of the people in there...

    9. Re:It might sound silly... by Khomar · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Should we mobilize many many billions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of troops and our military's finest and best to isolated whackos dispersed around the globe in various loosely confederated pockets of extremism? Nope. This is a job for CIA snipers, not heavy bombers and tanks.

      Actually, this is not possible given the current international laws (assuming, of course, you wish to abide by them). The world generally condemns personal assassinations in preference to the traditional style of general warfare. The logic of this, I must confess, escapes me. Why is it worse to kill the single leader (or small group) than to wage a war on a populace of followers killing thousands while the leader continues to live and prepare for the next war? If someone could explain this, I would truly appreciate it, for it has confused me for some time (and it is my hope that there in fact is an intelligent reason for this). However, like it or not, this is the current state of international law and opinion. If we are to remove Saddam Hussein from office, we have to do it through a military invasion.

      --

      I believe in de-evolution. God made the world perfect, man fell, and its been going downhill ever since!

    10. Re:It might sound silly... by StressedEd · · Score: 1

      The fact that we don't see trains derailing all over the place and so forth gives me some confidence that Ashcroft/Ridge/Cheney/Bush et al. have their heads up their butts.

      My goodness someone that seems to make sense!

      Be careful or the big black helicopters will come for you. That kind of talk will alert the Bushes and other plantlife in the Greenhouse.

      --
      Be nice to people on the way up. You will meet them again on your way down!
    11. Re:It might sound silly... by twaltari · · Score: 1

      This guy really does have a clue. What I don't get either is why CIA snipers just cant do their job. Instead US ends up spending billions on dollars on bombing entire nations back to stone age.

    12. Re:It might sound silly... by Ryan+Amos · · Score: 1

      Really. You REALLY want to make Americans fear? Grab a gun (this is America, they're NOT hard to find at all) and go to ye local shopping mall and randomly kill people. No real planning or conspiracy needed, just one fanatical wacko willing to die for whatever cause. I think we'd see a lot more of these kind of attacks if the threat of terrorism were as high as they say it is. If we had a few of these random murders then people would be afraid to leave their houses, afraid to go anywhere. But the "threat of terrorism" is just a means to an end: the police state that Ashcroft and Bush have wanted all along.

    13. Re:It might sound silly... by k8er · · Score: 1

      You know, I have thought about this too. The only logical explanation is that it is an agreement between world leaders that they not assasinate each other. Let the grunts do the dying. We apparenltly have a law against assasinating foriegn leaders, enacted when some wanted to off Castro. When Iraqi rebels wanted to assasinate Sadam (some time after the Gulf War) we told them no. We tried one of our CIA agents for treason or some nonsense because they thought that he had NOT carried out his orders to tell them NOT to kill Sadam. But it is ok to bomb the hell out of everyone else (civillians and grunts). It's ok to waste money and resources fighting a war, and take casualties (though we don't take too many from the enemy).

      I think that everything is setup to keep the consumption of military resources at a constant level (or slightly increasing) over time. Seems kind of Orwellian.

    14. Re:It might sound silly... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are other dangers to the homeland besides whacky religious fundamentalists from abroad.


      Like whacky religious fundamentalists from america.

      ;-)

    15. Re:It might sound silly... by Nihil62 · · Score: 1

      Two reasons why assassinations are off the menu but mass slaughter is still on it:
      1) The rules are agreed by the people who would be in the cross-hairs.
      2) The rules are agreed by the people funded by the armament manufacturers (amongst others) and the profit level on one bullet is a lot lower than that on cruise missiles, cluster bombs, mixed calibre shells and all of the ancilliary equipment about to be used.
      Logic has never entered into the field of warfare.

    16. Re:It might sound silly... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Like America obeys international law or pact.
      Landmines, chemical and biological weapons as well as ait detonated nukes are on the US version of ok stuff, meanwhile the rest of the civilized world has agreed not to use them.

  15. You know.... by plazman30 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    There's a boatload of stuff that be used in terrorist acts. Paper can start a fire. Rags and alcohol can also be used. Gasoline can be used to light a subway on fire. But somehow I don't see them banning gasoline or alcohol. So they have to pick on model rockets? A hobby that encourages people to learn about science in a fun way and encourages young minds to consider real careers.

    You know, before I went into technology, I used to be a research biologist. Hobbies like Model ROcketry are what kept me interested in science as a kid led me to pursue all science.

    You know, if we had recuiters for Pharmaceuticals stading outside of colleges offering new graduates 10.2 million over 3 years, then cancer would have been cured 10 years ago. Why do athletes, that contribute NOTHING to society, get paid the most in our society?

    1. Re:You know.... by maxume · · Score: 1

      Because they do contribute. Or, at least people seem to think that they do, and then go ahead and buy a ticket to a game. The funds from that ticket pay the athlete.

      I realize that this is obvious, but it helps set up my next statement:

      Each individual gets to decide what they value. Your assigning no value to the contributions of a professional athlete does little to dissuade Joe Football from buying his ticket...

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    2. Re:You know.... by tgagnon · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You know, if we had recuiters for Pharmaceuticals stading outside of colleges offering new graduates 10.2 million over 3 years, then cancer would have been cured 10 years ago. Why do athletes, that contribute NOTHING to society, get paid the most in our society? I don't see how offering medical graduates tons of money would help cure cancer, hell, most doctors are useless anyways. You go to the doctor, tell him whats wrong and he prescribes whatever drug that has been pushed upon him the most, why do they need to be payed millions for that?

      And athletes get paid tons of money because they can do things most people can't do, even if they wanted to, plus they make up such a small percentage of the population. There are tons of people who make money doing useless things, you just hear about the athletes more often. Plus, I can garauntee that most athletes work harder at their jobs than you ever will.

    3. Re:You know.... by jbrocklin · · Score: 1

      It seems to me that the people who should be celebrated in socitey are those that dedicate their lives to finding cures for diseases, finding better ways to treat existing illnesses, and try to make the quality of life better for people. How many people can say that they've done that? I know I can't (not yet anyway) I'm not saying that all doctors are like this at all - but many people who go to school for graduate work in medical sciences seem to have a genuine desire to further human knowledge and make life better. And after MANY years in school furthering their knowledge, I would venture to say that they can do things that very few people on the planet can.

      just my $0.02...
      --Joe

    4. Re:You know.... by RobotRunAmok · · Score: 1

      There's a boatload of stuff that be used in terrorist acts.

      I'm guessing that MacGyver revival is now doomed before it begins...

    5. Re:You know.... by sheetsda · · Score: 1

      Why do athletes, that contribute NOTHING to society, get paid the most in our society?
      I wouldn't say most. See this. Someone will no doubt argue the people compared there are roughly equal contributors.

    6. Re:You know.... by plazman30 · · Score: 1

      If more people could get 10.2 million for become researchers, then more kids would want to do it. I don't see too many inner city kids playing with microscopes at home in the hopes they could one day cure cancer or MS. They're more interested in getting good at Basketball cause they think that will get them out of the bad neighborhood they live in.

    7. Re:You know.... by sjames · · Score: 1

      They should also consider banning household ammonia and bleach/pool chlorine. Consider the havoc if somebody mixes those in a subway! A weapon so horrible that it's use in combat is forbidden by the U.N.

      Or they could realize that most people aren't terrorists, most terrorists will find a way anyway, and if we spend our lives hiding in terrorist proof bunkers, the terrorists win.

      The terrorists who crashed airliners on 9-11 are dead now, the most dangerous ones still in the U.S. are all in Washington D.C. and are running the country into the ground just as fast as they can.

    8. Re:You know.... by ek_adam · · Score: 1
      You know, if we had recuiters for Pharmaceuticals stading outside of colleges offering new graduates 10.2 million over 3 years, then cancer would have been cured 10 years ago. Why do athletes, that contribute NOTHING to society, get paid the most in our society?
      • How many people watch the broadcast of a professional baseball game? Total population, not just slashdotters.
      • How much are advertisers willing to pay to put their ads in front of all of those people?
      • Who gets the money that the advertisers are paying?

      The money can trickle down from advertiser to TV Network/Station to League to Team to Players. There is a lot of money involved and relatively few people at the bottom of this chain to divide it up. Granted there is also a lot of money involved in pharmaceuticals, but:

      • The teams are much larger.
      • Even if the teams were the same size, how do you pick who the top people are? Grades? Scholastic skill and inventive skill are not the same. Athletic skill is easy to measure. Invention and creativity is much more difficult.
    9. Re:You know.... by plazman30 · · Score: 1

      Yeah well, why the hell do you think that tickets cost so damn much? I can't get a sporting event ticket with even half decent seats for less than $60-70. Why? Because that damn athelete is being paid MILLIONS to do something every school kid in America does for free. Good work if you can get it, but worth MILLIONS a year.

      The worst part is, KIDS LOOK UP TO THESE PEOPLE. If they are going to pay these kids this much money, their contract should have a MORALITY CLAUSE in it. If you don't abide by a certain set of rules (no drugs, no concealed weapons without a permit, no womanizing, etc.), you break the contract and get tossed.

    10. Re:You know.... by ek_adam · · Score: 1

      They cost so much because that's what the market will bear.

      What bugs me are the millions of dollars of stadium subsidies.

    11. Re:You know.... by jafac · · Score: 1

      yes, my favorite news article from last year was the one about the London Bobby that was stabbed to death by a butter knife.

      Damn good thing those Brits outlawed guns.

      --

      These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
    12. Re:You know.... by mpe · · Score: 1

      Yeah well, why the hell do you think that tickets cost so damn much? I can't get a sporting event ticket with even half decent seats for less than $60-70.

      However there must be enough people prepared to pay these prices.

    13. Re:You know.... by plazman30 · · Score: 1

      There are enough LEMMINGS willing to pay. Sane people realize that tickets cost way too much.

  16. Well... by BlueGecko · · Score: 1

    ...I'm not sure about a weapon of mass destruction, but if you jam a C-sized rocket into a heavily modified Alpha and launch it sideways at a crowd by accident (that whole safety key issue is for wimps, after all), I think we've got a weapon of mass panic (WMP).

    Not that I'm speaking from experience.

    1. Re:Well... by sxpert · · Score: 2, Funny

      weapon of mass panic (WMP)
      is that related to Windows Media Player in any way ?

  17. over 75 years, actually by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and you haven't had the balls to do anything about them that whole time.

    who knew the British would end up being so French.

    "Stop! or we'll say Stop! again and let you shoot us anyway!"

    1. Re:over 75 years, actually by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We had the balls not to take the easy path and murder every Irishman who looked askance at a Brit, and however hard it has been we can look forward to a peaceful resolution to something which could if handled badly have degenerated into a full blown civil war. As I seem to remember a few details about the French in Algeria, I would say that it's not very French at all :P

    2. Re:over 75 years, actually by Alan+Partridge · · Score: 1

      what the fuck are you talking about?

      for ever one of the fuckers that we take down, there's another New Yorkian shitbag ready to pay for four more

      the USA is now, and always has been the root cause of Irish terrorism, just as it caused the Gulf War, created Israel and is trying to destroy Venezuelan democracy now

      fuck the USA

      --
      That was classic intercourse!
    3. Re:over 75 years, actually by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Heh. You've *had* a civil war going on for all that time. Not as spectacular as some countries, but a civil war just the same. And you've let it drag on all this time without resolving a damn thing.

      You can look forward to nothing except more slow bleeding and bombing and murder. They won't stop, not while you've got your panties flapping in the breeze.

      Either finish the job your Army bungled in 1914, or get the hell out of Ireland. Those are your choices.

    4. Re:over 75 years, actually by hplasm · · Score: 1

      What could be done, with all the US backing behind them?

      --
      ...and he grinned, like a fox eating shit out of a wire brush.
    5. Re:over 75 years, actually by Alan+Partridge · · Score: 1

      you are mind-bendingly ignorant

      --
      That was classic intercourse!
    6. Re:over 75 years, actually by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All they need is the best and brightest helping them to improve their technology.
      I'm sure if you could give them the plans for a hellfire missile that was easy to make in a machine shop it would simply do wonders.
      Or a biological route to produce large amounts of isocubane.
      But not all the irish are too smart. They would likely sell the tech, or the english who captured the documents would, to some third world hellhole.
      And on the next dateline, What chucklehead told those filthy third world wogs how to make a tank killer missile on the cheap ?

    7. Re:over 75 years, actually by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and your mind is just bent. straighten it out and get some reality clues before returning to the debate.

    8. Re:over 75 years, actually by Des+Herriott · · Score: 3, Informative

      You really don't have the slightest bloody clue what you're talking about.

      Northern Ireland is not a province at war these days. Nor has it ever been - there have been serious terrorist problems on the part of both Republican and Loyalist organisations (and no thanks to the support shown by US elements for IRA terrorists), but right now violence is at a low. Unfortunately, it's being supplanted by infighting & organised crime, but it's not now and never has been open warfare. Go and read some bloody history books, ignoramus.

      As for "get the hell out of Ireland", talk about a gross oversimplification. Do you honestly believe for one moment that that would solve any problems, bearing in mind that around one million Northern Irish people don't actually want to be part of the Republic?

      By the way, what has 1914 got to do with anything? Or do you mean the Easter Rising of 1916, or perhaps the War of Independence of 1919-1922?

    9. Re:over 75 years, actually by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You must have missed Internment, alleged shoot to kill policies, the current enquiry into "Bloody Sunday", infiltration of terrorist organisations and the wholescale bankrolling of the IRA by misty-eyed over-sentimental Americans of Irish descent.

      The IRA, INLA, Real IRA, UDA, LVF and the rest of the chaps involved in that little scrap aren't nice enough to live in a foreign country far, far away with strange clothing and easily distinguished skin colour.

      With such wooly troll-laden thinking, no wonder you didn't dare post that as yourself. So I'll return the compliment

    10. Re:over 75 years, actually by swb · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, it's being supplanted by infighting & organised crime[...]

      From what I understand this has become a far bigger problem in both Republican and Loyalist areas for far longer than anyone wants to admit.

      My understanding is that it got its start with IRA "containment" of heroin trafficking, which became a significant revenue stream. The same is true for Loyalist forces, and they both make good money on extortion and protection rackets.

      My wife does business with some Northern Ireland companies and one of them had two pricipals killed in a bombing by Loyalists angry over hiring of Catholic labor.

    11. Re:over 75 years, actually by PyroMosh · · Score: 1

      First off, I'm an American. And I'm rather proud to be fortunate enough to have been born in a nation with traditions of liberty and freedom. So I'm probably biased here.

      Secondly, you're correct. The majority of foreign IRA money and logistical support comes from Americans. However, I live in New Jersey, and as I write this, I'm sitting in New York (home of the "New Yorkian shitbags"). I don't personally know anyone that supports the IRA. My mother's best friend is Irish. She's appalled by what goes on over there. Many Americans may feel one way or another in this conflict, but I don't know a single person who would condone the actions of the IRA. And that's pre-9/11. Now with this nations hypersensitivity to anything associated with the T-word, the IRA isn't likely to get any more sympathy than before. The USA doesn't cause Irish Terrorism. A very few people who happen to be largely American are sympathetic enough to donate money. Irish Terrorists cause Irish Terrorism.

      Secondly, where do you get off saying the U.S. created Israel? You're a relatively smart guy. I know this because you seem to post to slashdot like 500 times a day. Most of what you say here is well thought out and even if I don't agree, I can see your point. But Israel was created by the UN in 1948 by Resolution 181. Of course, the U.S. has been a world leader and a leader within the UN, since it's creation, but we weren't there alone. We prop up Israel, and I don't agree with the actions of the current administration over there (I consider Sharon to be as bad for Israel as Arafat is for the Palestinians), but I am not against the state of Israel existing (though there needs to be a Palestinian state as well).

      About Venezuela, I'm not as up to speed enough on the situation there to speak intelligently about it, but from what I do know, yes, we're guilty as charged. In this case, I say "we" because it wasn't just a few rouge Americans sending cash to outlaws or terrorists. It was a CIA backed operation. But you know what? There's an investigation under way in the State Department, and other areas of government, and the media is exposing it. I don't support this. It's one of many reasons I don't support the idiot we have in the White House.

      Finally, the worst in your list is the Gulf War. This happens to be a subject I know a lot about. Something I spend a lot of time reading about and researching. Iraq attacked Kuwait, a sovereign nation. Not only did it attack and declare war with Kuwait, but it occupied it. Iraqi troops looted, raped, and pillaged. Then they started lining up forces on the Saudi Arabian border. The U.S. was pushing for the Liberation of Kuwait, yes. But once the Iraqi forces started amassing on the Saudi border, we didn't have to pressure or persuade anyone. They requested our support. The Gulf War started before the U.S. even joined it. It started when Iraq attacked a neighbor. We (the coalition, not just the U.S.) liberated Kuwait. War *is* hell. But the Gulf War was the single most justifiable war since World War II. In fact, the only thing I'd say was done wrong (on a large scale) was the lack of support for the Iraqi opposition forces in the aftermath of the War, and the fact that the Iraqis thought we were letting them off easy when they signed the armistice (they feared that our demands would be much, much stricter than they were, and were prepared to meet those demands. When we made our actual demands to end the war, they gladly signed).

      Fuck the USA? No. I'm tempted to say "Fuck you", but I won't. It's not my intention to be offensive, but to retort your accusations where I feel they're unjustified. We Americans realize that we're not perfect. We screw up, but never in the history of civilization has a power so great wielded that power so sparingly and so justly. Not the Spanish, nor the Soviets, certainly not the French, nor even the British Empire.

      I'll take your criticism where it's justified. In fact, this has urged me to learn more about the situation in Venezuela. But people like you make the U.S. sound like it's China, or Nazi Germany!

      Sorry for the off-topic rant, but comments like this tend to make me mad.

    12. Re:over 75 years, actually by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is from a non-american who is also
      not anti-american.

      I will not touch the Irish and Israel issues
      basically because either they are too complex
      to discuss in limited time and space or too
      hardlined to get to any sensible conclusion.

      I will not delve into Venezuela either --I
      know so very little about it.

      But, on the Iraq issue I am afraid I think
      you are wrong.

      While Iraq did attack a sovereign state, it has
      an interesting background.

      They were given a green light by the US. I can
      not prove this, but you can do that quite simply
      by checking on what US officials were saying
      before they actually launched the attack.

      Indeed, the US did not issue even a warning until
      well after the fact. When it was certain to be a
      very good excuse to plant more troops in that
      area.

      Having said all this, I am not in any way shocked
      to see that at all. This sort of means-to-ends
      game is not an all-time US monopoly. It is just
      that it is your turn now. Enjoy.

      The moving hand writes; and, having writ,
      Moves on: nor all thy Piety nor Wit
      Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line
      Nor all thy Tears wash out a Word of it.
      --
      Indeed, the Idols I have loved so long
      Have done my Credit in Men's Eye much Wrong:
      Have drowned my Honour in a shallow cup,
      And sold my reputation for a Song.
      - Omar Khayyam

    13. Re:over 75 years, actually by Alan+Partridge · · Score: 1

      " I don't personally know anyone that supports the IRA. My mother's best friend is Irish"

      well put, but consider this: I'm British, English to be more precise. My mother's family was Catholic from Wiltshire back three generations and prior to that, IRISH. My father's family were "protestant" from Lancashire back two generations and prior to that IRISH. I was born in Berkshire and have had many first and second generation Irish friends throughout my life - unsurprisingly, but often overlooked is the fact that there are literally millions of 1st and 2nd generation Irish men and women living all over the UK, and I have only ever known ONE to profess support for the IRA's motives, if not their actions. To me, the very idea that the British Isles and it's population can be carved up into distinct national identities at this point is a nationalist fools' paradise - though it probably matters a lot less now if it were, as SURELY we won't start fighting each other again (God, I do hope not) especially as it's a fight that the English will ALWAYS win through sheer force of numbers. Ireland now is a prosperous and democratic state, but will never be and CAN never be independent from the "rest" of the UK in much more than name. There have been many shameful incedents throughout the history of Britain - oppression of Scots, Welsh, English and Irish alike at different times by each other, the British state, the crown and various foreign entities looking to leverage old emnities for their own purposes. American funding of the IRA (or any other nationalist terror organisation) is just such a situation, though I'd be stunned if they were the only ones - just look at the FARC buying terror expertise from the IRA and the IRA obtaining weapons by way of Libya for a clearer picture of the international nature of "nationalism". Murderers are simply that, whether British, Irish; state sponsored or anti-state.

      --
      That was classic intercourse!
  18. Previous art by inyercells · · Score: 3, Funny

    The nuns in my elementary school outlawed paper planes, spitballs, match flipping and other various incendiaries and projectiles decades ago. I hope Sister Mary Discipline claims prior art and stops this madness.

  19. We need to rename the hobby. by MongooseCN · · Score: 3, Funny

    Instead of using the nasty word "Rocket" we should rename the hobby the Vertical Paper Propulsion Game.

    But really now, you'd need like, 50 Estes E engines to launch a hand grenade a few feet away. I think a terrorist is more likly to use a pickup truck to get a bomb around.

    1. Re:We need to rename the hobby. by Drakin · · Score: 1

      Pickup truck... some fertalizer, some diesel fuel... wonderful bomb... hell of a lot more powerful than a piddly little rocket engine...

    2. Re:We need to rename the hobby. by zummit · · Score: 1

      I think a terrorist is more likly to use a pickup truck to get a bomb around.

      Outlaw pickup trucks!!!

    3. Re:We need to rename the hobby. by automag_6 · · Score: 1

      Fundamentally, I don't think model rockets should be further regulated. I do, however, have a problem with your statement. If I wanted to get a bomb around, I'd much rather use any number of model rocket engines, since
      1) I don't have to drive the truck
      2) It's way cooler than the alternative.

    4. Re:We need to rename the hobby. by sean23007 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Yeah, because a pickup truck is cheaper than 50 hobby rockets...

      --

      Lack of eloquence does not denote lack of intelligence, though they often coincide.
    5. Re:We need to rename the hobby. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Y'all get my pickup when you pry my charred remains from its' steel body.

  20. Reasons by Root+Down · · Score: 5, Funny

    It's because, on radar, they look just like stealth nuclear missles - at least until the little parachute pops open, but by then it's DEFCON5 anyway....

    I imagine it's because they might be used to disperse chemical agents, though the best I was ever capable of was dispering little model rocket parts.

    1. Re:Reasons by pbur · · Score: 1

      Um, that would be DEFCON 1 (total nuclear war), DEFCON 5 is complete peace (and as far as I know, we have never been at DEFCON 5, but I could be wrong)

    2. Re:Reasons by Root+Down · · Score: 1

      So it is! Mia culpa.

    3. Re:Reasons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      There are many ways to disperse chemical agents in the air without using rockets. Kid balloons, to give one easy example. Will they outlaw balloons too?

      To me, they're just showing how they're happy to trade the 90% of civil liberties for a mere 1% of national security.

    4. Re:Reasons by Anonamused+Cow-herd · · Score: 1

      It's because, on radar, they look just like stealth nuclear missles

      *ahem* -- I don't know what kind of model rockets YOU'VE been playing with, but mine were only in the air for about 10 seconds, and they sure as hell didn't go far. If somebody has a "stealth nuclear missile" that travels about 1000-2000 feet and then explodes, they are probably too stupid to be alive (think of the weapons tests).

      Plus, if it only takes 10-15 seconds to get to DEFCON5, we might as well just pull the trigger now.

      --
      -----[0_o]-----
      We are not amused.
    5. Re:Reasons by WolfWithoutAClause · · Score: 2, Informative
      It's because, on radar, they look just like stealth nuclear missles - at least until the little parachute pops open, but by then it's DEFCON5 anyway....

      Uh... No. Radar systems aren't really looking for nuclear missiles being launched from continental USA, and besides, the difference between a 20ft long missile that's going intercontinental, and a rocket that's about 12 inches long is enormous, (different radar signatures, different trajectory, different speeds, different...)

      I imagine it's because they might be used to disperse chemical agents, though the best I was ever capable of was dispering little model rocket parts.

      Yes. I imagine you do imagine that. However, that isn't why these are being banned; it's more the materials that are used to construct the rockets are being clamped down upon; because they can be used to make much bigger rockets than model rocketary. The politicians drafting the laws don't really care whether model rocketry gets destroyed or not. In fact, they don't even care much whether the laws are practical at all; currently the laws are coming into play that preclude foreigners from driving explosives within the USA, which sounds fine, till you start to think about delivery men crossing the border from Canada and so forth; or people with green cards who are living in USA perfectly legitimately etc. etc.

      --

      -WolfWithoutAClause

      "Gravity is only a theory, not a fact!"
    6. Re:Reasons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is there any way for the public to find out the current defcon status? I just googled for some time without luck.

    7. Re:Reasons by GooberToo · · Score: 4, Informative

      I'm assuming this was a joke. Much more capable delivery systems exist in the form of r/c planes, light aircraft, needles in a crowd, etc.

      The chances of a model rocket, which is capable of lifting grams, actually becoming a preferred delivery system for any terrorist is nearly nil. To say they are inaccurate is an understatment. To say they have a short range (couple thousand feet at best), is an understatement.

      Larger rockets can be created by means of combining many motors together but this is more complex to launch, harder to construct so that it will survive launch, and quickly becomes very expensive. Even if multiple motors are used, it still becomes a tradeoff of payload versus range. If you any sizable payload, your range is significantly going to suffer. These things are just not designed for heavy lifting. They certainly are not military grade and they leave a rather noteworthy exhaust trail behind. Not like you can hide and launch these things.

      Long story short, only an idiot would attempt to use these things for any form of terrorism.

    8. Re:Reasons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      5 insightful? Maybe 5 funny, but only *maybe*

    9. Re:Reasons by kalidasa · · Score: 1

      So it is! Mia culpa.

      Sorry, man, but that's mea culpa in Latin.

    10. Re:Reasons by Gaewyn+L+Knight · · Score: 1

      What I find hilarious is that to truly make it hard for terrorists to get this level of technology they will need to outlaw double boilers, sugar and saltpeter. :}

      Just take a quick google search for solid fuel amateur rocket motors... They will tell you how to make fuel nearly as good as ESTES uses... and you can make it in LARGE engine sizes.

      I just can't wait for the outcry near 4th of July when we go to celebrate our country and its freedom and we can't get good supplies of bottle rockets due to shipping problems.

      If someone wants to kill you and doesn't care if they die you are dead... limiting 10% of the possible weapons isn't going to stop them.

      Lets see them ban gasoline...

      --
      Telcos have alot of dark fibre in the States. Most people assume that's optical fibre...but it's actually moral fibre.
    11. Re:Reasons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Lets see them ban gasoline...

      Probably not going to happen with a Texan in the Beige House (not really white anymore with all that smog).

      It's not a bad idea though, considering that the current big deal baddies are in the middle east, and the US is the biggest buyer of oil (and probably the for gas). Then they'd be stuck with getting their funds through telemarketing scams and fake baby formula. Not nearly as lucrative.

    12. Re:Reasons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are SUCH an atypical slashdotter.

    13. Re:Reasons by t3kad0n · · Score: 1

      Its not about the propulsion system! Its about the fuel INSIDE! Yeah, you can't shoot a grenade 5 feet, but with 50 estes d-types you could make your own grenade or other explosive.

    14. Re:Reasons by pbur · · Score: 1

      As far as I know, I don't think the general public can...but I will ask some military friends if it's available.

    15. Re:Reasons by GooberToo · · Score: 1

      Agreed. However, that would still make them idiots. You can buy surplus explosives from old land mines for about $1 per charge (per TV). I've betting the explosive power far exceeds what you you're going to get from an toy rocket motor. Not to mention is much cheaper. Plus, because of the charge sizes, I can't imagine they would be that hard to smuggle. Certainly easier than many drugs. Heck, even buying nitro race fuel and distilling it makes more sense.

      Long story short, only an idiot wold attempt to use these things when better means are readily available.

  21. Re:Here We Go... by vudujava · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Offtopic my eye...

    The Department of Homeland Security has quickly begun to erode your rights. Next thing you know, they'll be measuring the amount of methane gas you expell after a trip to Taco Bell. Those who expell too much will be considered a threat to National Security and incarcerated without legal representation.

    Wake up you sheep!

    When the going gets tough, the average get conservative - Henry Rollins

  22. Didn't you know? by sporty · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Didn't you know? Rocketry, especially model rocketry, is a well known secret art. With some bubble gum, a cardboard tube, an m-80 and some match shavings, we can make "weapons of mass destruction" that can traverse many miles from iraq to the US.

    C'mmon. What's the sense in this. Really. Anyone could be as dangerous with a potato gun and be less conspicuous, since you don't have to set it up, aim it and fire. Anyone who wants to make a rocket can make one if they really want to.

    Or maybe now we should just restrict banning play stations now that they have technology for guidance systems in them.

    --

    -
    ping -f 255.255.255.255 # if only

  23. Very Sad by Spencerian · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I've been launching rockets since I was six. I taught rocketry at a summer camp. Had to explain the facts of the Challenger incident to kids. Launching rockets perked them up and showed that, at least for them, life can go on.

    Basic model rockets (not including the larger amateur rockets) can move fast, but I can't see their immediate danger to the public, as the Estes-type rockets stick to the =1 lb. rule, with very little medal, a plastic or balsa wood nose cone, and limited motor impulse, meaning that it can't lift anything huge. Any kid can tell you that a model rocket self-destructs easily when it strikes anything but air.

    Now, I can see some yahoo loading up a Big Bertha payload rocket with a few grams of anthrax and trying to spread it over a neighborhood--that's a sad possibility. Much less likely to use these things as missiles as they just can't hold a lot of explosive charge and would only be dangerous enough in a salvo.

    Also, model rockets of the store-bought type have basic aerodynamic stability with fins--no electronic guidance. So, even if the motor could burn long enough (which they can't--about 2-10 sec max), you couldn't guide the thing anywhere. The motors are solid, so there's no way to rig the basic rocket as a liquid-fuel missile, either.

    I'd be more worried about R/C planes, which can carry more because they generate lift and can be guided over long distances.

    --
    Vos teneo officium eram periculosus ut vos recipero is.
    1. Re:Very Sad by SuiteSisterMary · · Score: 1

      Not to give anybody any ideas, but screw payload rockets; just adapt the old 'put tempura paint power in with the parachute for a neat visual pop' trick and Bob's your uncle.

      That having been said, watch out at the local park for some guy flying a kite REALLY high, who suddenly yanks savagely on the string, then puts a wet cloth over his face and runs like hell...

      --
      Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
    2. Re:Very Sad by zummit · · Score: 1

      I'd be more worried about R/C planes, which can carry more because they generate lift and can be guided over long distances.

      Dernit! Now they're gonna outlaw R/C planes!!!

    3. Re:Very Sad by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

      Not to detract from those lovely visuals, but they're terrible delivery systems for chemical weapons. A spray bottle (with scented water) in the subway is a far better way to freak people out.

      Of course, Al Queda would rather just blow up a chem plant - that's more their style.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    4. Re:Very Sad by jafac · · Score: 1

      I'd be MUCH more worried about helium balloons, because they can lift heavy objects, and drift over densely populated cities from unwatched cargo ships off the coast.

      The Japs did this in WW II, and if they had had access to WMD, and a GPS receiver as a crude trigger, they might have actually hurt somebody, instead of those bombs landing and exploding in the California desert somewhere.

      --

      These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
    5. Re:Very Sad by mpe · · Score: 1

      The Japs did this in WW II, and if they had had access to WMD, and a GPS receiver as a crude trigger, they might have actually hurt somebody, instead of those bombs landing and exploding in the California desert somewhere.

      The Japanese were developing a WMD. A plague flea bomb.

  24. Main problem with U.S... by latenat · · Score: 1

    U.S wants to control they way mini-rockets are distributed... yet they can't control now much of the missiles and WMA they sold to various arabic countries, including Iraqi... before doing law that are so narrow, they should secure the real threats first: themselves.

  25. It is time to... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ban out Bush as a weapon of mass destruction...?

  26. Will Slashdot be banned??? ... by jkrise · · Score: 1

    What happens next is "Slashdotters" will be considered potential terrorists!! Simple reasoning: why would a website help you build personal submarines and personal rockets?? I see a new slashdot-race developing - everyone who values personal security - better start reading slashdot.

    Why? Because nobody is trustworthy anymore! What if my BOFH sysadmin builds a personal submarine and threatens me (the boss)? Can you see it now? We all need peronal submarines, rockets, nuclear reactors and personal 1024-bit encryption to our grey cells. Till then we can't be secure.

    --
    If you keep throwing chairs, one day you'll break windows....
  27. How does this affect fireworks? by wadetemp · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Aren't those considered class 1 explosives as well? I've definitely seen fireworks with more propellant potential than an Estes rocket (just not the aerodynamics.)

    Or are all these wussy shipping corporations who would rather piss customers off then deal with a regulation even touching fireworks in the first place? (It's not like they're made in the US, so I assume they get shipped to the netherregions of the US somehow...)

    1. Re:How does this affect fireworks? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      (It's not like they're made in the US, so I assume they get shipped to the netherregions of the US somehow...)
      Actually one of the largest fireworks factories in the world is in the United States. I believe it's in Ohio. They are illegal for use in that state so you have to have an out of state drivers license to buy them and also sign a document stating you will be leaving the state before setting them off.

  28. This is stupid by PitViper401 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is stupid. Our government passes all sorts of laws restricting our rights even farther in order to stop terrorism despite the fact that a lot of the terrorist attacks against America have been over seas at our embassies and such places. But the government did such a good job of bolstering people's fears that people are willingly giving away their constitutional rights in order to be "protected from terrorist attacks".

    1. Re:This is stupid by wift · · Score: 1

      The Home Land Security attitude is "Let's not wait until someone does it here." Yet, can I still go down to SC and pick up some m-100's if I want?

      --
      ....... Thus ends my attempt at wit or whatever
    2. Re:This is stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let's see here. A truck carrying 20 thousand model rocket motors from New Mexico to California for subsequent distribution throughout the state is a mighty explosive thing. I imagine that nobody is afraid of a model rocket being used in a terrorist attack. I imagine the problem is in the transportation of the rocket motors themselves.

      For myself, I would rather die than be restricted. "Give me liberty or give me death" so to speak. It is better to suffer planes being flow in to buildings than to be restricted as we are. Personally, I think those who have power are showing what craven cowards they really are. They will still die one day... but they are afraid.

  29. Did this Happen Before? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Is this the first time model rocketry has been "jeopardized"? I seem to remember not being able to do model rocketry back in the late 60's because of the paranoia over the Viet Nam war. Can anyone corroborate this?

  30. Again the slashdot article bears no reality by MyNameIsFred · · Score: 4, Insightful
    References to Weapons of Mass Destruction have nothing to do with this issue. The fact that we are talking about rocket motors is only tangentially relevent. The issue is transportation of "explosive materials," and the new regulations due to the "Homeland Security." Sometimes there are legitimate concerns regarding potentially explosive devices. Remember that airplane crashing in Florida because of the fire in its cargo hold.

    No argument that the changes may be excessive. But to claim the government is equating model rockets and weapons of mass destruction shows deliberate ignorance or a pure attempt to get reader reaction.

    1. Re:Again the slashdot article bears no reality by Otter · · Score: 1
      Good, I'm glad to see someone else bothered to read the article. There is a legitimate issue here about a broadly worded law interfering with a business and hobby that doesn't need such tight regulation (and the article itself is written reasonably and carefully) but the writeup here is inane and childish.

      Look, when you submit stories with wildly misleading spin like this, you're basically suggesting that readers are too stupid or lazy to read the article and realize you're lying. As far as the editors go, they _are_ too stupid or lazy to catch on but the rest of us do, and ostentatiously lying to us doesn't build sympathy for your cause, even when, like here, it's entirely reasonable.

    2. Re:Again the slashdot article bears no reality by JCMay · · Score: 1

      Ah yes, ValuJet 592. We all know that it was a load of model rocket engines that caused the fire on that plane, don't we?

      Oh wait-- it was pyrotecnic oxygen generators that were supposedly emptied of their chemical reactants. These same oxygen generators, when properly installed and utilized, are what let you breathe when the little masks pop out of the overhead compartments.

      My take is this: it's just one more sign of the total lack of competence on the part of the United States Federal Government. It reminds me of the TFRs placed around nuclear power plants. Pilots like me were warned "don't fly within 10 miles of a nuclear power plant!" Fine. Where are they? "We can't tell you." What? You want us to avoid something we don't know where it is? "Yes. If we told you where they were, the EEEEEVIL people would know too!" The AOPA was instrumental in getting that awful rule repealed.

      Why is the government incompetent? Are all G-men just idiots? Of course not. The major problem is that We, The People, have sent them on a fool's errand. We've asked them to do what is both impossible for them to accomplish and rightfully our own personal responsibilities-- ensure our personal safety. We've become a Nation of babies, incapable of caring for ourselves. Perhaps the pony-tailed guy was right: we are their children.

      There has been so much public outcry (if you'll pardon the expression) to do something that invariably the wrong things are done to look proactive. The feds are completely impotent to solve the problems we demand them to solve. It's no wonder they look so bad.

    3. Re:Again the slashdot article bears no reality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wups! Guess I should have said: "ex-cokeheads posing as football heroes" My bad. No, wait, make that somebody's daddy's, who had the chance to nip this war in the bud. I used to gave him the benefit of the doubt that maybe he knew something we didn't, but it turns out all he was doing was trying to give his idiot offspring a slow pitch. And the dullard can't even hit that square.

      --rgb

    4. Re:Again the slashdot article bears no reality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No argument that the changes may be excessive. But to claim the government is equating model rockets and weapons of mass destruction shows deliberate ignorance or a pure attempt to get reader reaction.

      Gee, where else have I seen such faulty logic? Perhaps in a UN speech claiming that when Osama Bin Laden calls Saddam Hussein an infidel, that really means they're in bed together?

    5. Re:Again the slashdot article bears no reality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here's hoping that that's all it is; they're just that stupid. Unfortunately, I know better (Sister is a fed, I have an uncle who did spook-type work for a a large federal defense contractor who shall remain nameless, etc.) There are EVUL people types at work here. Especially in the legislature.

      Anthrac, quack, quack, to quote JYA.

      -rgb

    6. Re:Again the slashdot article bears no reality by mlytle · · Score: 0, Redundant

      I am the submitter of the article. Yes, I did oversimplify the issue, for brevity and to create interest. I could have written a more detailed and accurate intro, but it may have been too pendantic to be aired. This of course would insure that people would have had no knowledge this was happening. The branch of the government known as the ATF has been actively working to shut this hobby down now for many years, partly out of concern for aircraft, and partly a concern over the possibility for malicious misuse. I think in the new age we live in, this concept is called "terrorism" So I stand by what I said, both in intent, and in content. I don't care about the purists, they get nothing done. I do care about the truth, and that's what I have pointed people towards. How much of it they pick up, and how well they pick it up, will depend on their individual ability. In a democracy, that's all you can do....

    7. Re:Again the slashdot article bears no reality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not to discount your point. But, looking at your reference to the pt guy, for instance, why does he think somebody would prefer selling nasty evul *drugs* over some "honest", productive occupation. Because the legislatures, instead of letting morons kill themselves off at $2 a hit from the local convenience store, has made contraband profitable for the criminal class, largely to suppport the moron former jock class (of course there are the anal-retentives, too) who predominate in "law-enforcement", who would be lost without their graft from the taxpayers, interdiction money, etc.

      The rich are too cheap to pay their thugs anymore, it seems. They're expected to live off the rest of us and still do their jobs keeping us down. Fucking ingratitude if you ask me, and suicidally foolish, if you think about it.

      But your point is taken. I would only say that that is the way things are engineered to be. I guess it goes back to the general welfare clause of the Constitution or something, but politicians always come out "four-square" for or against this, that or the other. And, yes, that is OUR fault. (Well, not mine. Not anymore)

      --rgb

    8. Re:Again the slashdot article bears no reality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, for a freaking English syntax checker...

    9. Re:Again the slashdot article bears no reality by mpe · · Score: 1

      My take is this: it's just one more sign of the total lack of competence on the part of the United States Federal Government. It reminds me of the TFRs placed around nuclear power plants. Pilots like me were warned "don't fly within 10 miles of a nuclear power plant!"

      What are you flying? More to the point at what kind of speed...

    10. Re:Again the slashdot article bears no reality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If our government was really concerned about "terrorism", it would stop trying to throw it's weight around and pissing off everyone else in the world,

      Their new policy appears to be trying to piss off Americans as well...

      It would stop subsidizing Detroit, defense contractors, Yankee political dynasties, Saudi princes, London bankers, German reinsurers, Chinese party members, etc.

      You missed off the state of Israel, which comes with a hefty price tag. Both in terms of dollers and in ill will throughout the world.

      and do everything it could to promote advanced fission and fusion reactors and getting online and building earth-orbit microwave solar-power relays, weaning us off of fucking petroleum as an energy source.

      Plenty of possible non petroleum energy sources, including those derived from plants which will grow perfectly well in the US. The problem with microwave solar-power relays is that you first have to get them up there, which requires a lot of energy.

  31. ACLU by duffian · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Now is the time to stand up for your rights. Become a member:

    www.aclu.org

    1. Re:ACLU by duffian · · Score: 1

      The ACLU isn't a Jewish organization. It's headed by a gentleman named Anthony Romero (a latino) and it's members include people of all backgrounds.

    2. Re:ACLU by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The ACLU does not stand up for our rights. The ACLU does not support the Bill of Rights. The ACLU supports re-writing the constitution in a more modern (Read: Liberal) point of view. They do not support our right to keep and bear arms. They do not support freedom of speech except for liberals. They do not support protection from search and seizure. They do not support the ideals on which this country was founded.

      Don't judge them by their claims. Judge them by their actions.

    3. Re:ACLU by DuBois · · Score: 1
      ...it's members include people of all backgrounds.
      Its (note proper non-apostrophe) members are all in favor of the civil liberties of authoritarian liberals, but wish to get rid of the civil liberties of gun owners, freedom speakers, and lots of others whose liberties the ACLU has been firmly in favor of limiting.
      --
      The IPCC has purposely engineered a massive scientific fraud.
    4. Re:ACLU by theophilosophilus · · Score: 1

      Well said!

      --
      Why have 1 person driving a backhoe when you could employ 20 with shovels?
    5. Re:ACLU by finalrain · · Score: 1

      I joined the Electronic Frontier Foundation to stand up for my rights. The ACLU is too biased to properly stand up for my rights. They'll stand up for kids wearing "F*** USA" t-shirts (it's free speech and in that sense, fine by me. not a real-life example btw), but won't life a finger for a Christian kid who wears a "Jesus Saves" shirt to school (also free speech, and is pretty close to a real life example). As far as I can tell, EFF seems to support free speech/freedom of expression pretty evenly.

      --
      -- It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society.
  32. Arse News? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That would be almost as funny as the Mainichi Daily News.

    GF.

  33. They are not outlawing the hobby... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful
    They are just placing restrictions on the shipment of the engines (explosives). Everyone here seems to be saying they are outlawing the rockets themselves because they can be used as a weapon. That isn't what the article was saying at all.


    This makes me wonder what is happening with fireworks then. I know there are a lot of fireworks out there that have quite a bit more explosive force, and potental to be used in other ways. I'd bet on fireworks being banned long before the Estes Rockets.


    But, Guess if they do ban the rockets, that means a lot less rocket geeks, and more computer geeks or game programmers. I also wonder how many kids will turn to biology since bugs can be found anywhere and extracting body parts hasn't been outlawed yet.


    I just hope they don't outlaw these hobbys for kids, since as you know, Saddam does like to dismember his victims.

    1. Re:They are not outlawing the hobby... by tra2499 · · Score: 1

      Outlaw the engines and the hobby is outlawed. Make the requirements to purchase and own the motors strict enough and people will drop the hobby. I know a lot of people that are seriously considering dropping out of the hobby rather than go through fingerprinting, photographs, full background investigation and interviews whereby an ATFE bureaucrat can decide, on a whim, to deny you entry into a hobby that has, in over 40 years, had a better safety record than model airplanes or high-school football.

      No, we're NOT talking about the little Estes engines. These motors are a bit larger.

      Fireworks have exemptions to allow their purchase by non-licensed citizens. Just go ahead and drive to any fireworks stand and you can pick up a heck of a lot more explosive potential than any hobby rocket motor. No LEUP required.

      Besides, as defined by Congress, the propellant is NOT an explosive. ATFE has chosen to declare it as such and regulate it since the Clinton administration. (So, all you Republican bashers out there, get over it. It's both parties that are at fault here.) Heck, they even listed an exemption for "propellant actuated devices." Gee, but a rocket motor sure sounds like a "propellant actuated device" to me! ATFE says, "No, they're not propellant actuated devices because we say they're not." Despite being shown explicitly the definition that Congress put into the law, the ATFE continues to stick to the "rocket motors are explosives" definition.

      BTW: less rocketry geeks means more computer geeks or game programmers? Bull. I'm a rocketry geek (Level 3 certification, meaning I've successfully flown a 40lb. rocket with 10lbs. of propellant.) and am ALSO a computer geek. (As well as a ham radio geek, a medieval reenactment geek, a gun geek, a photography geek, a music geek, a beer-brewing geek, etc.)

      Look up Niemoller. Read what he had to say on the subject of encroachment. It's an incremental thing, folks. Right now, it's rocketry. It has been encryption. It could very well be encryption again. We could, if we're not careful, end up having to show our "papers" at checkpoints whenever we travel anywhere. All in the name of "security."

      It is NOT worth it to give up liberty in trade for so-called security. If it was, then the Founding Fathers would have stayed home and knuckled under to King George III. They would not have set the example that was followed by the French, Mexicans, and every other country that threw out a totalitarian monarchy and established a democracy or republic. Mahatma Ghandi risked his life by defying British rule in India and marching to the sea to refine his own salt. He felt that the liberty to provide for himself was worth the risk to life and limb. Martin Luther King, Jr. knew the risks to his life when he decided to speak out against segragation, prejudice and bigotry.

      "All that is required for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing." -- Edmund Burke

  34. UPS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It just says that UPS isn't going to ship them anymore. Funny the Mark Lytle makes it sound like model rockets are being outlawed. The rest just puts limits on power. I can still by fireworks in many states, I don't think model rockets are in real danger, except people who like to do crazy stuff.

  35. I could harm or kill people by... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    throwing them a hammer, some heavy wood structure or strong punches, but I could also use the above to nail a picture in my living room.

    On 9/11/2001 I, like many others, wrote here about the US government that would have fought back terrorists the wrong way (ie limiting individual freedom). Sadly we were right.

    People, this thing is getting out of control. I'm lucky enough to live far outside the US, but for those who can change something with their vote I strongly suggest to think carefully next time before giving the wrong people a seat into the Whitehouse.

    1. Re:I could harm or kill people by... by DuBois · · Score: 1
      ...but for those who can change something with their vote I strongly suggest to think carefully next time before giving the wrong people a seat into the Whitehouse.
      But if you limit yourself to a Republican/Democrat duopolist, you've got no choice. D/R duopolists favor more government and less individual freedom. You could vote for candidates who actually want to protect individual liberties and personal responsibilities.

      Voting for D/R duopoly losers is the sure way to drive these United States into more fascism and police-statism.

      --
      The IPCC has purposely engineered a massive scientific fraud.
  36. This DOES make sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Of course no one thinks that model rockets are a weapon of mass destruction. But they probably do set off explosives detectors. It makes sense to classify them as explosives if they really are explosive and they set off the detectors. Think of how difficult it will be to find real dangerous explosives if other similar items like this are allowed to be shipped unregulated! Yes, I do see these little model rockets as a threat to homeland security. Not because they are a danger themselves, but because they help the really dangerous items to go undetected.

    1. Re:This DOES make sense by sjames · · Score: 1

      Or, they could get better detectors, or they could require them to be shipped in clear containers. Or they could require appropriate markings on the packages and register shippers (with aas little red tape as possible) of anything legitimate that would set the detector off. Or they could realise that in the over 200 years that the country has existed, the rule hasn't been in place, and yet, somehow, the country hasn't been destroyed in a hail of model rocket engines.

      In fact, after Oklahome City, the F.B.I. and others got much more serious about fertilizer and fuel oil in order to prevent terrorism in the U.S. The result? More destruction than ever as the terrorists were forced to choose a much more destructive and terrifying alternative. So, they tighten security at every airport and place armed guards at the checkpoints. The result? Someone mails a tiny amount of anthrax through the U.S. mail, and others mail baby powder in some sort of sick joke. Now they irradiate the mail. The result? No anthrax, but the outgassing caused by the irradiation is implicated in making more people sick than the anthrax did.

      Meanwhile, every single day, more people in the U.S. die than the sum total of all terrorism (in the U.S.), from auto and household accidents.

      So, it seems that the odds are excellent that these new regulations will cause a lot of trouble for a lot of people, and fail to save even a single life.

  37. We get what we celebrate by asmithmd1 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Kids are indoctrinated with sports from the time they are born. They watch it on TV, they play little league, before JV, before varsity in High School. If a kid isn't a master of a sport before he leaves High School there is no chance of him playing at the College level. And after that there is essentaily no chance of playing in the pros. Compare the above model to how we train Scientists. Senior year in high school, students decide maybe I would like to be a biologist, no maybe chemist, I will just start out undecided.
    As a culture we celebrate the wrong things. Who has done more to save lives, increase the well being of everyone and increase our standard of living: Micheal Jorden or the inventor of the MRI
    can you name the inventor of the MRI without google?

    1. Re:We get what we celebrate by CharlieG · · Score: 1

      I can tell you the name of his company (Fonar) and that they are based on Long Island, but it's been 20 years since I met him, so I can't remember his name (and it was NMR back then)

      --
      -- 73 de KG2V For the Children - RKBA! "You are what you do when it counts" - the Masso
    2. Re:We get what we celebrate by 3Bees · · Score: 1

      In my town, due to budget problems, they have virutally eliminated the science curriculum (using 15+ year old books, no lab time, cutting teachers, etc). They are now saying that the crises is *so bad* that they may force students to pay for all sports.

      --
      "I think we should tax people who stand in water! " - Mr. Gumby
    3. Re:We get what we celebrate by Ryan+Amos · · Score: 1

      Entertainment is a funny issue. First of all, sports players are entertainers. Essentially they're no different than actors. The only reason they get paid that much money is because people are willing to pay that much money to watch sports (or advertisers are willing to pay that much because people watch sports, etc.) Is it really fair if the team pulls in $500 million a year and the players get paid $100,000 a year? No. While I agree most sports players are grossly overpaid (mostly because they bitch about wanting more money when they're already making $5 mil a year) what they make is fair in comparison to the amount of money they make for the team.

      In the end, the pay disparity comes down to simple economics. Athletes get paid more because the expense to revenue ratio in sports is VERY good. Salaries of the players are around 60% of the revenue of the team. If we paid athletes less, it would just put more money in the pockets of already rich owners. Most scientific research is absurdly expensive to begin with, and is often government funded. It's government funded because it's beneficial to society, but not extremely profitable. Scientists, while producing a product of great societal value, really don't work on projects of great IMMEDIATE monetary value.

      I guess what I'm trying to say here is that athletes make a lot of money because there's a lot of money in sports in general-- so it's only fair they get a cut. Conversely, while there's a lot of money in scientific research, there are also a lot more expenses, and thus less money left over for the scientists themselves. It really is a shame, but that's generally how capitalism works.

  38. In related news... by gmuslera · · Score: 1

    Next year's end instead of firecrackers will be only laser shows and giant screen projection on how used to be firecrackers.

    At this rate, in 2005, kitchen knifes will be banned also.

  39. see kids, this is why you shouldn't do drugs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    what's it like, being totally disconnected from reality?

    you're obviously an expert at it, so share with us the secrets of your intergalactic travels.

  40. Re:Here We Go... by macdaddy357 · · Score: 1

    Television watching you is what they introduced the V-chip for.

    --
    How ya like dat?
  41. Catapults by mrycar · · Score: 1

    Next thing they will try to ban are Catapults

    :)

    --
    Gator/Claria is Spyware.
  42. True, we don't want this kind of scenario ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Like in the Nena, 198something, song.

    99 Luftballoons

    You and I in a little toy shop
    Buy a bag of balloons with the money we've got.
    Set them free at the break of dawn
    'Til one by one, they were gone.
    Back at base, bugs in the software
    Flash the message, Something's out there.
    Floating in the summer sky.
    99 red balloons go by.


    99 red balloons
    floating in the summer sky.
    Panic bells, it's red alert.
    There's something here from somewhere else.
    The war machine springs to life.
    Opens up one eager eye.
    Focusing it on the sky.
    Where 99 red balloons go by.


    99 ministers meet.
    To worry, worry, super-scurry.
    Call the troops out in a hurry.
    This is what we've waited for.
    This is it boys, this is war.
    The president is on the line
    As 99 red balloons go by.

    99 Knights of the air
    Ride super-high-tech jet fighters
    Everyone's a superhero.
    Everyone's a Captain Kirk.
    With orders to identify.
    To clarify and classify.
    Scramble in the summer sky.
    As 99 red balloons go by.


    99 dreams I have had.
    In every one a red balloon.
    It's all over and I'm standing pretty.
    In this dust that was a city.
    If I could find a souvenier.
    Just to prove the world was here.
    And here is a red balloon
    I think of you and let it go

  43. The terrorists..... by Therlin · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ... have already won.

    No, for real. Now we live in fear, now we are taking liberties away.

    Would people before 9/11 have run out of a club screaming and freaking out because someone used mace? Nope.

    1. Re:The terrorists..... by stevedc2000 · · Score: 1
      I agree with you completely.

      If part of the intention of the terrorists was to change the U.S. way of life, then they have succeeded in ways that they could not have imagined.

      I'm all for taking REASONABLE precautions (it's ALWAYS a good idea to have an emergency plan and supplies, especially if you live in a tornado or hurricane-prone area), but people are scared, and this is exactly what these terrorist f**kwits want.

    2. Re:The terrorists..... by Knobby · · Score: 1

      Would people before 9/11 have run out of a club screaming and freaking out because someone used mace? Nope.

      Yep! We're so freakin' scared that we jump, and hopefully that's all we do, to the worst possible scenerio whenever someone sneezes.

      I live in a small town in northern New York (up near Canada) and the folks around here are a little more relaxed than the people I know living in cities, but there's still a lot of anxiety. It's amazing how much more distrustful our society as a whole has become in the last ~18 months. Society is built upon trust and the Department of Homeland Security and USA Patriot Act are direct attacks our society because they incite mistrust among the people.

    3. Re:The terrorists..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Amen, brother.

      The most frustrating part of it, in my opinion, is that none of the measures seem designed to prevent terrorism. They seem to fall into two categories, the first being 'things that make people feel safe, despite changing nothing'. The second being 'things that placate some government official, usually at the expense of the public'.

      I'm all for REAL security, but real security isn't created by tracking the credit cards and meal preferences of European businessmen or by the removal of union protections for government workers.

    4. Re:The terrorists..... by Fugly · · Score: 1

      Would people before 9/11 have run out of a club screaming and freaking out because someone used mace? Nope.

      Have you ever been in a room where somebody has sprayed mace? To hell if you wouldn't get out of there as fast as you could. Somebody sprayed some in the hall when I was in high school and we had to evacuate an entire floor of the building. Within a few minutes people in at least 5 classrooms were reacting to it. It's nasty stuff.

    5. Re:The terrorists..... by poot_rootbeer · · Score: 1

      Would people before 9/11 have run out of a club screaming and freaking out because someone used mace? Nope.

      No, they would have stayed where they were and happily choked down the cloud of caustic mist!

      Are you that stupid?

      Stampede deaths have been happening ever since people began gathering in confined places thousands of years ago. Here's a few recent examples. Note that only two of these 23 incidents occurred after 9/11/01.

  44. you're supposed to notify the FAA also by avi33 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    At a local hobby shop, they now have a sign instructing you to inform the FAA of the approximate day and time of your launches.

    For years, people have been launching them on the beach north of Chicago, and some of them can pop up on radar in curious ways. Rather than scrambling a few jets to investigate, they ask that you report launches in advance.

    1. Re:you're supposed to notify the FAA also by theguru · · Score: 2, Funny

      Ok, so now the terrorists will just call the FAA and tell them they're taking their sun out to the park to launch some model rockets when they launch their stolen Hellfire missles at passing commuter planes.

    2. Re:you're supposed to notify the FAA also by Clay+Pigeon+-TPF-VS- · · Score: 1

      Hellfires are laser guided air to ground missiles with High explosive anti tank (HEAT) warheads. I think you meant to say stingers or perhaps strellas (SA-7s).

      --
      Viral software licensing is not freedom, it is in fact GNU/Socialism.
  45. Er, sorry about that by imrdkl · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Couldn't resist. Seriously, they can have my model rocket when they pry it from my cold, dead fingers.

  46. How does this affect X-Prize class rocketry ? by mbaranow · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I would imagine that the paranoid US government would see growing tide private-sector rocketry as a major annoyance. They can claim anything from military radar interference to plausible methods of chemical and warhead delivery and use that to stop many legitimate efforts at small-scale and highly innovative engineering. I've read from John Carmack's posts somwhere that Armadillo Aerospace does not publish their flight control software for worry of illegitimate use.

    Does anybody know how understanding the post 9/11 government is to private sector rocketry and what hoops you have to go through to get clearance for high altitude flights?

    1. Re:How does this affect X-Prize class rocketry ? by pngwen · · Score: 5, Interesting

      There are lots of hoops. A great deal depends on how high you will go, proximity to airports and military bases, the size of the missile, a whole lot of stuff.

      I used to launch small amateur rockets and I remember having to organize things with the FAA for the window of time I would be in the comercial air space. Basically it's like filing a flight plan with a flight controller. They verify that is a safe window when you are not as likely to shoot down a plane.

      Once you go above a certain altitude, however, you enter military air space and you have a whole other animal to deal with. They ask the tough questions like "why do you want to launch this missile?"

      All in all, I only built about 3 rockets that went higher than commercial airspace. These flew to about 100-200 thousand feet above sea level. (100,000; 120,000; 180,000 to be exact) It took me more time getting all the permissions I needed to launch the darn things than it did to engineer them.

      Other hurdles are the handling of the propellants, the little tasty bit of info about solid rocket propellants is that it is difficult to design a solid fuel motor that doesn't explode on the launch pad. Also, there is the fact that in a lot of counties you have to have a fire marshall present when you are handling the explosives.

      It's a tough hobby from a legal sense, and probably rightly so. Even from behind a bunker of sand bags, I have been knocked flat on my back from the concussion of a solid rocket explosion that was 300 yards away from me. In my earliest attempt at making a high performance rocket I actually had one explode and later found pieces of shrapnel ebedded in asphalt farther DOWNRANGE of my position. So it is rought with danger, failures are catastrophic, and if you aren't very very careful you will die if you try to build one of these.

      Also, I had built rockets with a useful payload of up to 3 kg, more than enough to load up enough explosives to blow up a building, not that I would of course.

      --
      I am the penguin that codes in the night.
    2. Re:How does this affect X-Prize class rocketry ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

      And how exactly is this even remotely on-topic? How exactly does an Estes C5 model rocket engine compare? Short of drilling a hole in my chest, inserting the engine, and firing it, I doubt I could kill myself with an Estes rocket if I wanted to.

      Next time you want to brag about your peni^H^H^H^H rockets, do it somewhere else..

    3. Re:How does this affect X-Prize class rocketry ? by pngwen · · Score: 1

      I was responding to a poster who asked about hurtles and what this would do to the higher classed rockets. I wouldn't have said anything at all about that had it not come up. So it is on topic for the thread of the discussion.

      --
      I am the penguin that codes in the night.
    4. Re:How does this affect X-Prize class rocketry ? by briancnorton · · Score: 1
      Launching a rocket 34 miles up is an extrordinary feat for an amateur. In fact, I thought that the record was about 13.5 miles, and that was launched from a high altitude balloon. Perhaps that was a different kind of rocket.

      Anywho, as I understand it, most of the X-prize groups have abandoned solid engines long ago, and most have moved to liquid systems. Shipping liquid oxygen has never really been a problem. Many of the teams have moved to things like H2O2 (hydrogen peroxide) that shouldnt fall into trouble with the new laws. I think.

      --

      People who think they know everything really piss off those of us that actually do.

    5. Re:How does this affect X-Prize class rocketry ? by FunkyRat · · Score: 1

      Amateur rockets or high power rockets?

      As far as I know, the highest altitude a high powered model rocket has achieved has been roughly 100,000 feet (about 19 miles)? Yet, you're claiming 180,000 feet(about 34 miles). Also, as far as I know, high powered rocket launches do not require military clearance. Besides, the article is talking about plain old model rocketry where the largest motors regularly used are D or E size (although F & G also qualify) and the rocket can not contain metal components and must weigh no more than 16 oz.

    6. Re:How does this affect X-Prize class rocketry ? by briancnorton · · Score: 1

      You'd be suprised how much penetration you can get with a D class engine and a pointy plastic rocket.

      --

      People who think they know everything really piss off those of us that actually do.

    7. Re:How does this affect X-Prize class rocketry ? by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

      Many of the teams have moved to things like H2O2 (hydrogen peroxide) that shouldnt fall into trouble with the new laws. I think.

      Wasn't Carmack saying that his main problem was from trying to obtain it in units less than a railcar?

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    8. Re:How does this affect X-Prize class rocketry ? by Alfred+Differ · · Score: 1

      The difference in claims usually comes down to whether one can verify their flight or not and how they do it. I'm the one who fit the curve on the JP Aerospace flight that went to just above 72,000 feet. We got plenty of GPS data, so the curve had to fit a lot of 'reality.' We launched from a balloon at around 29,000 feet using a K-class motor with a moderately long burn.

      H2O2 can be shipped in low concentrations and then distilled on site. The method for getting it to about 85% is very simple.

      We don't use liquid fueled engines yet though. We just strike a bargain with the supplier to arrange picking up the fuel slug in a legal way and transporting it in a legal way.

      --
      --Be The Alien.
    9. Re:How does this affect X-Prize class rocketry ? by Alfred+Differ · · Score: 1

      The hoops were never easy to jump through. The trick is to have someone on your side. That hasn't changed and probably won't until there is more credibility and success within our industry.

      Do not treat the US Federal Government as a monolithic entity. Some parts are very enthusiastic about private sector launch capability. Other parts feel threatened. Like any other business, one must learn navigate the sea and avoid the shoals and sharks.

      --
      --Be The Alien.
  47. . . Signs and Symbols . . by phuturephunk · · Score: 1

    . .I can take all the governments finagling into my privacy, because long ago I realized that they could already violate it with impunity without me knowing about it.. Now they just want to put it on the books so they don't have to try *as hard* to be sneaky and if they get caught, and entropy says they will, now legally they don't have to apologize.

    I can deal with all of that, its to be expected..

    What I cannot deal with is the symbolism that this represents for every little boy who ever looked up and wondered what was beyond that big blue dome out in space. (sorry, I grew up in the eighties before rampant PC'ness . . I'm sure there were many geeky little girls that wanted to be engineers and space cadets too ;)..And if you by chance happened to grow up to be a fairly easy on the eyes engineer or IT fembot, please don't hesitate to email me..but I digress..) NOT only are they stripping away liberties that we as adults enjoy, they now are attempting to stifle the way we dream in the name of National Security. Its bad enough that we raise our children in spiritually dead suburbs, beating the conformity in them with gentile calmness, scorning those who do not..NOW we are saying to the young people out there 'You can't dream big..because dreaming big requires big thinking and big projects, all which may lead to an ill side effect that could hurt alot of people. We cannot allow you to take that chance."

    You know what? FUCK THAT! Fuck those guys! What ever happened to rolling the dice? What ever happened to taking a chance? We didn't always have this techonology that allows us the luxury of snooping on our fellow man..And what did we have to do to combat evil without it? ..What did they do in the 'old days?' ..They rolled the dice and faced the terrifying unknown..

    And that terrifying unknown made us stronger as people. It drove us to achieve and build lasting testaments to human ingenuity.

    Not anymore though, that age is dying..another nail in the coffin being our childrens' dreams.. ..eh, whatever..

  48. how do democracies die? by doodleboy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The terrorist attacks were a horrible atrocity, and a year and a half later I still can't understand how anyone could willingly commit such a awful crime against humanity.

    It's bad enough that 3000 innocents were killed, but the real legacy of the attacks may well be the ongoing erosion of our civil rights by those in power, e.g. the Patriot Act and its forthcoming descendents (Patriot II, TIA, etc.).

    What I've been worrying about lately is: how do democracies die? I think using some emergency to convince voters to give up their constitutionally guaranteed civil rights is a great start. It's like the Communist hysteria of the 50's, only potentially worse because of all the technology that can be brought to bear.

    The intersection of technology and surveillance was something that needed to be looked at before 9/11 ever happened, but now... I just hope people come to their senses by the time the next election rolls around.

    1. Re:how do democracies die? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here's a hint. The SAME people who are now giving us "Patriot" and "Homeland Security" (in Orwell-speak) Acts are the very same ones who made damned sure those 3000+ people died.

      Yeah, I'm paranoid. Right.

      --rgb

    2. Re:how do democracies die? by TheShadow · · Score: 1

      9/11 wasn't that bad... more babies die every year because of abortion... we aren't going to war with abortion clinics as a result are we?

      More kids drown in a bucket of water each year then are shot by hand guns... but who is out there fighting for bucket control?

      60% of money put into the welfare system goes to run the beauracracy instead of getting into the hands of people that really need it... so when a bunch of congressman wanted to dismantle the federal welfare system and just block grant money to the states...

      oh whatever... this country is full of morons... maybe those fucking europeans are right... we are just a bunch of stupid Americans.

      --

      --
      "What do you want me to do? Whack a guy? Off a guy? Whack off a guy? Cause I'm married."
    3. Re:how do democracies die? by EmagGeek · · Score: 1
      What I've been worrying about lately is: how do democracies die? I think using some emergency to convince voters to give up their constitutionally guaranteed civil rights is a great start.
      You mean like Rome?
    4. Re:how do democracies die? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IMO, under the *watchful* eye of the Clinton administration more civil liberties were eroded t anytime before or after. The recognition of hate speech and overzealot use of anti-hate legislation left "perfect victims-fucked in the beginning and fucked over again" for anybody who wanted/needed the soapbox.

      Your bank will always have more information on you than the goverment ever will. Data miners using telemarkets covered north america long before 911, and that was for profit. Shadey psychology uses florished and we are all paying the price for it.

      The last type of peaceful protest is indifference

    5. Re:how do democracies die? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is that actually true (about the kids and buckets) ? Is that only 'kids' dying from hand-guns or all people?

      I'm not from the USA, but my impression was that the rate of gun-related deaths was pretty high there (highest certainly in the 'Western' world, maybe overall too).

      Drowning deaths are fairly common everywhere (although not, ironically, where I am now, in the Netherlands, covered with more canals than you would believe, because so much emphasis is put on teaching kids to swim (and, importantly, rescue people in the water)). But more common than gun-related deaths? really?

    6. Re:how do democracies die? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I just hope people come to their senses by the time the next election rolls around.

      Assuming there is another election.

    7. Re:how do democracies die? by DuBois · · Score: 1
      Is that actually true (about the kids and buckets) ? Is that only 'kids' dying from hand-guns or all people?
      I'm pretty sure the statistic about kids killed by handguns being fewer than those drowned in buckets is true. The numbers I remember (kids under 12!) are 30 for handguns and 50 for buckets. Many places you will see "children" of 18 and under included in this statistic. Including 18-year-olds includes all the "children" being killed in the crossfire of the War On Drugs (which is really a war on self-medication). You Netherlanders have this one right, at least.

      There are thousands more older-than-12-years deaths due to firearms in the U.S., but if you took out the Drug War crossfire (think about it: are you going to call the police if a rival is invading your turf?), the number would be in the hundreds, not thousands.

      --
      The IPCC has purposely engineered a massive scientific fraud.
    8. Re:how do democracies die? by mpe · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure the statistic about kids killed by handguns being fewer than those drowned in buckets is true. The numbers I remember (kids under 12!) are 30 for handguns and 50 for buckets. Many places you will see "children" of 18 and under included in this statistic. Including 18-year-olds includes all the "children" being killed in the crossfire of the War On Drugs (which is really a war on self-medication).

      The latter certainly includes drug dealers battling with each other. Also there is nothing stopping criminals being younger than 18 anyway.

  49. Terrorism. Minnesota. 1977 by MondoMor · · Score: 1, Funny

    My dad, fed up with the noise of approaching planes to Minneapolis-St.Paul International Airport, told my brothers and I that if we hit a plane with a model rocket, he'd buy us a new one.

    And believe me, we tried.

    The damn things flew right over our house. These were the days of the low-bypass-engined 727s which are very loud.

    We never hit one, though. The best effort we had was the "KILLER", a rocket with a single D engine, with fins and a nosecone glued to it. Talk about power to weight ratio. It wasn't designed to be recovered. It was like a Mosquito on steroids.

    Yeah, it was irresponsible. If we knew what we were doing, we COULD have hit a plane (they're hard to lead).

    We had much better success with flying kites really high in the flight path and tying the strings to tall trees. Suited airport security dudes would then come around and have to climb messy, sappy pine trees to get them down. We got at least a two hour reprieve from noise while the flights were diverted.

    So, it's probably my family's fault that rockets are getting outlawed. Don't all mod me down at once!

    1. Re:Terrorism. Minnesota. 1977 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mr. MondorMor sir, your father was a patriot!

  50. gelatin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    gelatin works much better

    don't ask me how i know that

  51. OT: Gasoline and Soap? by NorthDude · · Score: 1

    Sorry if it is off-topic, but could you enligthen me on what exactly does a gasoline and soap mix when ignited?

    Never heard about that one...

    --


    I'd rather be sailing...
  52. Call me a wus by Visaris · · Score: 1

    Call me a wus, but I almost cried when I read this. My father and I used to have some great times building and launching these rockets. It's part of my childhood I'll never forget as it was so speacial to me. I was hoping to share some of the same moments with my kids... I guess I'm a terrorist now.

    --

    I am a viral sig. Please help me spread.
    1. Re:Call me a wus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, be a Freedom Fighter.

  53. Dont Touch My Stuff by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What I saw in the article had nothing to do with the goverment saying you can not ship these items. What I saw was that if you are going to ship these items your company must liscence their employees to handle them. This liscence will include a background check more striengent than baggage checkers. The article states that the people who dont pass the background check will have to be restricted in the companies on their access to shipping, storage, and reciving areas. In response the companies (UPS) and possible a railroad company are simply dropping that catagory of items from the list of what they will ship. So I think its the companies to blame not the GOV. I personally dont want the guy who cant pass a terrorist background check messing with my stuff I bought off of e-bay or that Bag of Flour I purchased from homegrocer. Personally I dont want anyone who cant pass these background checks touching or dealing with any of MY STUFF.

  54. I'll bite by ragnar · · Score: 1

    Having skipped arson 101, could someone tell me what happens when you mix gasoline and soap and light it? I'm guessing that the soap increases the viscosity and that the explosion throws globs of burning peices. Can someone elaborate? I'm curious (in a scientific, rather than evil-doer way).

    --
    -- Solaris Central - http://w
    1. Re:I'll bite by arivanov · · Score: 1

      Soap is lamers replacement for styrene.

      And what styrene is for when used with gasoline (and spiked with some phospohorus) you can easily find when looking through docs on Vietnam.

      --
      Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
      http://www.sigsegv.cx/
    2. Re:I'll bite by mpe · · Score: 2, Informative

      Having skipped arson 101, could someone tell me what happens when you mix gasoline and soap and light it?

      It's better known as "napalm".

    3. Re:I'll bite by Ryan+Amos · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yeah, and it's not really this mythical substance everyone makes it out to be. Really, napalm is just sticky gasoline. It worked so well in vietnam because they could spray the shit everywhere and it would stick to the jungle and burn it down. It's really not any more volatile or dangerous than regular gasoline. There are actually more ways to make napalm than you can count, but they all involve, you guessed it, gasoline and a thickening agent. Styrofoam, soap, and supposedly even orange juice concentrate (though that was from the Anarchist's cookbook so I dunno if it's true) will all work.

    4. Re:I'll bite by tim1724 · · Score: 2, Funny
      There are actually more ways to make napalm than you can count, but they all involve, you guessed it, gasoline and a thickening agent. Styrofoam, soap, and supposedly even orange juice concentrate (though that was from the Anarchist's cookbook so I dunno if it's true) will all work.

      I love the taste of napalm in the morning... part of a balanced breakfast!

      --
      -- Tim Buchheim
    5. Re:I'll bite by mpe · · Score: 1

      Really, napalm is just sticky gasoline. It worked so well in vietnam because they could spray the shit everywhere and it would stick to the jungle and burn it down. It's really not any more volatile or dangerous than regular gasoline.

      Actually the gelling agent makes it a lot less volatile. Which, together with its stickyness, makes it more likely to set other things on fire and cause injury.

  55. Wrong by baldass_newbie · · Score: 1, Offtopic
    the USA is now, and always has been the root cause of Irish terrorism, just as it caused the Gulf War, created Israel and is trying to destroy Venezuelan democracy now

    Some points:
    • British occupation of Ireland has been 'the root cause of Irish terrorism'. It's been going on since before the US was even a country.
    • Iraq's invasion of a sovereign nation, Kuwait, was the cause of the Gulf War. Did you guys stand aside while Argentina seized the Falkland Islands?
    • Israel was not created by the US, but by the UN. In fact, the effort was spearheaded by the British, in spite of the Sykes-Picot agreement.
    • Venezuelan democracy has been devastated by Hugo Chavez, an anti-American Socialist. When he was ignoring recall requests and the people's calls for elections, the US started to step in and got outrageous flak for it. Now the US is staying out of it and Hugo's death squads are working wonders, like they do for his buddy Fidel Castro.

    So get your head out of your ass, and stuff your anti-American sentiment where the sun don't shine.
    Fitting sentiment since the sun now daily sets on your so-called 'Empire' that we're still cleaning up after (Afghanistan, Pakistan, Middle-East).
    Fucktard.
    --
    The opposite of progress is congress
    1. Re:Wrong by Hal-9001 · · Score: 1
      Iraq's invasion of a sovereign nation, Kuwait, was the cause of the Gulf War.
      More accurately, Iraq's invasion of a major oil-producing country was the cause of the Gulf War--our motivation was purely selfish and economic. If the U.S. really subscribed to the just war theory, we would have intervened in Yugoslavia and Rwanda before they became bloodbaths of "ethnic cleansing".

      Incidentally, the U.S. is the primary cause of the current mess in the Middle East. In the 1980s, the U.S. provided weapons and funding to Iraq to fight Iran, and to Al Qaeda to fight the Soviets.
      --
      "It take 9 months to bear a child, no matter how many women you assign to the job."
    2. Re:Wrong by baldass_newbie · · Score: 1

      More accurately, Iraq's invasion of a major oil-producing country was the cause of the Gulf War--our motivation was purely selfish and economic. If the U.S. really subscribed to the just war theory, we would have intervened in Yugoslavia and Rwanda before they became bloodbaths of "ethnic cleansing". Incidentally, the U.S. is the primary cause of the current mess in the Middle East. In the 1980s, the U.S. provided weapons and funding to Iraq to fight Iran, and to Al Qaeda to fight the Soviets.

      Actually, the whole 'oil-producing' this is way overblown. Ultimately, it would have set a bad precedent and put Saudi Arabia at risk, but it was mainly about sovereignty. We know this because 1.) we didn't seize any oil fields in either Iraq or Kuwait and 2.) oil produces rose before and immediately after the war.
      In the cases of Yugoslavia and Rwanda, they were/are both civil wars, not wars between sovereign nations. (Yugoslavia is very tricky in this regard, which is why it is ultimately, post-Tito, a 'civil' conflict, despite the breakups.) Curious fact: the Albanians who invaded Serbia, but were being 'ethnically cleansed' had their populations INCREASE during the 90's. Now how does THAT happen?
      The US is NOT the primary cause of conflict in the Middle East. That distinction goes to Britain who ignored the Ottoman request for protection in WWI, forcing them to side with Germany and resulting in the split of the Ottoman Empire into the various faction states. This is especially true of the Sykes-Picot agreement for the splitting of 'Palestine', a previously unknown entity. Details can be found in A Peace to End All Peace.
      I understand about the arming of Iraq and Afghanistan, obviously the law of unintended consequences. Unlike the Soviets, we tended to give only enough so that we could defeat them later. The US is not alone in backing leaders who ultimately think it's THEM and not the US that's the cause of their power. See the dossier on Noriega if you still have questions.
      But please, don't pin the Middle East, a region that's been in conflict since Alexander the Great's death on the US.
      Because it's not only wrong, it doesn't make you sound smart. ;-)

      --
      The opposite of progress is congress
    3. Re:Wrong by jallen02 · · Score: 1

      I always here people parrot that we helped fund Al-Qadea to fight the soviets. Do you have any resources that could lend a little strength to this argument? I have yet to see anything but conspiracy theorist-wack-jobs claiming this with any true sincereity.

      I am completely willing to believe it, I even don't doubt it much.. but I haven't seen much proof. That kind of thing also isn't very popular to discuss for major media outlets, so I doubt CNN will pick up news like that...ever.

      Jeremy

    4. Re:Wrong by neurojab · · Score: 1

      rambo 3. :)

    5. Re:Wrong by B1 · · Score: 1

      The Afghan rebels found our Stinger missiles to be very effective against the Soviet helicopters.

    6. Re:Wrong by Alan+Partridge · · Score: 1

      I didn't blame the whole Middle eastern history of conflict on the USA, just the Gulf War. Started by Saddam, who was armed to the teeth by the USA so as to win the Iran-Iraq war a decade earlier. And to suggest that the UN created Israel! Come on! Officially, perhaps, but it was - and remains - a total non-starter without direct American involvement at every level. I don't understand Zionism for the life of me, but it sure encompasses a motley collection of right wing lunatics in the USA and Israel both (and yes, some in Britain too).

      --
      That was classic intercourse!
    7. Re:Wrong by Moridineas · · Score: 1


      You are correct in saying the American Jewry today (and historically) has supported Israel. Absolutely. America has the majority of the Jews NOT in Israel--why? You may remember a little thing called WW2 that left most of the European jews with a bitter taste in their mouths. Not to mention the recent upsurges in anti-semitic racism in France, Germany, Russia, etc (and a history of death camps, pogroms and ghetto-ization). You are also correct in saying that today America gives a large amount of money to Israel.

      I don't agree with our strategy but it can't be denied that Israel is the ONLY middle eastern democracy (I don't count Turkey as middle eastern, and Iran is not a democracy) and an ally. Why SHOULDN'T we help a democratic nation surrounded by monarchs and military dictators? There is of course the issue of the Israeli military use, which is why I'm in favor of private capital divestment from any Israeli military related industry.

      And you're dead wrong on the early days of Israel--American had amazingly little to do with the creation of Israel. It's a really fascinating history, you might want to read some history of just the rough decade before independence.

      On the topic of Zionism, I don't approve of HOW Israel was created, but I can certaintly understand the sentiment. Picture yourself as a jews whose ancestors have been persecuted everywhere they ever lived--kicked out of Israel by the Romans, dominated by Islam for a time (though a relatively peaceful one, especially compared with the experience in Europe where anti-semitism is STILL only too common), and if they happened to be in Europe--pogroms, laws against land ownership etc, stories of eating christian children, CONSTANT anti-semitism and racial violence. WW2 proved utterly that Jews weren't safe in Europe. Now, if it were up to me I would have carved out a nice chunk of Bavaria to give to the Jews--let the Germans suffer, not the Palestinians.

      Though it IS interesting to note the population growth in modern day Israel--I've seen numbers stating that roughly 100 years before partition the city of Jerusalem was 2/3 Jewish, with then a large christian minority, and smaller numbers of Muslims. Mark Twain when he visited the holy land described the place as practically empty--uninhabited! As Zionism started, large numbers of rich jews came to the area, started draining swamps, creating industry etc, and HUGE numbers of Arabs came to the area too.

      Actually, if anyone has been made to suffer because of the creation of Israel its been the indigenous Christian populations in the Middle East--their populations have been in a serious state of major decline ever since.

      Ok, so that was longer than I expected, but I'd be interested in your response Mr Partridge.

    8. Re:Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why was it that we sold Saddam French Mirage's, Russian MiG's, Soviet tanks and Missiles, Chinese rifles, and the list goes on. The USA never provided Iraq with either arms or money. Have you ever heard of the Iran-Contra affair? Reagan was selling weapons to Iran, in exchange for the release of the embassy hostages. To counter-balance that, he also gave Iraq satellite photos of Iranian military positions.

      It's a bit duplicitous on the US Government's part, but their goal was to maintain stability in the Middle East by ensuring that no single aggressive power was able to dominate the other. After the Iran-Contra affair (and ties to other terrorist groups in Libya and Syria) was exposed US backing of Iran against soviet backed Iraq halted, as as a result, Iraq won the war (partially by using chemical weapons) in 1988.

      Sure enough, two years later, Iraq invaded Kuwait, in what Saddam thought was a tentative first bid at achieving hegemony over the region. The Gulf War was the result.

      Those are the facts.

    9. Re:Wrong by Hal-9001 · · Score: 1
      But please, don't pin the Middle East, a region that's been in conflict since Alexander the Great's death on the US.
      I didn't mean to imply that the U.S. is the root cause of all the problems in the Middle East...I guess I wasn't all that clear on that point. My point is that we helped both Saddam and Osama get to where they are today, and that is symptomatic of the inconsistency and short-sightedness of American foreign policy.
      --
      "It take 9 months to bear a child, no matter how many women you assign to the job."
    10. Re:Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are correct in saying the American Jewry today (and historically) has supported Israel.

      Some do, some don't.
      Just over a year ago 20,000 Jews from all over North America protested in New York against Israel. Neturei Karta, which is both strongly anti-Zionist and Orthodox lists a New York address on their website. There is also Stanley Cohen, an American lawyer who represents Americans Palestinian origin.
      It just so happens that Zionists (both those claiming to be Jewish and those claiming to be Christian) have the ear of both the media and the government.

      Absolutely. America has the majority of the Jews NOT in Israel--why? You may remember a little thing called WW2 that left most of the European jews with a bitter taste in their mouths.

      What tends to get missed is that Nazis and Zionists worked together here. Most likely the Zionists literally "killed off" any possible opposition within occupied Europe.

      I don't agree with our strategy but it can't be denied that Israel is the ONLY middle eastern democracy (I don't count Turkey as middle eastern, and Iran is not a democracy)

      Israel is a rather strange democracy. Candidates cannot stand on an anti-Zionist platform, yet terrorists can nominate themselves if they have a pro-Zionist position.
      Iranwas a democracy, until the US (with the British) decided to install a dictator.

      Why SHOULDN'T we help a democratic nation surrounded by monarchs and military dictators?

      Many of which, including Saddam Hussain, were either installed or supported by the "West". Anyway "Monarchy" and "democracy" are not mutually exclusive.

      And you're dead wrong on the early days of Israel--American had amazingly little to do with the creation of Israel.

      Yet was one of the first states, if not the first to recognise Israel...

      Picture yourself as a jews whose ancestors have been persecuted everywhere they ever lived.

      Which hardly explains why the Khazars chose to become Jewish.

      Now, if it were up to me I would have carved out a nice chunk of Bavaria to give to the Jews--let the Germans suffer, not the Palestinians.

      The Zionists didn't want Bavaria. Nor did they want somewhere in Africa or South America, which the British actually offered them in the late 19th century. Whilst they wern't offered the Ukraine and part of Southern Russia (basically Khazaria) they would probably have turned that down too. The choice of Palestine was made before the start of the 20th century.

  56. Fay Vincent Is My Cousin by Acidic_Diarrhea · · Score: 1
    You are using a slippery slope argument. This is a flawed manner of argument and you should reflect on your position and correct it. For instance, I could say that since we allow the government to regulate the operation of motor vehicles, it is only a matter of time before the government regulates all aspects of life. This is not accepted as an argument in any standard logic I have ever followed. For more information please see this webpage.

    Now, you ask where do we draw the line? We don't draw the line. The politicians you have elected do. This is a republic, not a democracy and therefore if you are concerned with this problem, contact your representative and find out where he or she stands. I hope you know who your representative is.

    --
    I hate liberals. If you are a liberal, do not reply.
    1. Re:Fay Vincent Is My Cousin by sphealey · · Score: 1
      You are using a slippery slope argument. This is a flawed manner of argument and you should reflect on your position and correct it. For instance, I could say that since we allow the government to regulate the operation of motor vehicles, it is only a matter of time before the government regulates all aspects of life. This is not accepted as an argument in any standard logic I have ever followed.
      You use an interesting standard of logic then. The sequence of events was (1) state and federal governments asserted "privilage not a right" control over motor vehicles in the 1920s. At this time it was possible to survive as a citizen of the United States without a motor vehicle (2) in the 1960-1970 time frame, the way of life in the United States was changed to essentially require a motor vehicle for survival (yes, I have lived in a a large city without a car. Practially speaking 98% of the population of the US requires a car to be able to eat). (3) Now state and federal regulation of motor vehicles can be and is used to control all aspects of life.

      What exactly is illogical about describing that chain of events?

      sPh

  57. Irrational by Tyreth · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Didn't 9/11 teach us that you cannot stop a determined enemy? They had no bombs, no high tech weaponry. They used aircraft, a specialised WMD. This is simply _not_ the way to stop terrorism. A terrorist will get his/her hands on explosives, firearms, or whatever they need regardless of what rules are put in place.

    Imagine a society where citizens are not allowed knives, guns, explosives, anything sharp or slightly dangerous. Now imagine someone manages to sneak a gun/knife through the defenses. How much more damage could he cause because the citizens are undefended?

    My point is basically that if you increase defense it will keep the amount of damage a terrorist can do around the same - the weapons they have at their disposal will be less, but they will need less to do lots of damage. The way to defeat terrorism is to understand your enemy - find out why they hate you. If you have no fault then God will testify on your behalf whether you die or not. If you have a fault - well, then you know what you need to do. Don't get me wrong, murdering defenseless people is evil, but the question is whether the terrorist hate for good reason. Stop their mouths by being without blame - then when they murder ask why. They will stand condemned by their own words.

    1. Re:Irrational by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dood, thyer g0dz h8 r g0dz. Wee mu5+ de5+r0y ther g0dz!

    2. Re:Irrational by Christ-on-a-bike · · Score: 1
      I agree that restricting model rocket motor shipments is foolish.

      But your argument? It's completely irrelevant.

      Imagine a society where citizens are not allowed knives, guns, explosives, anything sharp or slightly dangerous...
      OK, apart from knives, fine. It seems infeasible to ban the inclined plane.
      My point is basically that if you increase defense it will keep the amount of damage a terrorist can do around the same
      This doesn't follow. 9/11 casualties were not caused by 'weapons' (except indirectly by boxcutters) but by planes. Planes are a form of transport. They did damage because they have lots of 'chemical energy' (kerosene) in them.

      Many kinds of concentrated energy storage are dangerous in this respect - petrol, rocket motors, fertiliser. Restricting peoples' ability to accumulate such substances does make sense up to a point. But it's not as if any government is about to ban chemical energy. They will (and should) restrict some things and not others. There is a spectrum of cases.

      A terrorist will get his/her hands on explosives, firearms, or whatever they need regardless of what rules are put in place.
      This is false in general. 'whatever'? What about nukes?

      In summary, your post looks like a well-disguised NRA troll. You say: restricting what individuals can own isn't a panacea for terrorism, hence it is useless. The truth is that, yes, stupid restrictions like for rocket motors will be ineffective, but that this has no real implications of restricting e.g gun ownership.

    3. Re:Irrational by sheetsda · · Score: 1

      Stop their mouths by being without blame - then when they murder ask why. They will stand condemned by their own words.

      The terrorists claim to be followers of Islam, a religion that preaches peace, yet they still kill, maim, and destroy. It is apparent that showing them the contradiction in their behavior and beliefs gets us no where. Additionally it is impossible to be "without blame". I can "blame" you for doing something I see as wrong and you see as right. Who's wrong?

      If you have no fault then God will testify on your behalf whether you die or not
      You're making the dangerous assumption that God exists. The same assumption that the terrorists make that allow them to do the things they do. It'd be interesting to see if we would be in a better world tomorrow if we could eliminate religion today. Of course that's impossible, I'm just musing.

    4. Re:Irrational by cruc · · Score: 1

      I've always loved the "they-got-through-last-time-so-let's-do-nothing" argument. Combining that with the "solve-why-they-hate-you" arguement when it's the very freedom you have in writing that statement that they hate is particularly enlightening. That being said, placing some restrictions on these things makes some sense, but a defacto ban on them is plain old silly.

    5. Re:Irrational by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...but the question is whether the terrorist hate for good reason.

      Not any more. I'm not against hate or any other human emotions. I'm not against dialog as people explore why they feel the way they do. But when hate leads to murder, the line is crossed, self reflection is moot. Your actions condemn you. Your rational is meaningless.

    6. Re:Irrational by eechuah · · Score: 1

      I find it amusing that Americans think that the reason why terrorists target them is because of their freedom. Only American media believes that. Everyone else in the world knows that the reason is because of American administration foreign policy, which tries to:
      1. Shove democracy down countries throats, even if they don't want it; by using forceful tactics.
      2. Topple and encourage rebels to topple regimes to set up "US-friendly" governments.

      The Swiss and other European countries (and also Canada) enjoy pretty much the same level of freedom as the US. Why are these countries not a target for terrorist attacks, then?
      Hint: It has nothing to do with freedom.

    7. Re:Irrational by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know why so many Americans are fixated on the idea that terrorists hate 'American Freedom' and the American lifestyle itself is the target.

      How many of your average anti-American idealistic young Muslims have even been to the USA? Practically none. While islamic states have a pretty tight control over their own population, they are not expansionist usually, rather they tend to be rather backwards and isolationist.

      No, the real thing they hate (and this applies in Europe too, to a much lesser extent of course) is the PERCEPTION of the American way of live, demonstrated by American foreign policy. It might seem hard to someone living inside the USA, but American foreign policy is rather different, often anti-democratic (eg, the number of dictators substantially supported by the USA is ridiculous), and always pushing to change local laws to favour US business interests. Is is this 'cultural imperialism' that evokes everything from "they are our friends, but we wish they wouldn't be so power-mongering" (among the allies of the US) to open hostility (among the dictators who are unlucky enough to get on the wrong side of the foreign policy).

    8. Re:Irrational by poot_rootbeer · · Score: 1

      Didn't 9/11 teach us that you cannot stop a determined enemy?

      Richard Reed was determined to blow up his shoes and an airplane full of innocent people with it. He was stopped.

      Who knows how many other terrorist plots have been foiled without the public ever hearing about it?

      Terrorists hate not because they are taught to hate. Indoctrination trumps logic. There's nothing we, as individuals or as nations, can do to make sure that no one anywhere hates us enough to want to kill us.

    9. Re:Irrational by DuBois · · Score: 1
      In summary, your post looks like a well-disguised NRA troll. You say: restricting what individuals can own isn't a panacea for terrorism, hence it is useless. The truth is that, yes, stupid restrictions like for rocket motors will be ineffective, but that this has no real implications of restricting e.g gun ownership.
      Your post looks like a well-disguised Handgun Control, Inc. troll (HCI, not as well known as an abbreviation). Victim disarmament, whether it occurs on an airplane, in a school, or in a post office, is still victim disarmament. It leads to horrors like 9/11, Columbine, any number of P.O. shootings.

      The truth (wow, now there's a concept) is that governments have disarmed their victims since time immemorial, with the disarmament of the Jews just before the Holocaust being one of the more egregious examples of this trend. Consider the disarmament of 2.5 million Cambodians by Pol Pot as another example.

      Don't troll for HCI by accusing someone else of trolling for the NRA.

      FYI, I am a former member of HCI, would never even think of becoming a member of the NRA (the gun control arm of the Republican Party), and am a proud charter member of the JPFO.

      --
      The IPCC has purposely engineered a massive scientific fraud.
    10. Re:Irrational by sheetsda · · Score: 1

      Most Americans know that's just government propaganda. We reallize the attacks are because Bin Laden is annoyed at our medaling in the war in his holy land. Unfortunately until the ignorant masses stop believing everything they read we can't really use political means to tell the people in power that having troops there has become more of a liability than a help and they should be removed. On the flip side, if the terrorists got what they want we would send the wrong message: that we can be pushed around.

    11. Re:Irrational by Christ-on-a-bike · · Score: 1
      Victim disarmament, whether it occurs on an airplane, in a school, or in a post office, is still victim disarmament.
      Hence the term 'going postal'?

      Seriously, you think "It leads to horrors like 9/11"? I find this incredible. IHBT once again. Wait, you have an argument too... it's that if only the passengers on the 9/11 WTC planes had had guns/boxcutters/whatever, they would have brought the planes down!... what bollocks. It looks like the theory of preventing 'victim disarmament' depends on IDing the victims beforehand. (Smells like racism.) If you're self-identifying as a victim you've already got problems which should disqualify you from gun ownership.

      BTW, it seems to me that 'strong government' by Sharon is doing a nice job of wrecking Israel. Would 'victim disarmament' of certain Palestinians, along with the Jewish settlers, perhaps be a good move? Or do jfpo.org want Hamas et al to keep the 'right to protect themselves' (as they see it)?

    12. Re:Irrational by superyooser · · Score: 1
      Shove democracy down countries throats even if they don't want it; by using forceful tactics

      Right. Freedom isn't for everybody. We Westerners like freedom, but other peoples prefer slavery and oppression. It is arrogant for us to think that government "of the people, for the people, by the people" is compatible with all cultures.

      How high and mighty of us to shove liberty down their throats! Some countries have long, cherished traditions of persecution and torture. If Saddam Hussein tests chemical weapons on his own people, it's none of our business! Who are we to impose our new-fangled Jeffersonian claptrap on authoritarian states whose practices are based on the time-honored tradition of tyranny?

      There is strength in diversity: Democracy, Monarchy, Anarchy, Communism, Nazism, Wahhabism, Fascism. Some people prefer presidents. Others choose autocrats and despots. It's their right to choose their own government.

      </tongue-in-cheek>

    13. Re:Irrational by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

      Right. Freedom isn't for everybody. We Westerners like freedom, but other peoples prefer slavery and oppression. It is arrogant for us to think that government "of the people, for the people, by the people" is compatible with all cultures.

      Turn off your sarcasm for a moment and think: How do you expect to impose democracy on a place like Iraq and have it work? That's the main problem - you can't just tell someone that they will be democratic, they have to do it themselves. Any other method will be viewed as imperialism and dealt with accordingly.

      Most of us would prefer to have democratic neighbors, but we want it to work, and that takes time. We can encourage Iran's democratic movement and support anyone else who chooses democracy, or at least stop funding the dictators who put them down. It really is complicated.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    14. Re:Irrational by Tyreth · · Score: 1
      Additionally it is impossible to be "without blame". I can "blame" you for doing something I see as wrong and you see as right. Who's wrong?

      Absolutely true, no one is without blame. But will a terrorist start because a child steals a loaf of bread from him? No, there are many things that we would consider not something to have blame for. Certainly not something as grounds for genocide.

      You're making the dangerous assumption that God exists. The same assumption that the terrorists make that allow them to do the things they do. It'd be interesting to see if we would be in a better world tomorrow if we could eliminate religion today. Of course that's impossible, I'm just musing.

      I make no dangerous assumptions here about God, there is ample testimony to His existence. I can assure you 100% that the world would not be a better place if you could eliminate God or if there was no religion. Why? Knowing what I know - that the only foundation for government and good/evil lies in the fact that we believe in God - it would open up a world of actions that I could do with no fear of judgment apart from what men can exact from me.

      I really don't care though if you think an atheist can be good. That's something for you to choose yourself. I personally, if I didn't believe in God, would not follow the path of "good", because no such path would exist. And you could make a 1000 arguments to pursuade me to do good but in the end it wouldn't matter if you were right or not because there are no eternal consequences. And I consider this one of the most fatal flaws of atheism - that we know the difference between good and evil, yet such an understanding is irrational if there is no God.

    15. Re:Irrational by Tyreth · · Score: 1
      Why do you say they hate your freedom? That is one of the strangest arguments I have ever heard. I'll tell you some of the reasons that I can think of:
      1. UN sanctions against Iraq - they _hate_ the fact that America is a primary force behind sanctions that result in the starvation of 250 children a day. And yes, the sanctions _are_ responsible. They hate saddam hussein too, but it's a question between the lesser of two evils
      2. US soldiers on Arabic soil - to them this is a great insult/sin or something, I don't fully understand, to have western soldiers in their home countries. When Osama Bin Laden came back from Afghanistan after defending it from the Russians (With the help of the CIA) he was very angry to discover American soldiers in Saudi Arabia
      3. US immorality - whether you agree or not, American culture is saturated with sexual immorality - sex out of marriage, adultery, and much more. Compare this with Muslim culture where the women are covered to help stop thoughts of immorality as much as possible, it makes American appear like a satanic immoral nation. (don't ask why the men aren't covered - it's simply because men have stronger sexual urges than women. the women can control themselves easier).
      4. They hate Israel - the terrorists hate Israel and what they see the Israeli's do. America supports Israel _very_ strongly, and they see this as the reason why Israel gets away with the crimes they accuse it of. I personally lean towards Israel because of the suicide bombings, but I see evil on both sides. But this is what they see - their brothers being murdered by Israeli soldiers, and America cheering them on.

      And so on. It has _nothing_ to do with America's freedom. I have no idea where you got that from, but it is completely wrong. I suggest that you know your enemy before you accuse them.

    16. Re:Irrational by jafac · · Score: 1

      It's very simple to stop a determined enemy. Be more determined.

      --

      These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
    17. Re:Irrational by sheetsda · · Score: 1

      But will a terrorist start because a child steals a loaf of bread from him? No, there are many things that we would consider not something to have blame for.

      How can you be so sure? The Nazis killed men, women, and children based on Hitlers twisted interpretations of religion. There is no pit too low for some to stoop.

      As for your religious arguments, I gave up trying to argue with religious zealots long ago. Your collective mental prison is none of my concern if you wouldn't leave it even given the key.

    18. Re:Irrational by Tyreth · · Score: 1
      As for your religious arguments, I gave up trying to argue with religious zealots long ago. Your collective mental prison is none of my concern if you wouldn't leave it even given the key.

      How can you be so bold in the assumption that I am in a prison - or that I even feel like I am in one? You hand me the "key" of atheism as if it will let me out - I try the key and open the door to a dark, musty room with shadows moving in the corners. Your analogy means nothing to me, because I have been freed through my beliefs, not entrapped. You'll have to use more than that analogy to pursuade me...

      I believe in understanding truth - that it is imperative to reject false thinking and a false belief if presented with truth. If anyone has rational grounds on why religion is a crux then I will accept it. But I'm not interested in your experiences with ignorant christians who say "faith is not possible if we know" because that is irrational. Faith should be based on _knowing_ God is real and being able to prove that. Otherwise it is a self-deception. I'm not interested on your experience with Jehovah's Witnesses who are glorified salesmen, deceived into thinking that their superiors are moral leaders when in fact their organisation is a great vehicle for brainwashing. You think what I believe is irrational? I've never had a question I couldn't answer that deals with religion.

      I have changed my opinion in large ways in the past, and I'll do it again in the future - I respect logic and truth, it's what I look for. But if you presume to have the key to superior wisdom, there is much you don't know. All I can suggest is that you have encountered the many religious normals who don't understand their faith and think that that is a necessary state of being. They don't realise that for their religion to be true it _must_ be rational.

    19. Re:Irrational by mpe · · Score: 1

      How can you be so sure? The Nazis killed men, women, and children based on Hitlers twisted interpretations of religion. There is no pit too low for some to stoop.

      They are hardly the only people to do this. Plenty of people throughout history have used twisted interpretations of religion for warfare and terrorism. We have political leaders and even entire nation states which operate in exactly this way right now.

    20. Re:Irrational by mpe · · Score: 1

      I find it amusing that Americans think that the reason why terrorists target them is because of their freedom. Only American media believes that. Everyone else in the world knows that the reason is because of American administration foreign policy, which tries to:
      1. Shove democracy down countries throats, even if they don't want it; by using forceful tactics.
      2. Topple and encourage rebels to topple regimes to set up "US-friendly" governments.


      Actually the first point isn't actually the case. The US has shown itself perfectly prepared to topple democratic governments. e.g. in Iran and Chilie.
      Democracies are not guarenteed to be "US friendly". Especially if the US government or US corporates want easy access to their land, fruit, sugar, oil, etc.
      Indeed when facing foreign exploitation a democratic government will act to protect the interests of their own citizens and corporate entities. (If they don't they get replaced by those who will.)

    21. Re:Irrational by mpe · · Score: 1

      Turn off your sarcasm for a moment and think: How do you expect to impose democracy on a place like Iraq and have it work?

      By definition you cannot impose democracy.

      That's the main problem - you can't just tell someone that they will be democratic, they have to do it themselves. Any other method will be viewed as imperialism and dealt with accordingly.

      Whatever you call it it won't be a "democracy". Even if such a system winds up holding elections they are unlikely to be free and fair.

      We can encourage Iran's democratic movement

      Don't expect a democratic Iran to be too "US friendly". Overturning the last Iranian democracy, installing a dictator and helping Iraq in the war is hardly a good basis for friendship.

      and support anyone else who chooses democracy

      Where the US government has a big problem is in treating other governments as peers.

      or at least stop funding the dictators who put them down.

      It's one way the US government can be reasonably sure that it has "friends"...

      It really is complicated.

      Actually it's not that complicated at all.

    22. Re:Irrational by mpe · · Score: 1

      This doesn't follow. 9/11 casualties were not caused by 'weapons' (except indirectly by boxcutters) but by planes. Planes are a form of transport.

      It's not as if the planes suddenly came from nowhere. Someone failed to sound the alarm when they started to behave stangely. (Which should have been a complete "no brainer", since the planes did several things any of which FAA documents define as an "emergency".)

      Many kinds of concentrated energy storage are dangerous in this respect - petrol, rocket motors, fertiliser. Restricting peoples' ability to accumulate such substances does make sense up to a point.

      How do you restrict someone's ability to stockpile anything? Especially when terrorists can operate as a group and use false/stolen identities/documents.

    23. Re:Irrational by mpe · · Score: 1

      2. US soldiers on Arabic soil - to them this is a great insult/sin or something, I don't fully understand, to have western soldiers in their home countries.

      Why is that so difficult to understand? Do you think that the average American would be happy to have a bunch of Arab soldiers in the US? The Koreans arn't that happy with US soldiers on their soil either.

    24. Re:Irrational by mpe · · Score: 1

      I don't know why so many Americans are fixated on the idea that terrorists hate 'American Freedom' and the American lifestyle itself is the target.

      Because that is the message the US mainstream media and US politicians give out repeatedly.

      No, the real thing they hate (and this applies in Europe too, to a much lesser extent of course) is the PERCEPTION of the American way of live, demonstrated by American foreign policy. It might seem hard to someone living inside the USA, but American foreign policy is rather different, often anti-democratic (eg, the number of dictators substantially supported by the USA is ridiculous),

      Sometimes even more directly "anti-democratic" installing dictators. Even overthrowing democratic governments, because they don't automatically support the US government or the interests of some US based corporation.

      and always pushing to change local laws to favour US business interests.

      But willing to impose tariffs against the likes of steel and wood, when US industries can't compete.

      Is is this 'cultural imperialism' that evokes everything from "they are our friends, but we wish they wouldn't be so power-mongering" (among the allies of the US)

      The US dosn't appear to have that many allies left, especially when you count the general populations of many countries.

    25. Re:Irrational by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

      By definition you cannot impose democracy.

      Well, you can't. It has to come from the people concerned.

      Don't expect a democratic Iran to be too "US friendly".

      Hadn't you heard? The youth in Iran actually like us. This is important when the majority of your population is under 25. Hell, they even held 9/11 memorials in direct opposition to the ruling clerics.

      Where the US government has a big problem is in treating other governments as peers.

      Witness the recent French-bashing.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    26. Re:Irrational by Tyreth · · Score: 1
      It's not difficult to understand in the way you explain it, but I think the reasons are more than just the same as why an American would be unhappy, perhaps a religious reason. That's why I said it.

      But yeah it shouldn't be too hard for someone to understand.

  58. Something like this actually happened by tanveer1979 · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Once a serial arsonist used paper and gasoline to burn down 350 buildings, killing about 20 people in a month. He was facinated by fire. This happened in the US. For a determined terrorist, it just takes a can of gas, as what happened in Korea where 120 were killed and the man in question was just deranged and mentally disturbed. Banning things like this only cause inconvinience to normal people. Terrorists find a workaround.

    Here in india, owning a gun is a nightmare, there are tonnes of documents and it takes ages. If somebody wants to own a gun it is actually a nightmare to do it legally, and guess what terrorists roam with AK-47s.

    In my opinion, your adminstration has gone mad.
    --
    My Aurora : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o91ZsGwJYyg
    FB : https://www.facebook.com/TanveersPhotography
    1. Re:Something like this actually happened by Abcd1234 · · Score: 1

      And how would giving guns to the law-abiding masses help in this situation? Do you think *you* could take down a terrorist who's aiming an AK-47 at you?

    2. Re:Something like this actually happened by paganizer · · Score: 1

      Well, Yeah.
      I'm a typical 40 year old rural raised North American; if someone is running around with a AK-47 shooting people and I'm armed, that someone is not going to be running around long.
      Shooting a running rabbit with a .22 is about the best markmanship training available.

      As a direct followup to this, I doubt very seriously we are going to see many terrorist ground attacks involving projectile weapons in Rural N. America, except possibly in places where the government has made it illegal to carry.

      --
      Why, yes, I AM a Pagan Libertarian.
    3. Re:Something like this actually happened by mpe · · Score: 1

      And how would giving guns to the law-abiding masses help in this situation? Do you think *you* could take down a terrorist who's aiming an AK-47 at you?

      A terrorist is going to be bolder going after civilians they know won't have any guns. They might not be so bold facing the other end of several AK-47s.

  59. only a problem with shipping by fermion · · Score: 5, Insightful
    The restriction is that a carrier cannot accept shipment of explosive materials unless the employees dealing with those specific shipments pass certain background tests. Therefore shipping companies, who quite reasonable want to hire the cheapest people at the cheapest rates, are not going to increase their costs and difficulty of finding employees by imposing such addition background checks. As an example of how difficult this is, just look at the increased requirements for the airline baggage checkers. There really are not enough qualified people who are willing to work for the pay and hours the job requires. The article states that only UPS is currently restricting shipments.

    Obviously model rocketry needs engines so that the hobbyist can test their designs, or check if they glued together the prefab cutouts properly. Because there is demand, this restriction opens up some business opportunities. Certain less popular shippers, like Airborne, could hire employees with proper security clearance and advertise the fact. A small surcharge could be added to help defray the added employee cost. Local rocketry enthusiast could work part time building model rocket engines for their friends. There are companies that supply kit that allow you to construct model rocket engines. These could be shipped without the propellent, which could be then be obtained locally. This would allow the individual to build the engines.

    Of course, some of the above solutions my be worse than the problem, resulting in kids blowing off fingers and damaging eyes, but it is all in the name of fear based legislation!

    --
    "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
    1. Re:only a problem with shipping by Peyna · · Score: 1

      UPS is restricting all class 1 hazardous materials (explosives). They never shipped most of them before anyway, but now they won't ship any of them. (At least for the time being).

      --
      What?
    2. Re:only a problem with shipping by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Incorrect. That is *one* problem. The other problem is that individuals cannot possess "explosives" - including the propellent used in all commercially-manufactured rocket engines - without a federal Low Explosives User Permit, which means paying annual fees, submitting to annual inspections by the ATF, and having a squeaky-clean record.

      All for a material which is not really an explosive, used in a technology that is in no way suitable for military operations. And if it were, do you really think the lack of a LEUP would stop a terrorist?

    3. Re:only a problem with shipping by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no it`s in the name of creating a police state. if you outlaw or monitor what could be used as a weapon then you make it harder for people to fight back or defend themselves. that`s where were heading. i challenge anyone here to say it wont happen.

      if 666 becomes a reality (and what the bible sez is true) then you have to wonder how do you go from being a free nation (or world) to a world ruled by one man demanding you must take the mark and worship him or else! it couldn`t happen over night people would rise up and fight back. but if your rights and freedom`s and the means to organize and defend yourself are slowly taken from you.. then yes it can happen (and will).

      no i`m not a doomsayer or some smug selfrightous "bible thumper" like you see on tv. i just want people to stop looking at things and events that are going on now and shrug thier shoulders and say big deal. rather i wish people would take a longer view of what is happening and ask why? will we really be better off with a cashless society, or having are children chip implanted like dogs or cattle? i enjoy the level of talent that is here at /. but, what good is it all if 666 becomes a reality? i mean how much is it going to matter how great Liunx is over windows if the world ends up in the most horrible time where if you don`t obey, take the mark and worship this guy.. you can`t buy or sell anything!! so how are you gonna live, feed your family, or survive? and those who refuse the mark get to go to prison and or be killed...

    4. Re:only a problem with shipping by fermion · · Score: 1
      I am not sure if what you say is correct. If one needs to get a low level explosive permit from the ATF that would certainly restrict access. Explosives appear to be unavailable to people under 21, people who have served time of one year or more, known drug addicts, and people who have violated ATF regulations. The over 21 thing really sucks. On the other hand, the licensing fee appear to $100 for the first year, and $50 for renewal, and the NAR claims you can apply for a permit without also applying for permission to store the explosive. Finally, it is unclear that these regulation affect the existing exemption for sporting and recreational use.

      I think this would really potentially affect the hobby shops. If all rocket engines are going to be classified as explosives, then they would need to get the ATF permits, build proper storage facilities a certain distance from inhabited structures, and run background checks on their customers. Therefore, I assume that if what you say is true this would put an incredible burden on retailers, and we would see some significant backlash. While big box retail stores may have some facilites set up to handle explosives, I think most hobby shops do not.

      --
      "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
  60. Whoops! by Greyfox · · Score: 1

    Better pick up your copy of Backyard Ballistics before it gets banned and taken off the market. I wouldn't buy it off Amazon though, or you'll get tagged with that new "potential terrorist" flag. Check out what the people who bought the book also bought. Somewhere out there is a guy who's building a potato-launching warrior robot that can make oragami paper airplanes.

    --

    I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

    1. Re:Whoops! by Tackhead · · Score: 1
      > Somewhere out there is a guy who's building a potato-launching warrior robot that can make oragami paper airplanes.

      And when he does, we'll be there.

      Slashdotters: Melting web servers for Homeland Security since 1997!

  61. Hybrid rockets by pfdietz · · Score: 0

    You can (or could) buy hybrid rocket engines using rubber or plastic as the fuel and nitrous oxide as the oxidizer. These aren't explosive by themselves, so they should evade these limits.

    1. Re:Hybrid rockets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, but you still need black powder to eject the parachute. So either way, you need a LEUP (low explosive users permit).

  62. Even Saddam gets to have Missiles! by hydertech · · Score: 1

    Damn, Saddam Hussein gets to have MISSLES that can go up to 150 km. downrange, but I can't play with my little rocket toys from Estes?

    I just hate to think of all the little kids not growing up being able to say "Dad, light that candle!:

  63. Not very surprising... by TygerFish · · Score: 2, Insightful

    A nice broad, sweeping, law always seems to be a great idea for people involved in legislative groupthink and there is real irony in the this example.

    Considering the many, well-understood, and readily-available ways of the creating the means for blowing up--hint: *never* apply heat or spark to vaporized gasoline--a legal dragnet that impedes access to things as innocuous as model rocket moters is pure irony.

    You've got to laugh imagining some bearded guy shouting at another, 'put away that fertilizer and help me scrape out nine-thousand number threes!'

    We have proof positive that our government is run by people who were expected to make laws for Disneyland.

    --
    To mail me, remove the 'mailno' from my email addy.
    "Yeah. It smells, too..."
    1. Re:Not very surprising... by Tackhead · · Score: 1
      > Considering the many, well-understood, and readily-available ways of the creating the means for blowing up--hint: *never* apply heat or spark to vaporized gasoline--

      Fuck. Now my car won't start!

      (Maybe this is Dean Kamen's s00per-s33kr1t plan to get us to buy Segways?)

    2. Re:Not very surprising... by DuBois · · Score: 1
      The Art Of Driving

      Now come back to the present while I demonstrate that the identical trust placed in ordinary people two hundred years ago still survives where it suits managers of our economy to allow it. Consider the art of driving, which I learned at the age of eleven. Without everybody behind the wheel, our sort of economy would be impossible, so everybody is there, IQ notwithstanding. With less than thirty hours of combined training and experience, a hundred million people are allowed access to vehicular weapons more lethal than pistols or rifles. Turned loose without a teacher, so to speak. Why does our government make such presumptions of competence, placing nearly unqualified trust in drivers, while it maintains such a tight grip on near-monopoly state schooling?

      An analogy will illustrate just how radical this trust really is. What if I proposed that we hand three sticks of dynamite and a detonator to anyone who asked for them. All an applicant would need is money to pay for the explosives. You'd have to be an idiot to agree with my plan--at least based on the assumptions you picked up in school about human nature and human competence.

      And yet gasoline, a spectacularly mischievous explosive, dangerously unstable and with the intriguing characteristic as an assault weapon that it can flow under locked doors and saturate bulletproof clothing, is available to anyone with a container. Five gallons of gasoline have the destructive power of a stick of dynamite. The average tank holds fifteen gallons, yet no background check is necessary for dispenser or dispensee. As long as gasoline is freely available, gun control is beside the point. Push on. Why do we allow access to a portable substance capable of incinerating houses, torching crowded theaters, or even turning skyscrapers into infernos? We haven't even considered the battering ram aspect of cars--why are novice operators allowed to command a ton of metal capable of hurtling through school crossings at up to two miles a minute? Why do we give the power of life and death this way to everyone?

      It's a really good question. One that legislators ought to be forced :-) to think about before enacting the kind of stupid, fascist, power-grabbing legislation that is the anti-Patriot Act, the Homeland Security Act, and the upcoming anti-Patriot II. Watch for it in a legisature near you. Coming Soon!
      --
      The IPCC has purposely engineered a massive scientific fraud.
    3. Re:Not very surprising... by toddzilla · · Score: 1

      Five gallons of gasoline have the destructive power of a stick of dynamite.

      The explosive force of vaporized gasoline when mixed with air in the right proportions is

      1 cup of gasoline = 5 pounds of dynamite.

      National Ag Safety Database

      So the explosive potential of a full automobile gas tank under the right conditions is truly staggering.

      --
      Death Before Decaf
  64. Dammit! by mrbuckles · · Score: 1

    I have a nephew who's 7 and I've been waiting for him to get a year or two older so we could start working on model rockets together. I spent a couple years as a kid playing with them, and while I didn't get into as much as some people (e.g., I'm no longer a model rocket builder), I remember having quite a lot of fun as a kid. It'd be a real shame not to be able to do this.

  65. Rush the stores by stinkydog · · Score: 1

    Rush the stores. Stock up now before it is to late!

    The open fields of the USA will feel my wrath as I assult them with my cardboard tubes. (My @#$%@$% parachutes always get stuck).

    Good thing I have plenty of ducttape and plastic sheeting for emergeny repairs.

    When they came for me there was no one left to speak.

    SD

    --
    âoeWho knew something as harmless as willful ignorance could end up having real consequences?â
  66. John Ashcroft isn't killing model rocketry... by gravelpup · · Score: 2, Insightful
    The Internet is. And the GameCube. And TV. Etc.

    20 years ago, I was the only kid I knew who was into rockets. And two of the above three things didn't exist yet. You think it's gotten any more popular since then?

    --

    Things are more like they are now than they ever were before.

  67. Blowing things up by angryrobot · · Score: 1

    I can't believe I'm the only one that didn't blow up his sister's My Little Ponies with powdered Estes D engines when they were a kid....

  68. "Tempests" and "Teapots" by ScottKin · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Oh, come on, people!!!

    The conclusions drawn were reactionary. I don't see any reason why there would be any problem with getting bondable & insurable people to transport these "mostly harmless" Estes engines. What to gunsmiths and black-powder enthusiasts do? So, UPS *might not* ship them? No where does it say that UPS will STOP shipping.

    This is nothing but pure "churn"

    ScottKin

    --
    I don't give a rat's behind about "karma" here or anywhere else. Don't like what I have to say here? Deal with it!
    1. Re:"Tempests" and "Teapots" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      UPS delivers guns all the time. Not sure what you are talking about.

  69. Nefarious rockets... by Trevalyx · · Score: 1

    I'm all for modle rocketry, but they CAN be put to negative use.. I us-, er, someone I know used to take foil and tape it very tightly around their rocket, then take it out to a nearby airport that was also used for military aircraft of a cargo sort. Appearantly, the foil showed up on radar... (ever seen chaff, my friends?)
    Also, the person in question managed to put a two-stager through the wing of an ultralight. (He was flying at night! Well, ok, twilight, but he didn't have any lights on! He was merely enforcing the law!!
    This being said, how many modle rocketeers use their rockets for anything more than disturbing the local livestock and having one more excuse to watch flame?
    -Trev

  70. +1 Insightful by Niles_Stonne · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Wish I had mod points.

    This is exactly how I feel as well. Science, which often takes more work than sports, should be celebrated.

    Teachers at all levels need to be paid better as well. The "Well, I'm only an average programmer, so I'll teach instead" mentality/expectation needs to be reversed.

    --
    Sticks and Stones may break my bones, but copyright will always protect me.
    1. Re:+1 Insightful by tgagnon · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Science, which often takes more work than sports, should be celebrated. Being a college athlete I am definately biased on this subject, but that doesn't mean I can't disagree with you.

      Playing football in college I can honestly say that 5 hours of classes, writing essays, studying for tests and doing homework is 10 times easier than going to practice everyday during the season. Unless you've played at least college sports its hard to make someone understand what it takes to really compete.

      What I am not saying is that teacher's shouldn't be paid more or that people in medicine shouldn't be paid more. But I am arguing the fact that athletes should be singled out as example of whats wrong with society. How is an athlete getting paid millions to play any different then a musician making millions off a record or a developer making millions off of some video game? Well, besides taking less work to do the latter.

      You can't quantify merit based solely on whether or not someone's actions saved lives. I mean, what if kids watching sports are more likely to participate in these kinds of activites, leading to healthier and more active lifestyles?

      Sure, some athletes may be paid too much, but there are more people making money in the porn industry than playing sports and yet you never see anyone use that as an example of the problems of todays society.

    2. Re:+1 Insightful by asmithmd1 · · Score: 1

      I am not saying which is harder sports or science; I ask which one should we shoving down kids throats? Sports: benefits the person who participates but generates no collateral benefit for society at large, and there is no chance of making a living doing it. Science: benefits the individual and has the side benefit that every now and then, Cures are found, technologies that save labor and lift our standard of living are found, otherwise a person can make a nice living. Sports should be on a par with video games; OK in moderation but you should not devote your life to them and schools should not have after school programs to encourage them. To get back to the topic they should have after school programs in model rocketry.

    3. Re:+1 Insightful by Vip · · Score: 1

      The problem as I see it is not one of which is "easier". There are people out there with better athletic ability than you or I. There are those with better mental ability than you or I. Artistic ability and so on. Porn-ability. All of these abilities cum^H^Home easier to some than others. I'm sure there are many people who could memorize the table of elements before they could figure out a football play (organized chaos I call it).

      The thing is, when you reach the top, such that you may be one of the 500 best at something in the world (ie. 1/700 hockey players) you now have hit a level where people will shell out $50 to see you play. 16,000+ at one time. 80 times a year. Not only that, but they will pay insane parking , hot dogs, beverage, and souvenier prices on top of that $50. Many pay $100 just to wear YOUR name on their back! Or $15 to have a sign of "their" team!

      It is no longer about "for the love of the game". Insane people spending insane money to watch you play, all that adds up to an insane salary. Look above. Just on tickets alone, that comes out to $64,000,000. Now one of say 25 players says I want $5,000,000 because I'm the "star" attraction,
      is that so bad? The average player earns $1,000,000 (going off the top of my head, but that sounds right), from $64,000,000 is that so bad?

      When you get a job that you can convince 16,000 people to pay $64,000,000 for your team of 25 to watch, then you too will be entitled to go to your boss and say, "I want $1,000,000 or I quit!" If you really are that valuable, and I would argue that the top 700 players in the world probably are, then you will get it.

      Same idea holds for actors or lawyers or doctors and so on. When you are at the top of your field in any of those, you probably make millions.

      Until then, first figure out how much money your employer makes from you, take around 40%, and that will probably be your salary. (ie. They contract you out at $100/hour. That's about $200,000 per
      year, you should be around $80,000 salary) It's difficult in situations where you are a programmer or something, but you get the idea. I read that once, and it's always worked for any job I held.

      Vip

    4. Re:+1 Insightful by Niles_Stonne · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I have to respect you for your dedication. I was unfortunately not as dedicated to my physique and am now trying to turn myself around. It is definitely hard work to do it.

      I think part of the reasons for the differences in payment is just how noticeable the activity is. Someone throwing a Football 100 yards is an impressive, and obvious, feat. It can be seen and any Joe (or Jane) can try to do it. A lot of science on the other hand is so obscure that there is very little obvious change. The concepts of the science isn't understood by the vast majority of the population, and very few people have the ability to reproduce any of it.

      Some activities like Dean Kamen's FIRST (For Inspiration and Recognition of Science and Technology) attempt to fix this by introducing children and young adults to some of the more exciting areas of science and technology (namely robotic competition), but it is still much more of a niche audience than most sports. Other things like "BattleBots", "Junkyard Wars"("Scrapheap Challenge"), and "Full Metal Challenge" are also helping. We finally have Science and Technology based social things that may produce heros.

      --
      Sticks and Stones may break my bones, but copyright will always protect me.
  71. I think he's Joseph Claude Appleby... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who has done more to save lives, increase the well being of everyone and increase our standard of living: Micheal Jorden or the inventor of the MRI
    can you name the inventor of the MRI without google?

  72. Necessity is the mother of invention.. by Choco-man · · Score: 1

    As a kid, i didn't have access to hobby shops, but I did have a desire to make things fly. I also had a town pharmacy and grocery store, and between the two of them, they sold enough materials to make your own gunpowder (won't give the details, if you want to blow your hand off you're going to have to go it alone). Had some kraft paper, and fashioned a plastic mould to shape the engine. viola! home brewed rockets (more often than not, home brewed explosives..sometimes we combined the two 8-) )

    'course, that doesn't address the threat. of course it's a potential threat. but you can just as easily rig a dispersion device to the exhaust of your automobile or the smokestake of an 18 wheeler, tie something to a pigeon, infest a hoarde of fleas and let 'em loose, etc.

  73. more harmful weapons by andih8u · · Score: 1

    Wow, its a good thing lawn darts were outlawed years ago. There's no telling how much havoc those things could cause in the hands of a terrorist.

    --


    slashdot, news for crazed liberal socialist zealots
    1. Re:more harmful weapons by Capt.+DrunkenBum · · Score: 1

      Lawn darts with rocket motors.... Ahhh, good times.

      --

      Not everyone deserves a 320i

  74. ATF is on the lookout... by Zanthany · · Score: 1

    If a /.er were to read the rest of the webpage, including a few of the links, they would have eventually seen this page:

    http://www.space-rockets.com/congress.html

    Sure, on the surface it is a guide for the Tennessee constituency to write to their senators. However, the section titled "Points to include in your letter and Phone call," lists 11 items of contention that are the crux of the matter, and go farther than just saying, "UPS will stop shipping solid rocket motors."

    What the eleven points say in a nutshell:

    1.] Homeland Security Act places undue restrictions on model rocketry

    2.] The ATF has listed the main chemical ingredient in most model solid rocket motors on its explosives list.

    3.] Even though solid rocket motors are flammable and thrustworthy, they are not explosives.

    4.] A hobbyist would have to obtain an ATF permit to buy the motors, and would not allow transport of homemade motors, even from home to field. This allows the ATF inspection access to those permits, which are ususally kept at home.

    5.] All this is bad, Mmmkay?

    I can envision ATF midnight raids on rocket geeks' houses already....

  75. To tell the truth .... by adzoox · · Score: 1
    The boxes all say adult supervision required. However, most kids don't get supervision. Further, most adults let their kids do everything and don't take proper safety steps or make their children follow all the directions anyway.

    These are essentially fireworks that just don't have an explosion of magnesium or phosphorus or other colored under heat element.

    While I hate for the government to ban or limit anything that we do, I have never thought these were safe and should be reserved for liscensed hobby clubs and liscensed demonstrations. Anyone wishing to do this for fun or hobby can join the club.

    I say all this from TWO first hand accidents. My neighbor boy; last summer; his 300ft tilted and hit a house. No damage, but when it shot the parachute it left a dent in the vinyl siding of the home it hit. I have also seen a bottle rocket set an entire BLOCK on fire.

    --
    Yell & scream & rant & rave... it's no use... you need a shaaaave ~ Bugs Bunny
    1. Re:To tell the truth .... by mosch · · Score: 1
      I have also seen a bottle rocket set an entire BLOCK on fire.
      Do you live in the thatched roof district or something? Seriously, there's just no damned way this can happen unless the block was soaked in gasoline in advance, and even then it'd be iffy.
    2. Re:To tell the truth .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, of course, the answer is "More Government"...

      I see... so taking away our freedoms helps the situation how?

      Accidents happen. Shit happens.
      FUCKING DEAL WITH IT.

      How about we put a big warning label on the box that says "You can blow your fucking head off with this" instead of "adult supervision required"...

      Or better yet, how about we stop taxing everybody to death to pay for these stupid social welfare programs that don't work anyway, so a parent can actually stay home with the kids and make sure they don't blow their g-ddamn hands off?

      We have to work until fscking JUNE just to pay our Federal, State, and Welfare (social security/medicare) taxes, which is to say nothing of all the other taxes we have to pay. I wouldn't be surprised if it were more like SEPTEMBER. Are you surprised that parents can't stay home with their kids? They both have to work full time (or more) just to make ends meet, because of fucking taxes.

      The world doesn't need one more socialist or fascist (democrat and republican, respectively) do-gooder thinking they know what's best for everyone. I swear to G-d that if one more of you fucking pansie-ass do-gooders knocks on my door insisting on saving me from myself, you'll have a whole fucking lot more to worry about than your original objective, which will by that time have been replaced with a new objective: "who the fuck is going to save me now?!?!"

    3. Re:To tell the truth .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Parent is FUD. Notice the slippage between bottle rockets and model rockets. Notice the slippage between hitting a house with a carboard rocket and denting the vinyl siding and setting a block on fire.

    4. Re:To tell the truth .... by ninewands · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Do you live in the thatched roof district or something? Seriously, there's just no damned way this can happen unless the block was soaked in gasoline in advance, and even then it'd be iffy.

      Actually, cedar shake shingle roofs are/were quite fashionable in certain high-dollar housing developments in the southern and western US. Unfortunately, if they are not re-treated with fire retardants on a regular basis (and, tell me, just how fire safety conscious do you think your average yuppie homeowner is?) they quickly become little better than palm frond thatching at resisting fire.

      I think it was in 1983 that a mixture of shake shingles (not maintained), freezing temperatures (for SOME reason, people here in South Texas think that if you drip your faucets, the uninsulated pipes won't freeze, of course the Fire Dept won't be able to get adequate flow to fight fires either) and New Year's Eve (Bubba's kids just HAVE to shoot fireworks, weather AND County Ordinances be damned) resulted in a fire that I witnessed. It burned about 50% of a relatively new suburban subdivision to the ground (estimated average home price in the range of $85-95,000 for a "tract home").

      Never discount the stupidity of "normal" people living in large metropolitan areas.
    5. Re:To tell the truth .... by adzoox · · Score: 1
      Ummmm, went into a dry pile of leaves under a tree, tree caught, boards on house nearby caught, two houses on block burned. Try looking through GreenvilleOnline archives.

      My girlfriend was two doors down.

      --
      Yell & scream & rant & rave... it's no use... you need a shaaaave ~ Bugs Bunny
    6. Re:To tell the truth .... by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

      Actually, cedar shake shingle roofs are/were quite fashionable in certain high-dollar housing developments in the southern and western US. Unfortunately, if they are not re-treated with fire retardants on a regular basis (and, tell me, just how fire safety conscious do you think your average yuppie homeowner is?) they quickly become little better than palm frond thatching at resisting fire.

      That tears it. When I build my expensive house, it will be stucco & earthenware shingles (forget the name). Of couse, that won't be for awhile.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
  76. The real threat by worst_name_ever · · Score: 1
    The little cardboard rockets I learned science with in high school are evidently suspected of being potential weapons of mass destruction.

    Nah... the real worry is if the terrorist kiddies get ahold of Estes model rocket technology. They might use it to create weapons of mouse destruction!

    --

    In Soviet Rush, today's Tom Sawyer gets high on you.
  77. Qassam by MrFredBloggs · · Score: 1

    This is the next step in the Isreal-Palestine struggle:

    http://asia.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/02/16/qassa m. facts/
    www.qassam.home-page.org/

  78. even more restrictions in Canada by Lord_Myron · · Score: 1

    I have been trying for years to get Estes model rocket engines in Nova Scotia, Canada where I live. But due to the Canadian classification of them as munitions or fireworks I can't with out special liscence. If I am wrong about this an someone knows where I can get them with out a huge hassel that would be great. I could finally dig my models back out of storage. Lord Myron longlejf69@hotmail.com (MS I know I know)

    1. Re:even more restrictions in Canada by Capt.+DrunkenBum · · Score: 1

      No problems buying them in BC.. Maybe you just need to move out of NS.

      --

      Not everyone deserves a 320i

  79. Ha! Don't be fooled! by HarveyBirdman · · Score: 1
    One of those there Muslim types would just love to get one of our precious Estes model rockets, preferably a multistage, F-size engine model, and tip it with an Illudium Pu36 Explosive Space Modulator! Did you people learn nothing from Bugs Bunny cartoons!? They want to appease their fairy tale god!

    Ban the rockets now! Let them live on in our precious memories and preserve our precious bodily fluids from alien threats! Semper fi fo fum!

    And to drive my point home, I shall now barrage you with exclamation points! Ha!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    --
    --- Ban humanity.
  80. Could the lawyers please stand up? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So, where are the lawyers whom just a couple days were arguing that law IS accessible to the public?

    Read this paragraph taken from the homeland security act:

    >>Section 845. Exceptions; relief from
    disabilities
    >>(a) Except in the case of subsections (l), (m), (n), or (o) of section 842 and
    >>subsections (d), (e), (f), (g), (h), and (i) of section 844 of this title,
    >>this chapter shall not apply to:

    That's easy to understand, clear, legislation of which you were commenting is accessible to the public, right?

  81. how by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0



    You do not understand the Islamic Jihad (This is not standard Islam). The people live under very tight totalitarian control. A fundamental of Islam is, in order to go to Paradise you must have done more good than bad during your life. Any immoral thought will be held against you. Extreme Islamic Nations create laws to help keep its people pure. One group of laws are concerned with what women wear. When people who are brought up under such tight control leave these countries to ones that are far more liberal, they often immediately fall victim to the temptations. Feeling as if Hell is certain, there is only one Islamic Doctrine that could help. This is the Jihad. They are taught to believe that God will forgive them if they were to die in a War against infidels. Atta was seen on many occasions going to strip clubs and getting lap dances on the days prior to 911. It has been reported that he had mentioned that he had nothing to worry about because he would be forgiven. This is also how you recruit suicide bombers.

  82. Waaaay Ooold News... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think it was around 1993 and the Waco Religious Crushing that the BATF clamped down hard on the regulations. Specifically transport and storage of the High Power engines. These use a HTPB formulation with AP and a plasticizer, not Black Powder. Supposedly the BATF or Customs intercepted a shipment to the IRA.

    These are the ones that could lob 100lbs about 1/4 to 1/2 mile.

    Anyway, after that, you couldn't ship or transport the things without a BATF license, and if you had any they had to be stored properly per BATF regs, and you had to have a BATF explosives permit.

    This should be confirmable via Tripoli or other High Power rocketry groups around the country.

    JoeR

  83. bah by nomadic · · Score: 1

    Perhaps by getting involved, we can stop this sillyness...

    Wrong forum. During the next campaign, look at how many /. posters boast about how they're "protesting against the system" by not voting.

  84. Next on the list: by plexxer · · Score: 1

    Red baloons.

    --
    The government's moral compass is controlled by GPS.
    In times of crises, they alter it to suit their needs.
  85. KY Jelly no longer transported by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Because of the Peto in KY Jelly, the lubracant can no longer be shipped due to Homeland security. The Peto might catch on fire when friction is applied. Former President Clinton disagrees with the statements made by Homeland Security stating that no amount of friction could cause a fire from the Peto within KY Jelly.

    KY Jelly in large amounts may creat not only a fire danger, but a community danger as well.

  86. Weapon? I think not? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Surely, that rocket I accidently launched horizontally into a parking lot could never be used as a weapon!

  87. Good thing you didn't read the article. by glrotate · · Score: 2, Informative

    This is about the handling and shipment of hazmat (hazerdous materials). Ammonium perchlorate composite propellant can be quite destructive and we have decided that in order to transport it you should have a permit. Ghastly isn't it?

    1. Re:Good thing you didn't read the article. by MousePotato · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It only makes sense to do so (ie permits for hazmat rated chems). I just hope they don't take it to a really ridiculous level like needing permits for hobby class rockets.

  88. Are they just NOW figuring this out? by vizualizr · · Score: 1

    Maybe this will be enough to get me tossed in jail for conspiracy, but in about 1986, I remember friends and I contemplating what it would take to convert the Estes Alpha III (the one with plastic nosecone and fins) into something with an explosive payload. After all, you COULD take the stock Estes launcher and turn it horizontial.

    We had dreams of a spectacular explosion as we launched it horizontially into some brick wall.

    Of course - thank God, we never did it. Good things that the ideas of a 12 year old don't always match up with the abilities of ourselves later in life. But then again . . .we DID build that bottle rocket launcher on that car ... .

    But thats another story ... . .

    --
    anything i tell you will cloud your opinion.
  89. Guns by iJed · · Score: 1

    Guns are still leagal in the US and they want to ban model rockets? Surely this has to be one of the most stupid ideas of all time.

  90. Model rockets, but not Ammunition?! by mfago · · Score: 2, Funny

    What the fuck: I can purchase 1,000 rounds of 30-06 ammunition, along with a few pounds of power for reloading, but they think that a few Estes model rocket engines are dangerous.

    [sarcasm]
    Outlawing boxcutters I could understand, but this?
    [\sarcasm]

  91. Fuckin A by Sorklin · · Score: 1

    Next to go will be the betty crocker mini-ovens, under the heading of aiding terrorist in cooking up explosives.

    Sheesh.

    They can take my mini-oven when they pry it from my cold dead hands.

  92. The 4th of July is about to get boring... by ChrisKnight · · Score: 2, Informative

    From what I read in the article about the increased requirements for background checks and permits for shipping these low-class propellent explosives, I would have say that it looks like it will impact america's favorite patriotic display as well: fireworks.

    Bush, the killer of the 4th of July...

    -Chris

    --
    -- This sig is only a test. If this were a real sig it would say something witty. --
    1. Re:The 4th of July is about to get boring... by carpe_noctem · · Score: 1

      Nonsense. Who needs fireworks when you can join along with 'ol Dubya for a rousing round of "God Bless America"?

      --
      "Quoting famous computer scientists out of context is the root of all evil (or at least most of it) in programming." - K
  93. The real crime here by Figz · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Although it's sad that we might not be allowed to launch a model rocket again, the real crime here is that our young/unborn children may never get the chance to do it. I have fond childhood memories of rocketry with my dad; I always hoped I could share the same thing with my child some day.

    --
    [figz@figz figz]$ kill -9 `ps -ef | awk '$1=="figz" { print $2 }'`
  94. It's not Silly by Lord_Of_The_Beer · · Score: 1

    Ever thought of it as an Anthrax delivery system.

    Oopps I guess I should not have said that.

    I am not even going to mention RC cars.... Rats did it again.

    I am not even going to think about kites. Doh

    And remember that chemistry kit you had as a kid... Bio-Warfare Centre dude...

    Um what was your name again, better let me get it for homeland security...

    "It is not a question if you are paranoid, the question is are you paranoid enough" Strange Days

    --
    D.A.K.D.A.E.---- Deny all Knowledge, Destroy All Evidence
    1. Re:It's not Silly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A chem set wont lead to biowarfare.
      A chem set would lead to chemical warefare.
      Now that disection kit, petri dishes, and picroscope would lead to BioWarfare.

  95. Look up privateer in the dictionary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's a kind of pirate, not an entrepreneur. However, if you're postualting that the U.S. govt. will be sanctioning independent rocketry enthusiasts to waylay foreign satellites, I stand corrected.

    1. Re:Look up privateer in the dictionary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      privateer or entrepeneur? Either :-)

      --rgb

  96. Depends by RembrandtX · · Score: 1

    Depends on how much E they did first.
    Unless you can think of another reason four children died of strokes at a locked back door.

    Fear might do that to one .. with a bad heart ..
    but four at once .. in the same place smacks of chemical influence.

    I'm thinking that something illegal might have been going on in that club.

    Only takes one person to say 'cops!' in a room full of junkies to create a riot.

    --

    --Ne auderis delere orbem rigidum meum, non erravi pernicose!
    1. Re:Depends by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

      I'm thinking that something illegal might have been going on in that club.

      Give that man a cigar! The first illegal thing going on is that it was operating at all. The Fire department ordered it closed in June.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    2. Re:Depends by anto · · Score: 1

      Heart attacks are common in croud crushing deaths - you dont need drugs - in fact if you want to verify this yourself lie on your back put a good strong board on your chest and get a friend to drive his truck onto the board. I suspect the average person would live not long at all given this treatment. you can simulate the same thing by lying at the end of some stairs or a passage & telling 100 people they might die unless they can get past you.

      I hope they throw the book at the owners & operators of the club.

      And children dont try any of this at home - driving on yourself (or a friend) is a bad thing to do.

  97. DEFCON 5 by wiredog · · Score: 1

    DefCon 5 is the lowest state of alert.

  98. Why use a pea-shooter when you have a shotgun? by Foundryman · · Score: 1

    I mean really, come on. Terrorists have already proved themselves capable of hijacking commercial planes and levelling entire buildings. If you've got the smarts and resources to pull that off, what the hell do you need a model rocket for?

  99. YUp by RembrandtX · · Score: 1

    kind of along the lines of 'make it illegal to buy/carry guns'

    Its not like criminals (the definition of which is 'one who breaks the law') are going to be concerned about .. err .. breaking the law.

    --

    --Ne auderis delere orbem rigidum meum, non erravi pernicose!
  100. Not silly at all. by nlinecomputers · · Score: 4, Funny

    I've done simular things in my past, but to do what you did you had to go beyound what a simple model rocket engine can do. Adding black power to the nose of a rocket isn't in NAR regs last time I checked.

    When I was a teen we got into a war with the local model airplane group. I shot down one plane(it was cool but really it was a damn lucky shot) with my home made missle. Wasn't able to repeat the act as they were able to easily dodge the missles. We were just wasting black power.

    My friends and I ended up designing a semi-wire gide missle using fishing line and a hand held launcher. It wasn't easy to guide(sic) the rocket. You had to fire across the path of the plane and if you ran like hell while trying to drag the wire in the path of the plane you could take it out, if you were lucky and fast enough. It wasn't explosive it used the wire to rip the plane in half. Odd enough the guys flying the planes never called the law on us. I think they just took it as a challenge. They only lost 3 more planes, all repaired, while we must of shot off nearly 30 attempts over that summer and lost or destroyed most of the rockets. As "wars" go I'd say we lost.

    --
    Slashdot, home of supporters of free software, free music, and free speech.Except for Moderators that disagree with you.
    1. Re:Not silly at all. by osgeek · · Score: 1

      Heh, that's pretty funny.

      I have a couple of planes that I fly that I wouldn't mind if someone with a rocket took a shot at it. They were put together from ARFs (Almost Ready to Fly kits), so would have been no big deal to replace.

      However, if someone takes a shot at the plane that I spent weeks building from scratch, I'd have to kill someone.

      Some guys invest hundreds of hours and $10k or more in their planes, so it's probably a bit uncool to screw with them without asking first.

    2. Re:Not silly at all. by nlinecomputers · · Score: 1

      Yeah looking back I was surprised that the law wasn't called on us or they just didn't shoot at us. We did get buzzed a few times.

      The plane we blew up was total loss, the other three had wing damage that probably wasn't any worse then a bad landing. It was very hard to pull off. We were lucky to get what we did.

      --
      Slashdot, home of supporters of free software, free music, and free speech.Except for Moderators that disagree with you.
    3. Re:Not silly at all. by cgenman · · Score: 1

      That reminds me of the lego ramming wars we had as a child. Alternative materials, hidden mass increasers, design documents, energy dispersion patterns...

      It really is a shame that war makes the best engineers. Eventually our study was cut short by an overzealous parent, but in those short few weeks we learned lessons about physics that we would keep for the rest of our lives.

      Thanks for bringing up a few good memories...

    4. Re:Not silly at all. by Zaak · · Score: 1

      We were just wasting black power.

      You shouldn't waste black power. Next time use white power. It may not have soul, but it's easy to find on the Internet.

      TTFN

    5. Re:Not silly at all. by rbrunner · · Score: 1
      I've done simular things in my past, but to do what you did you had to go beyound what a simple model rocket engine can do. Adding black power to the nose of a rocket isn't in NAR regs last time I checked.
      Please see the NAR safety code, in particular, item number 8:

      8. Flight Safety. I will not launch my rocket at targets, into clouds, or near airplanes, and will not put any flammable or explosive payload in my rocket.

  101. LDRS in Danger? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful


    I went to a meet of the Large and Dangerous Rocket Society a few years ago. Holy smokes. They had one rocket that was about 15 feet tall and weighed 80 pounds. When it was launched it freakin' disappeared. I don't mean just for a few moments, I mean even with their radio tracking, they had no idea where it went. Quite awesome. They had to call the FAA before launching the biggies, to make sure there were no nearby flying aircraft, since they fully expected some of those things to go over 30K feet!

    I guess civilian missles are a thing of the past.

  102. Unintended Consequences by AnotherScratchMonkey · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Expect more kids to lose hands as the rising cost of proven motors drives them to switch to basement-brewed bombs.

  103. Cardboard tubes by JungleBoy · · Score: 2, Funny

    Does this mean I'm gonna get busted for stockpiling the little card board tubes from paper towel and toilet paper rolls?

    I just went out and bought some estes engines, I guess I should go buy some more quick.

    --
    "You never know when some crazed rodent with cold feet might be running loose in your pants."
    -Calvin
  104. Get your causality straight! by BobBoring · · Score: 2, Insightful

    For instance, I could say that since we allow the government to regulate the operation of motor vehicles, it is only a matter of time before the government regulates all aspects of life.

    It is because roads are funded with public money and the public uses those roads that the government has any right of regulation for vehicles. We allow the government to regulate the operation of motor vehicles only on public roads or public property in the US. You can drive at any age, drive vehicles of any type or drive vehicles of any condition on your own property. You can have a vehicle shipped by common carrier to any location in the US. As long as you do not operate the vehicle on pubic roads or property you do not have to register, insure or jump through any other regulatory hoops for that vehicle.

    Now, you ask where do we draw the line? We don't draw the line. The politicians you have elected do. This is a republic, not a democracy and therefore if you are concerned with this problem, contact your representative and find out where he or she stands. I hope you know who your representative is.

    Wrong, We draw the lines. Don't contact your government representative to "find out where he or she stands". Contact them to let them know where you as a constituent stand. If your government representative does not represent you and your interests, align with like-minded people and work for getting your reprehensive replaced. Quit allowing the horse to drive the cart. The people selecting representatives, not people abdicating their responsibilities and passively taking on the values of the government, run a republic.

    1. Re:Get your causality straight! by mpe · · Score: 1

      We allow the government to regulate the operation of motor vehicles only on public roads or public property in the US. You can drive at any age, drive vehicles of any type or drive vehicles of any condition on your own property.

      Or anyone else's land so long as you have their permission. Many cars used in motor sport are not "street legal".

    2. Re:Get your causality straight! by carlos_benj · · Score: 1

      If your government representative does not represent you and your interests, align with like-minded people and work for getting your reprehensive replaced.

      Was that intentional or just a bit of serendipity?

      --

      --

      As a matter of fact, I am a lawyer. But I play an actor on TV.

  105. crazy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    another reason why it's good not to be an american...

  106. Soap and iraqi oil by Reinout · · Score: 0, Troll
    .... lift the embargo and let the oil flow.

    Let the oil flow, mix it with a few supertankers of soap, ignite.... No more Saddam!

    Great idea!

    Reinout

    1. Re:Soap and iraqi oil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mod parent up as hilarious.

  107. Model Rocket Engines... how about gasoline or by MrJerryNormandinSir · · Score: 1

    Rocket engines? gee... why don't they ban gasoline
    or Ammonia, Mothballs and... I won't mention the third ingredient.

    1. Re:Model Rocket Engines... how about gasoline or by mightymik2 · · Score: 1

      Gas will be too expensive to buy soon anyway.

  108. More silliness... by jpellino · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    I was told by tiaa-cref that all contributions to my retirement account had to be made by personal check - no more cash, money orders or bank checks - thanks to the Patriot Act it said - guess they don't want me laundering money through my teachers' retirement fund. Guilty until proven innocent seems to be the direction we're heading.

    Hey! What if we all promise to shield the model rocket parts securely in layers of AOL junk mail?

    --
    "Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
  109. Re:2nd Ninnle of the day by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Long live Ninnle Linux!

  110. Snakes in Space by azpcox · · Score: 1

    Oh great! Now how are we going to give poor unsuspecting snakes (albeit the smaller variety) the ride of their lives, or at least until the engine burns out? I swear that snake had a look of sheer terror on it's face when it came back to earth, so maybe there is some truth to this story...

    --
    What exactly do you mean by "Don't touch this button?"
  111. Space!! by lunadude · · Score: 1

    One of the reasons we got to the Moon was a bunch of model rocket enthusiasts! If we outlaw or strongly regulate rocketry, we are depriving our species of potential to get off the planet.

    Yes rockets can carry "weapons of mass destruction", but so can beakers and universities. <sarcasm>Will we be banning them too?</sarcasm>

  112. This fucking administration is retarded. by Wakko+Warner · · Score: 1

    I feel so much safer knowing that terrorists will no longer be able to launch egg payloads several hundred feet into the air. This will surely bring about a swift end to their evil, terroristy machinations.

    Absolutely none of the shit we've done since 9/11/01 has made me feel any safer, but some of it has made me look sillier. I had to take my fucking shoes off twice this weekend on my trip to Vegas. My only hope is that a terrorist doesn't try and smuggle explosives in his grundle or asshole. Drop your drawers for safety, folks!

    Oh well. Bush has secured his role in history as a one-term president, albeit a dangerous one. All this extra stupid bullshit is punishment once he figured that out, I think.

    Take me back to the days of presidential blowjobs; this terrorist dog-and-pony show and Iraq dickwaving is getting tiresome. I sorta miss all the rights I used to have, too. I think I'll go shoot some dangerous model rockets at airplanes and skyscrapers now.

    - A.P.

    --
    "Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War On Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore?"
    1. Re:This fucking administration is retarded. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      get a clue, this has nothing to do with the smaller model rocket engines.

  113. Fewer places to fly them, too by PizzaFace · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Goddard Space Flight Center, outside D.C., had the longest running series of model rocket launches in the country. The twice-a-month launches were well run and closely supervised, but Goddard suspended the program after 9/11. It's a shame; one of my son's earliest memories is a "girl with a green rocket" he saw at a launch I took him to when he was a toddler, and he was excited about flying his own rocket. Now we have to drive 100 miles farther to get to an organized launch.

  114. stupid, however... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    not that I would want to defend the law, because I know too little of it, but nobody (at least not the general public) ever imagined "them" to use an airliner as a huge bomb.
    It isn't very difficult to imagine that somoene could misuse one of those toy rockets.

    But of course, where does it end...

  115. First this, and then other sciences by Wintermancer · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Really, I learned a lot more in undergraduate genetics, microbiology, botany and orgainic chemistry courses on how to be a terrorist than I did by launching model rockets.

    Got Botulism? It might take a while to isolate and identify the proper strain, but terrorists don't have the marketing department breathing down their necks to meet a shipping date. They're patient if they have to be. Once identified, it's just a matter of culturing and refining the toxin.

    Got Ricin? Yes, the lovely castor bean plant (ricinus communis) produces a rather nice toxin. Readily available through many plant stores. A bit of applied organic chemistry lab work, and you too can get the desired organic compound.

    Got GB Nerve gas? Malathion (an readily available and highly used insecticide) and the first component of the binary nerve gas GB are very similar. Any organic chemist worth his money would be able to do some work to make it exactly similar. The other component is isopropol alcohol. You can find that in any drugstore.

    Got FAE? Why bother with ANFO (ammonium-nitrate fuel-oil, the fertilizer bomb that has been used in many, many places) truck bombs? A little bit of applied mechanical engineering and you to can have explosives on par with low-yield nuclear weapons. Sure, ethylene oxide and propylene oxide may be a bit hard to source, but you can use others to get a similar result.

    Or, as was demonstrated by one nutcase in South Korea, all it takes is a determined individual with gasoline to kill many people on a subway.

    Model rockets? Give me a break. Next on the list: slingshots.

  116. US Seeks To Block Spread Of Unpiloted...ctxt by BobBoring · · Score: 1

    Get your causality straight!

    US Seeks To Block Spread Of Unpiloted Aircraft Technologies
    http://www.spacedaily.com/news/uav-0 2n.html

    Next thing I know my model plane will be considered a spyplane if I mount a video camera on it. Actually, I shouldn't give them ideas.

    You are not giving them ideas! They are far ahead of you. Think about it. R/C airplanes and model rockets?... Predator drones and maverick missiles?

  117. rocket launcher by passion · · Score: 1

    When I was a bored teenager (instead of posting to a non-existant /.) I took one of my brother's broken electronic squirt-guns - you know, the things that took batteries, you held down the trigger, and a little electronic motor powered a pump that would continuously shoot water for you.

    Well, I used some gold old American duct-tape, and attached a metal tube from a vacuum cleaner to the side. Next, I attached a backing to the tube, with a little hole in the side. I strung the wires out from the battery pack into the hole in the tube to attach to an estes ignitor. Inside the vacuum cleaner tube was a model rocket with no fins.

    Voila, instant rocket launcher. Unfortunately, I found that combining the wide and short barrel with the lack of fins, gave it some pretty poor accuracy.

    I tinkered with a bit, perfecting the setup until one time that the rocket became lodged in the barrel. I chucked that thing and ran, only to see the grassy area where I had previously been standing get fairly scorched.

    I wasn't a terrorist, just a kid with a curiousity, and an imagination inspired by the movies.

    --
    - passion
  118. Did you people READ the article? by TaliesinWI · · Score: 1

    How the Homeland Security Act Affects You!

    ----snip----
    Question 22: Will model rocket engines like those sold by Estes require ATF permits to buy?

    Answer: No. The ATF plans to exempt all solid rocket motors with less than 62.5 grams of propellant.
    ----snip----

    The PROBLEM is that UPS, for now, is not shipping the engines, because apparently it's too much of a grey area for them; they'd rather just ban them than read the law and _realize_ that these engines don't apply. Fine. There aren't other shipping companies in the US? UPS isn't even the major international shipper, methinks. That honor would be either FedEx or DHL. Regardless, these engines can still be had.

    So OK, as a result of the new law, after May 31, 2004, you can't teach Timmy how to build his own APCP (Ammonium Perchlorate Composite Propellant) rocket motor without having an ATF permit (or more specifically, you COULD teach him how to build one, but you'd need the permit to launch it anywhere but in your backyard.) This does suck, I agree. But I can still go out to a farm field and cook off a paper tube rocket with a B6-4 engine and show anyone who cares to watch how everything works, just like I've been doing on occasion since I was seven.

    Walk into your local hobby shop (the people bitching about all this DO actually buy these engines, right?) and tell him that you'll support him with your business, and if he needs to bump the prices of engines up a bit to cover having them shipped to him by FedEx or whatever until all this blows over, you'll support him. If his stock levels are high, buy a few there. If they're not, order a few and prepay. They're not that expensive, guys, and last time I checked they last for years.

    Yes, the law needs to be changed so any sort of the rocket engines that _were_ OK to build/possess _remain_ OK to build/possess. This means that many of you, instead of being apathetic toward the political process, spend time writing, calling, or E-mailing your congressman or senator and make a good case for why these engines should be exempt. And don't do the "rockets are safe because I could do even more damage with an airplane!" because that'll just get RC airplanes banned. Keep it in the family, as it were. Use anecdotes without hyperbole, about how there are x number of launches per year and how there are next to no accidents, maimings, or death as a result. (Don't have "x" right now, but I'm going to try to look it up.) Maybe be even more nebulous, about how playing with model rockets when you were a kid inspired you to go to work for an aerospace company. I don't care, just use something that they'll read and possibly remember, rather than a negative attack that'll just get round-filed.

    Back to lurking...

  119. High Power rocket motors are impressive by pyrofx · · Score: 1

    but without sophisticated guidance systems and telemetry any weapons utilizing hobby rocketry parts are just an unguided high speed bottle rocket.

    With the explosion of the AeroTech plant in Nevada, rocket motors are harder to get anyway. Several other manufacturers have developed their own motor systems and reloads in their place.

    I personally got out of High Power when the shipping and hazmat fees started to cost as much or more than the motor. Now that the guvment is more involved I do pyrotechnics instead. But that won't last much longer either.

    A couple of pyrotechnics sites in case you're interested.

    Pyrotechnic Artists of Texas
    Pyrofx A pyro site hosted by me

    Ken

  120. Is the US becoming less friendly Innovation by mindlessrabble · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Between the Patriot Act, Digital Millenium Copyright Act and the recent MicroSoft purchase of the justice system; is there room for innovation in the US?

    Will we see innovation move offshore (along with the jobs) to places like Europe and Asia.

    The new restrictions will insure that those currently on top, stay on top; but they may also insure that all of us go down.

  121. Radio Controlled Cars/planes are next... by nurb432 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    They use nitro fuel, which is already under some restrictions, with more to follow..

    I guess hobby's are dangerous..

    Information is dangerous, independent thought must be abolished too.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  122. If there is a demand, UPS will find a way... by myrashka · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Folks - this seems to me a temporary move until the powers that be at UPS find a way to do the following:

    a) comply with the law
    b) cover the costs of complying with that law
    c) make a profit on the ironic side effects of that law

    So just think - soon, the UPS will be offering a special "hazmat" transport service that transports items like these. The downside - it'll cost more...and thus the items transported will cost more. The question is, are there enough people doing model rocketry (and other similarly affected cargo) to make a profit?

    Lawmakers think they have good intentions at heart - and while I think the laws they are recently proposing/passing are extreme reactions to an extreme event, some of them do make sense to respond to the demands of increased security. It's a tough balance - and sometimes, rather than making the laws more specific, it's better for ingenious Americans to find a way to make a profit...and provide a valuable service - while allowing the Government to do their job - protect us.

    That being said - I oppose many parts of the Patriot and Homeland Security Acts - simply because there's no way to bypass an individual's privacy and liberties...something both of these acts threaten to do....

  123. puh-leaze by smack_attack · · Score: 1

    What good is an unguided rocket anyways? That is so 1981 Hezbollah.

    Everyone knows all the terrorists these days are using C4 strapped to RF model airplanes. Try shooting that down with a Patriot missile.

  124. Guns don't kill people, people kill guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I can mod any semi-auto gun to spray full auto into a crowd and get a hell of a lot more casualties out of it (not that you need full-auto to kill), yet John Asscroft isn't banning guns anytime soon.

  125. Everyone is missing the point by JustAnotherReader · · Score: 1

    The article that was banned from "Extremem Rocketry" magazine was not about cardboard tube rockets. Extreme rocketry is about metal rockets with very powerful solid fuel engines (or sometimes hydrogen peroxide based chemical engines). They go so high as to make an Estes rocket look like a paper airplane.

    This is not to say that it still isn't a stupid, paranoid thing to try to block an article from being published. But the original Slashdot article and the resulting comments should at least comment on what is actually happening.

    Base your comments on what the article actually says, not what slashdot told you it said.

  126. Guns are OK though? by FungiSpunk · · Score: 1

    Umm gotta love the States, can't build a model rocket, but I can own a powerful rifle/shotgun!
    Come to the UK, we got a right to do sod-all!

    --

    "I kill you! You no good 56'ing!"
  127. Why not model airplanes by codepunk · · Score: 1

    I would consider a model airplane many times more dangerous than a estes rocket. A plane could easily be constructed of balsa tha would fly many many miles to a intended target and spray a chemical agent. With just a little more work and a few cheap computer parts and a gps receiver it could be made to do it without a manned operator.

    This stuff is getting way out of control.

    --


    Got Code?
  128. No More Fun by ashitaka · · Score: 1

    Model Airplanes.

    Model Rockets.

    Although, nothing could beat the etheral beauty of a Laundry Bag Balloon at night.

    The things that made our childhood fun. All banned, restricted, outlawed, legislated.

    "This is a free country isn't it??!!"

    No.

    --
    If you don't want to repeat the past, stop living in it.
  129. Not the way I figure... by LR_none · · Score: 2, Interesting
    ...the plain simple truth is: terrorism most likely will not affect you!

    This is the type of comment that, given appropriate airtime, could really help George Bush, John Ashcroft, Don Rumsfeld, and Tom Ridge plan a beautiful future for this country. In fact, I bet they have a team out looking for examples of ridiculous statements like this one made against counterterrorism efforts, as material to use in debates when rational people challenge the equally polarized and ridiculous statements the Administration makes in support of its counterterrorism agenda.

    The people affected by the 9/11 attack were much more diverse than those of us who worked in lower Manhattan and had our lives turned upside down for a few months afterward. If one counts those people who were affected by the U.S. equity markets being shut down for four days, airline travel interruptions that lasted for weeks, and telecommunications in and out of the northeast being disrupted for months, the circle is much, much larger. And this was one incident, of which there will certainly be more. Contrary to what misterhaan thinks, if you are an American citizen, terrorism will most likely affect you, eventually if it hasn't already.

    All that being said, I don't believe stocking up on duct tape, developing comprehensive data surveillance systems, or banning model rockets are appropriate responses to the problem. But I support better airline and customs security, better immigration systems, and the Patriot Act, among other things, as necessary steps to avoid the type of lifestyle currently enjoyed in places like Israel and Afghanistan.

  130. Estes Shmestes... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Build your own rocket and cannon too, check it out:


    Backyard Ballistics

  131. Real delivery capability by briancnorton · · Score: 1

    The regulations as I understand them will only affect BIG ASS engines, not Estes Size-E. But lets look at an estes size E for a second. Building a three stage E class rocket could be done in a few hours for less than 50$ each, and could deliver a payload of a couple of ounces to a ground location a few(?) miles away without anybody seeing what happened. A couple ounces of a hardcore chemical weapon could have a very serious physical and psychological effect. Multiply this by 1000 and you have a serious problem. they could be set off remotely, so even if they did lose 20% they would still be effective, and nobody would go near the launch site to collect evidence.

    --

    People who think they know everything really piss off those of us that actually do.

  132. missing the point by BigBir3d · · Score: 1

    UPS and probably soon FedEx as well as various big shipping companies (train and semi-tractor trailers mainly) have been getting their necks rung over all of the Homeland Security stuff. HazMat is a pain in the ass. Always has been. Now it is even worse! There are various levels, 1,2,3 etc. Model rocket engines fall into Class 1. Most companies that don't specialize in HazMat just don't want to deal with it anymore. Surprise inspections, increasing costs, bonded drivers, background checks for everything. If you look at it as a matter of money in vs. moeny out, it is a waste of time for a common carrier to do this stuff.

    And this is not taking into account of all the other Federal regulations involved (OSHA etc).

  133. Re:Again the response bears no information by Isao · · Score: 2, Informative
    Sometimes there are legitimate concerns regarding potentially explosive devices. Remember that airplane crashing in Florida because of the fire in its cargo hold.

    That fire was caused by an improperly stored oxygen generator, which was also incorrectly marked as inactive. ie: The person shipping it (an internal parts transfer for the airline) screwed up.

    There are upwards of fifty of these devices in every commercial airliner flying in the world at this moment (some 2-3000 aircraft over the U.S. alone), with none of THEM going off accidentally.

    If someone can properly ship me a steak in dry ice, there should be no problem getting a properly packaged C5 engine to me.

    No more road flares either, I take it?

  134. What Next? by LHN · · Score: 1

    What next, punkin chunkers?

  135. If you like model rockets... by osgeek · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I used to fly model rockets years ago, and really enjoyed it.

    About 4 years ago, though, I got into remote control (RC) airplanes. That hobby kicks ass. It's not all that expensive, as far as hobbies go. You can get into it for less than $500, then your additional costs are minor if you don't wreck your plane much.

    It's absolutely amazing what a good RC pilot can do with his airplane. The thrust to weight ratio of these planes is well over 1, so it's possible to hover the airplanes in midair.

    Having flown both standard sized and model aircraft, I can tell you that the skills you need to develop for both are roughly the same. Flying model airplanes is a shitload cheaper and less likely to get you killed, though.

    My biggest regret is that I didn't get into the hobby sooner. As with most things, the younger you are when you start, the better you'll be.

    If you're interested, go by any good airplane hobby shop, and there will be some airplane geek there who can tell you how to get started. Better yet, just go to the hobby shop to look around, then ask them where the local model airplane fields are. An airfield will be run by a club that has people who can give you good advice on how to get started and train you how to fly. Plus, you'll get a really good chance to see what you're getting into, if there are some decent pilots showing off.

    One word of advice regarding flying: It's a crapload harder than it looks. Everyone thinks that they'll be flying their first time out. In reality, you'll likely not be flying by yourself for your first 5 outings. Take things slowly, and you won't have to do a lot of plane rebuilding.

  136. Re:What a boring post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hi.
    Um... This is... well
    Ah. To get straight to the point, this is the most boring post ever.

    Really. There is nothing boringer (that's not really a word... look it up on Google [google.com] if you don't believe me).

    Just to clarify...
    the article is not boring...

    the parent post to this post is not boring...
    it is solely this post that you are actually (why are you?) reading right now.

    I'm sorry
    I didn't want to be boring, but I can't help it
    I read boring books and watch boring movies, and eat boring food.

    I am boring

    not as in "I am a boring person", but "I am boring" or "Boring is me"... I=boring=me.

    Sorry, I just had to clarify.
    Anyhow, please don't be so boring either...

  137. Mod Parent up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Mod Parent UP...

    Hi.
    Um... This is... well
    Ah. To get straight to the point, this is the most boring post ever.

    Really. There is nothing boringer (that's not really a word... look it up on Google [google.com] if you don't believe me).

    Just to clarify...
    the article is not boring...

    the parent post to this post is not boring...
    it is solely this post that you are actually (why are you?) reading right now.

    I'm sorry
    I didn't want to be boring, but I can't help it
    I read boring books and watch boring movies, and eat boring food.

    I am boring

    not as in "I am a boring person", but "I am boring" or "Boring is me"... I=boring=me.

    Sorry, I just had to clarify.
    Anyhow, please don't be so boring either...

  138. Bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Science, which often takes more work than sports, should be celebrated.

    Oh look, another "We're smarter than the jocks" comment. Whatever.

    If you do the sciences professionally, that's work. If you play sports professionally (or, gasp, to get a college degree), you're working damn hard, and up against equally dedicated competitors.

    Just because someone shoved you in a locker in high school dosen't make you better than someone who actually likes to compete and stay in shape.

    1. Re:Bullshit by Niles_Stonne · · Score: 1

      That wasn't a "We're smarter than jocks" comment, that was simply a statement that there are more types of "work" than lifting or moving something. Sitting down and _really_ thinking about something, or researching, or trying to figure out how two apparent different results can actually mean the same thing can take a tremendous amount of work. Perhaps the "often" should not have been placed in my initial comment.

      Tell you what, you get off your "Just because someone shoved you in a locker in high school dosen't make you better than someone who actually likes to compete and stay in shape." horse, I'll get off my soapbox, and we can treat eachother with respect and recognize that both science and sports do take work, and damn hard work to be at the top of the field (either figuratively or literally).

      --
      Sticks and Stones may break my bones, but copyright will always protect me.
  139. Mod it up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Mod Grandparent UP...

    Hi.
    Um... This is... well
    Ah. To get straight to the point, this is the most boring post ever.

    Really. There is nothing boringer (that's not really a word... look it up on Google [google.com] if you don't believe me).

    Just to clarify...
    the article is not boring...

    the parent post to this post is not boring...
    it is solely this post that you are actually (why are you?) reading right now.

    I'm sorry
    I didn't want to be boring, but I can't help it
    I read boring books and watch boring movies, and eat boring food.

    I am boring

    not as in "I am a boring person", but "I am boring" or "Boring is me"... I=boring=me.

    Sorry, I just had to clarify.
    Anyhow, please don't be so boring either...

  140. Not really that bad by cr@ckwhore · · Score: 1

    I guess you could build a harmless rocket that shoots up into the air a few hundred feet, or better yet... you could build your own cruise missle ... which do you think is the bigger threat?

    --
    Skiers and Riders -- http://www.snowjournal.com
  141. This is why .. by The+AtomicPunk · · Score: 1

    This is exactly why people need to fight ALL kinds of prohibition - from model rockets, to guns, to hemp.

    As our forefather, Thomas Paine so aptly said:

    "He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even
    his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he
    establishes a precedent that will reach to himself."

  142. Beware America, lest in your search for security by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You appease "W" the Warmongerer.

    The greatest griefs are those we cause ourselves. - Sophocles

  143. Clamping Too Hard For Their (and our) Own Good by istartedi · · Score: 1

    Without easy legal rocket motors, what will happen?

    Illegal motors.

    If the authorities think terrorists are planning to use model rockets to deliver weapons (anthrax? Ammonia+Chlorox binary chemical weapons?) then as it stands, they can track them. I'm sure Estes wouldn't mind letting them peruse their records so they could search for suspicious purchases by suspicious people.

    Now, under a regime where model rocket motors are illegal, the bad guys will just roll their own. So will jr. high students, and they won't be anywhere near as safe as Estes. The number of kids who get their fingers blown off will far exceed the number of terrorists who get their fingers blown off.

    But wait, it gets worse. It will get harder to track suspicious purchases because there won't be any major sources of the critical components--just many and various sources of precursor chemicals and supplies.

    Bottom line? Clamping down on the hobby is objectively pro-terrorist, just as appeasing dictators is objectively pro-fascist. Or, to put it in terms that they can understand: They are unpatriotic and, won't somebody please think of the children?.

    --
    For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
  144. It does sound silly... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A determined terrorist doesn't need a kit to build a boxcutter.

    A determined terrorist doesn't need a kit to build a cardboard box full of gasoline.

    A determined terrorist doesn't need a kit to build a...

    SB

  145. Bad model rocket ideas by spreer · · Score: 2, Funny

    When I was young, my preferred place to set off model rockets was in a field across the street from the Isreali embassy in DC. In retrospect, probably not such a good idea, and definately not such a good idea now...

    spreer

    1. Re:Bad model rocket ideas by Clay+Pigeon+-TPF-VS- · · Score: 1

      There is not even a field there now. Problem solved.

      --
      Viral software licensing is not freedom, it is in fact GNU/Socialism.
  146. I can understand why... by Jerry · · Score: 1
    I am a retired science teacher and building Estes model rockets was one activity the kids loved to do. Twenty five years ago only the A, B, C and D engines were common. The D's had the power to move a the third stage of a well designed rocket to around four thousand feet.

    A couple of weeks ago I took my grandson to a Hobby Shop to get a model kit the we could work on together. What stunned me was the size and power of the E, F and G engines, especially the G engines. They are not black power with Aluminum power mixed in. They have enough impluse to launch a small C4 or RDX charge a significant distance.

    But, I don't believe they should be outlawed... only registered so authorities can know who the hobbiests are and who are not.

    --

    Running with Linux for over 20 years!

  147. call me crazy... by interactive_civilian · · Score: 1
    but, perhaps the parent post should be modded "insightful"?

    It's a strange world we live in...

    --
    "Empathise with stupidity, and you're halfway to thinking like an idiot." - Iain M. Banks
    1. Re:call me crazy... by amunter · · Score: 1

      somebody oughta sell tickets...

  148. Shhh! by Chope · · Score: 1

    Don't tell them about submarines!. Imagine the explosive combinations!

  149. Probably not good for NASA in the long term by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I would bet that most engineers & scientists at NASA greatly enjoyed building model rockets, and this was a factor in so many people being attracted to the field.

    That, and being able to say, "Yes, I am a rocket scientist."

  150. Other materials? by mOdQuArK! · · Score: 1

    Well, if they're placing restrictions on shipping these items because of potential dangerous uses, then this should be shortly followed on restrictions for shipping matches (match-head pipe bombs), right?

    Oh yeah, and all those campfire starter magnesium blocks - they're good at starting fires which can't be put out. If you grind them up, you get some great flash powder.

    How 'bout the pyrotechnic powder in road flares? If you get rid of the sawdust they dilute the stuff inside with, it might burn quite fast - and would have a really brilliant red glare :)

  151. Message from the NRPEWA: by Bingo+Foo · · Score: 2, Funny

    If rocket-propelled explosive warheads are outlawed, only outlaws will have rocket-propelled explosive warheads.

    --
    taken! (by Davidleeroth) Thanks Bingo Foo!
  152. How much *security* is enough? by Infonaut · · Score: 4, Insightful
    America has turned into a nation of fucking whimps. It seems these days that there's nothing that can't provoke us into paroxyms of fear. I saw the cover of Newsweek magazine at the checkout stand yesterday, and the cover story was about anxiety. The graphic was a faux-cutaway of a man's brain, and the two big looming "anxieties" were pictures of Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden.

    Give me a break. Why not show a picture of a Chevy Cavalier? The odds are far greater that the car will run your ass over in the parking lot, than that any terrorist-related act will impact you.

    Does anyone actually take Tom Ridge seriously? Tape up your windows and keep a first aid kit at hand? That reminds me of the "nuclear attack" drill in the Army: Lie down in the the lowest spot you can find and cover your eyes.

    Canada has more guns per person than the United States, but they have less than 50 gun-related deaths per year. Why is that? It's because the Canadians don't live in fear. Yoda had it right, fear *does* lead to hate, and to violence as well.

    The European countries, primarily Britain, Germany, and Italy, have faced their share of terrorism over the years. None of those countries became police states.

    We're all blissfully driving our SUVs around, fat, dumb and happy, and wondering why so many people think of us as spoiled, scared, pathetic, naiive idiots. In a similar fashion, our children will grow up and wonder why everyone else around the world laughs at us when we call ourselves the "land of the free and the home of the brave."

    Before you jump to conclusions, I was an infantry officer in the US Army, I'm not a liberal, and I don't eat granola for breakfast. I'm just sick of watching this country slide further into slack-jawed idiocy.

    --
    Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
    1. Re:How much *security* is enough? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Paying the price again for who they believe buy their magazine.

    2. Re:How much *security* is enough? by DuBois · · Score: 1
      Why is that? It's because the Canadians don't live in fear. Yoda had it right, fear *does* lead to hate, and to violence as well.
      "A life lived in fear is a life half-lived." -- Baz Luhrmann, Australian, in "Strictly Ballroom" (actually Baz Luhrmann admits he didn't write this himself, but stole the line from some Oz TV show -- listen to his commentary on the Strictly Ballroom DVD)
      --
      The IPCC has purposely engineered a massive scientific fraud.
    3. Re:How much *security* is enough? by BFaucet · · Score: 1

      I don't think this is about security at all. I think it's about keeping america scared. People in fear buy news, and people in fear will cheer the burning of the Bill of Rights and the Constitution.

      It's exactly what's going on in starwars... as cheesy as it is to relate the government to starwars, Bush, Rumsfeld and Ashcroft are turning this country into a totalitarian state and people are cheering them on because Bush keeps them in fear with a war that we can't afford.

      --
      -Derick
    4. Re:How much *security* is enough? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not a liberal,

      When the hell did "liberal" become a dirty word, anyway? Is this YA thing we can blame on that Reagan asshole?

    5. Re:How much *security* is enough? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree. America, it's time to get of the dime...and put the show on the road... Thank you very much

  153. Re:up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Mod Great-grandparent UP...

    Hi.
    Um... This is... well
    Ah. To get straight to the point, this is the most boring post ever.

    Really. There is nothing boringer (that's not really a word... look it up on Google [google.com] [google.com] if you don't believe me).

    Just to clarify...
    the article is not boring...

    the parent post to this post is not boring...
    it is solely this post that you are actually (why are you?) reading right now.

    I'm sorry
    I didn't want to be boring, but I can't help it
    I read boring books and watch boring movies, and eat boring food.

    I am boring

    not as in "I am a boring person", but "I am boring" or "Boring is me"... I=boring=me.

    Sorry, I just had to clarify.
    Anyhow, please don't be so boring either...


  154. Bush has his head up his ass *AGAIN* by MrIcee · · Score: 1
    Another perfect example of our government with it's head firmly planted up it's ass.

    What's next... let's ban MATCHES and LIGHTERS... GOD KNOWS, SOMEONE MIGHT TRY TO LIGHT THEIR SHOES ON FIRE.

    LETS BAN PROPANE HEATING... THEY MAKE PERFECT BOMBS (just ask me about dropping propane tanks into a lava tube... nice explosions result - and no, we didn't do it in the park boundries).

    LETS BAN GASOLINE... YOU CAN MAKE NAPALM WITH GAS AND SOAP -- AND IN FACT, LETS BAN SOAP!!! THESE ARE ALL WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION!!!

    Stupid asshole government - does everything in its power to keep us citizens in fear. QUITE FRANKLY... we should haul these self-elected assholes into a nice 5 x 9 cell on ground of terrorist threats against the citizens of america.

    1. Re:Bush has his head up his ass *AGAIN* by kirisu · · Score: 1

      Bah, just a little tank of propane? A propane tanker blew up under a bridge by my house a couple weeks ago, now that is an explosion.

    2. Re:Bush has his head up his ass *AGAIN* by MrIcee · · Score: 1
      wow, cool :)) I bet that was spectacular. Was that the one I saw on the news?

      It's kinda hard to drive a full tank of propane over a 2000 degree lava field to reach the tubes... not to mention you'd blow out the tires on the hot lava ;))

    3. Re:Bush has his head up his ass *AGAIN* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      get a fucking clue, it doesn't effect rockets under 62 grams, and it's the *shipping* companies that started the ban.

  155. Re:I by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You'd like that, wouldn't you?!
    Mod Grandparent UP...

    Hi.
    Um... This is... well
    Ah. To get straight to the point, this is the most boring post ever.

    Really. There is nothing boringer (that's not really a word... look it up on Google [google.com] [google.com] if you don't believe me).

    Just to clarify...
    the article is not boring...

    the parent post to this post is not boring...
    it is solely this post that you are actually (why are you?) reading right now.

    I'm sorry
    I didn't want to be boring, but I can't help it
    I read boring books and watch boring movies, and eat boring food.

    I am boring

    not as in "I am a boring person", but "I am boring" or "Boring is me"... I=boring=me.

    Sorry, I just had to clarify.
    Anyhow, please don't be so boring either...


  156. I work for NASA by sjonke · · Score: 1

    When I was a kid I once shot a model rocket into the sky with, instead of a parachute, a ziplock bag filled with kerosene. Had it landed on a roof I would have likely ended up a terrorist. Fortunately it didn't. Anyway, my Mommy used supplies left over from the Gulf War to duct tape me to the fridge and I was pretty harmless from then on.

    --
    --- What?
  157. How about aribags? by FreeMars · · Score: 1

    Are they going to outlaw transporting autos also?

    A late model car has quite a bit of pyrotechnics: multiple air bags, seat belt pre-tensioners (anything else?)

    --
    Email: slashdot3@FreeMars.org (Address will be abandoned when it gets spam.)
  158. Re by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    RE re re... like the song... ok. Fine. here it is.


    Hi.
    Um... This is... well
    Ah. To get straight to the point, this is the most boring post ever.

    Really. There is nothing boringer (that's not really a word... look it up on Google [google.com] [google.com] if you don't believe me).

    Just to clarify...
    the article is not boring...

    the parent post to this post is not boring...
    it is solely this post that you are actually (why are you?) reading right now.

    I'm sorry
    I didn't want to be boring, but I can't help it
    I read boring books and watch boring movies, and eat boring food.

    I am boring

    not as in "I am a boring person", but "I am boring" or "Boring is me"... I=boring=me.

    Sorry, I just had to clarify.
    Anyhow, please don't be so boring either...



    P.s. You guys are no fun

  159. Terra-ists? by jmorse · · Score: 1

    When I was a kid we used to rig these things to blow up by taking the parachute out, filling the nose cone with ground match heads, then taping it shut. The backfire from the engine would ignite the match heads, and you'd have a nice fireworks display. They weren't exactly a weapon of mass destruction in those days, but they certainly were cool.

    Of course, there was that time I launched one at a group of stuck up preppies sun bathing at the pool...maybe that's what the government is worried about. I mean, it would take a hell of a lot of rocket engines and a good bit of MacGuyvering to create something truly destructive from these.

    --

    "You done taken a wrong turn."
    -Bill McKinney, in Deliverance
  160. You're all pissed off at the wrong folks by ellem · · Score: 1

    The US Gov't hasn't banned anything related to model rockets.

    Looks like UPS & Fed Ex has decided not to ship these items.

    This is hardly a ban.

    Sometimes reading the article related to the post is important. (But not if it is Microsoft related!)

    --
    This .sig is fake but accurate.
  161. Having done both... by aepervius · · Score: 1

    ... I totally disagree with you on sport being far more Tiring/consumming. Having done both at competition level I can say you I was far more tired after making a conference than having competed for my university team. At worst, brain usage is still consumming more of the ressource your body has than ever a sport will make you do.

    That said, brain & intellectual stuff is deprecated in comparison to art, sport, game and what so ever and this is truly a shame. The outside apparence has over won over the inside.

    --
    C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
    visit randi.org
  162. Remote-controlled planes already used by Tony+Shepps · · Score: 0
    According to the NYT a few days ago, a car in Gaza, containing a bunch of Hamas guys, mysteriously blew up. Strangely, the car also contained a remote-controlled toy plane.

    Hamas blamed it on Israel, issuing a statement saying that the men had been working on a small remote-controlled plane, which they evidently planned to use in an attack, but that Israel had booby-trapped the planes before they got to Gaza.

    The more you know... These folks had a story last month about the ordering of the toys "for Palestinian children in hospitals" but finding that the planes never reached the children.

  163. banning and regulating (often the same) by Derek · · Score: 1
    Except they aren't banning rocket motors at all.
    No, they're just making it a requirement to have a BATF issued LEUP (Low Explosives Use Permit) to use motors with over 62.5 grams of AP based propellent. This means that most hobbyists will be shut out. The paperwork, time, and expense involved in getting this "permit" is simply too much for most hobbyists. And, frankly, is a waste of time for BATF agents. Do you really want these agents spending their time driving all over the state to verify magazines for storing model rocket motors, and reviewing all the additional paperwork, and doing all the additional background checks, etc.... Shouldn't those agents be out chasing bad guys?

    Shipping them is still quite legal too- the only issue is that companies would have to license their employees with the ATFE under new regulations to be able to ship them.
    Replace the word "ship" with the word "transport" and you can see the problem with this. It isn't just UPS/FedEx that has this problem, but EVERY HOBBYIST who wants to transport his motors out to the launch site. Unless I burn ALL my motors in the next month or two I will soon be stuck with a bunch of rocket motors that I am not allowed to launch in my neighborhood, that I'm not allow to transport to a safer launch site nor am I allowed to throw them out in the trash.

    1) AP based propellent is NOT a good explosive. Believe me, I've used this stuff for years. It makes a good rocket propellent because of its safety and its consistent and slow burn rate. (Under 100 PSI pressure it burns at less than 1 inch per second, compared to black powder at 2700 inches per second. Even slower under normal atmospheric pressures and a sudden drop in pressure will actually extinguish the burn.)

    2) Please regulate the crime not the tool! Isn't that what the whole DMCA issue is about? Isn't that why we hate the MPAA/RIAA, they are trying to regulate the technology itself rather than simply regulate specific uses (for which laws already exist).

    3) Model rockets are fun and educational and it makes me angry to see the US government kill my hobby for NO GOOD REASON. This hobby has been going on for decades without any problems. The NAR and TRA have good relationships with most govermental bodies. We police our own because no hobbyist wants to see his launch site shut down or his hobby taken away by irresponsibe behavior. Every launch I've attended had a safety officer inspect every rocket before it was flown.

    4) Model rockets as a delivery system? Please! Build a few an evaluate that for yourself.

    The government just doesn't know when to back off, and model rocketeers simply don't have a big enough lobby. American tax dollars being wasted. End of story.

    -Derek

    1. Re:banning and regulating (often the same) by mpe · · Score: 1

      AP based propellent is NOT a good explosive. Believe me, I've used this stuff for years.

      The last thing you want with a solid fuel motor is for it to explode when ignited. It's dangerous and makes an expensive mess.

  164. The inventor of the MRI by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wasn't it Michael Jordan?

  165. Damn Straight by inKubus · · Score: 1

    Yeah, I think the current system has done a fine job of putting a lot of needless fear into everyone. I think that we all forget that we are all humans, and most (99.999%) of us do not have any serious desire to kill one another.

    Frankly, I would have a hell of a time punching someone, let alone shooting them dead.

    But now they have us all believing that there are a lot more psychos in the world than there really are. And when you think about it, their tactics are kindof self-defeating, because sooner or later, they will run out of suicide bombers.

    I think, honestly, that they are using this thing as an excuse to lock down this country a little more, so that the people with the money and power and prestige can keep that stuff, and so we can live the rest of our lives giving it too them. I don't think it's communist Indymedia craziness to say that some people in the world are hoarding wealth, not for any reason other than to keep it from the common man.

    Maybe it's necessary from their point of view, to "keep the status quo", as they have everything they want right now and don't want to lose anything.

    But putting me on the spot for wanting a little of it for myself, and saying I'm supporting "terrorism" because I want a little bit of stuff for myself, and putting into effect stronger and stronger laws to prevent me from ever having the opportunity to get a little bit for myself is WRONG.

    Why are we fighting FOR THEM NOW? How did they turn us around so quickly from the way we felt in the 90's, when we actually started to achieve a little something for ourselves, after the long, cold war of fear and distrust? Finally we stopped being nervous that an imminent nuclear war would destroy the world. And look at what the economy did! We didn't CARE about bombs, fear, anything else. We just were LIVING our lives, in the NOW, and everything was wonderful. And the general public was becoming more and more aware of the control the mass media and HUGE corporations have over them.

    Now they have us running in fear of nuclear weapons, chemical weapons, germ warfare all over again! Who CARES?

    Bah.

    --
    Cool! Amazing Toys.
  166. Simulate by PingPongBoy · · Score: 1

    Just as supercomputers are being used to simulate nuclear weapons, use supercomputers to simulate model rockets.

    --
    Know your pads. One time pad: good for cryptography. Two timing pad: where to take your mistress.
  167. Hydrogen and Oxygen by seigel · · Score: 1

    Forget soap and gas, we need to BAN air and water, you could make some wicked long range rockets or explosives with these!!

  168. Forget Delivery.. by enigmabomb · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I fly model planes as a hobby. Quite frankly, even for dangerous than a rocket, is a plane. For 150 dollars I have can put a plane in the air with a camera that can take pictures, clear pictures, from several hundred feet in the air. Did I mention it only costs a few bucks to put LEDS on it and fly it at night? Banning model rockets is silly, They won't lift much reliably.

    -enigmabomb-

    --
    Some people tell me I am sleeping my life away, I simply tell them I am living my dreams.
  169. What concerns me... by beagle · · Score: 1

    Like many of you, I grew up launching model rockets every Saturday, and I have long wanted to take up that hobby again, but have not done so. It is sad to see that this hobby may die because of some stellar amount of idiocy in DC, but what concerns me more is that UPS and other shipping contractors may also start refusing shipments of small arms ammunition.

    The second amendment to the US Constitution assures citizens the right to keep and bear arms, and its purpose was to ensure that the citizens can fight back against an overbearing government. If you can have arms but no munitions, you might as well not have the arms. This part of the Homeland inSecurity Act could be used to effectively deny citizens the right to keep and bear arms, and that scares me.

    1. Re:What concerns me... by ChristTrekker · · Score: 1

      Kind of like the snooping of libraries under the (un)PATRIOT act. Sure you may have the right to say/print what you want, but we'll bust you for listening/reading. :P The freedom of speech/press necessarily includes the freedom to listen/read. The freedom to keep arms must necessarily include the freedom to keep ammunition.

      Technically, UPS is a private company, and they can refuse business if they want to. (There are plenty of cases where companies are told they cannot refuse business from certain groups, but we won't go into that now.) You're free to start a competing company. However, if that refusal is due to coercion by government, that's a different story.

  170. Is Ariel kite photography now gonna be banned? by asscroft · · Score: 1

    As if the big ass kite tethered to your person is the most ideal way to spy. Oh yeah, I'll be doing that around the nearest military base. Whatever. I'd be better off going to the nearest hill with a telescope. (btw, I'm not a spy. so fuck off carnivore!)

    --
    because I have been enjoined by this Holy Office to abandon the false opinion which maintains that the Sun is the centre
  171. Help out rocketry, put the ATF in its place by bclugston · · Score: 1
    John Wickam, a former NASA engineer, is trying to get an exemption passed through the US Senate for amateur & hobby rocketry. Please help by contacting your US Senator (preferably next week). Here is John's post from Rocketry Online:

    "To all ARSA Members & ALL of ROCKETRY, Next week, we will be calling on all fifty states to write and phone their US Senators. This will be in support of an exemption for rocketry materials from the Safe Explosives Act. A major announcement will be made next week in the US Senate and we want to time your letters and phone calls with that announcement. We will be putting up information you need on "talking points" for your letter and phone calls plus the names of all your Senators, their addresses, fax numbers and phone numbers. This information will be provided on:

    http://www.space-rockets.com/congress.html

    Please notify as many people as you can about this so we can get a major response from our fellow rocketeers. This will be the time many of you have been waiting for, we must not hold anything back. I cannot stress how important a big response from each of you is to the success of this effort. We will be sending and posting more information as the time approaches. For now, get the word out on the street to assemble the troops and get ready for action.
    You may repost this anywhere you wish.
    John Wickman"
  172. Makes me wonder... by cr0sh · · Score: 1
    ...when they will go after this site for this experiment...

    BTW - check out the other experiments on there - cool stuff...

    --
    Reason is the Path to God - Anon
  173. WMD don't kill, people do ! by kotku · · Score: 0, Redundant

    No because it is people that kill, not WMD. WMD(be they biological, nuclear or chemical), automobiles, rockets, baseball bats, hammers, knives, and many other implements/tools can be and are used to kill people. Do we outlaw automobiles, rockets, baseball bats, hammers, knives? No, of course not ...

    --
    The bikini - security through obscurity since 1943
  174. Hyperbole, thy name is Slashdot. by Scratch-O-Matic · · Score: 1

    Please people, I'm begging you. This article says NOTHING ABOUT BANNING MODEL ROCKETS. Read the article, or get a life, or both.

    --


    Evil is the money of root.
    1. Re:Hyperbole, thy name is Slashdot. by DuBois · · Score: 1
      I've read the article. There are more ways to ban a model rocket than are dreamt of in your inane capital letters.

      First, they restrict storage. Then, they restrict transportation. Then, they restrict buyers. Then, they restrict sales. Pretty soon there's a "ban" without anybody having "banned" anything.

      --
      The IPCC has purposely engineered a massive scientific fraud.
    2. Re:Hyperbole, thy name is Slashdot. by Scratch-O-Matic · · Score: 1

      Thank you for the Ben Franklin quote, which I haven't seen in several hours.

      My post was in response to comments such as 'guess they consider model rockets to be weapons of mass destruction now.' The fact is that the new legislation deals with the movement of hazardous materials, which happens to cover model rocket engines. If people are concerned about how the new restrictions affect model rocketry, it would be a worthwhile effort to influence the legislation, or to lobby the shippers to go through the extra trouble of certifying their personel. Fabricating ridiculous claims about the feds targeting model rocketry, on the other hand, is not a worthwhile effort.

      --


      Evil is the money of root.
  175. Model Rockets and Am241 Smoke Detectors by BigBlockMopar · · Score: 1

    I hate to be the one to point this out, but if you have produced chemical or biological agents and you are still using a 12-year-old's toy as a weapons delivery system, you are such an incompetent terrorist that you deserve the misfire your under-powered, chemical-agent-laden hobby rocket is going to produce shortly before those chemical agents are sitributed to a very small area surrounding your person.

    I think the engines themselves, being pre-assembled mass-produced products, are likely to be more reliable than the alternative delivery systems. Terrorists have used bomb timers hacked to the alarm outputs of old watches and stuffed into old boom-boxes for years. The model rocket engine will be more reliable, and likely that delivery system will be more reliable than any practical alternate delivery system - kites, hijacking crop-dusters, etc.

    Consider the requirements if you want to spray crap over a crowd. Build a model rocket. Instead of the parachute, fill the rocket with the crap you wish to spray. Fire the rocket with a 9V battery and an igniter. When the engine blows the chute ejection charge, your crowd has been sprayed.

    If you were a terrorist on a suicide mission, you'd go to the center of the crowd and point it straight up. Otherwise, you'd try to point it away from you.

    How could you launch it in a crowd? A small model rocket, capable of 300-500 feet and running off 1/2 A engine, could be fired from a piece of 3" diameter PVC pipe in a briefcase: Flip it open, press the button, and it's done.

    As a kid, I used to fire things up to D engines with PVC tubing; I had a very effective shoulder-mount missile launcher.

    Model rockets have terrorist applications. That doesn't mean we should ban them, of course. But, let's face facts, we need to be vigilant. If an Arab guy came into my hobby shop, bought some model rockets, and asked me where he could buy 3,000 smoke detectors, I'd be getting his license plates and calling the FBI.

    --
    Fire and Meat. Yummy.
    1. Re:Model Rockets and Am241 Smoke Detectors by klparrot · · Score: 2, Insightful
      If an Arab guy came into my hobby shop, bought some model rockets, and asked me where he could buy 3,000 smoke detectors, I'd be getting his license plates and calling the FBI.

      I would hope that you'd call the FBI regardless of whether the guy was of Arab descent.

    2. Re:Model Rockets and Am241 Smoke Detectors by Robocrap · · Score: 1

      lol, that's 1) so fucking rude 2) reckless thinking on your part... you should be suspicious of anyone acting suspiciously... otherwise thanks to stupid asses like yourself the next terrorist act will be perpetrated by some 35 year old blonde mormon from utah who you didn't think twice about selling questionable equipment to ...timothy?

    3. Re:Model Rockets and Am241 Smoke Detectors by BigBlockMopar · · Score: 1

      lol, that's 1) so fucking rude 2) reckless thinking on your part... you should be suspicious of anyone acting suspiciously... otherwise thanks to stupid asses like yourself the next terrorist act will be perpetrated by some 35 year old blonde mormon from utah who you didn't think twice about selling questionable equipment to ...timothy?

      Yeah, sorry, I didn't mean "Arab", I mean "Amish". Most modern terrorists are Amish; they're an angry people who feel they've been slighted by all us infidels who use microwave ovens and washing machines.

      Imagine being beaten to death with a hoe... Actually, I think people have threatened to do that to me before...

      All those gas station attendants in Pennsylvania had better be careful about those horse-drawn wagons filling up with diesel...

      --
      Fire and Meat. Yummy.
  176. Read much? by RyanAXP · · Score: 1

    No offense, but are you an idiot? I ask because clearly, only an idiot could have missed the dripping sarcasm of the post to which you replied.

    Yet you flamed away anyway, never bothering to READ what people have written...

    1. Re:Read much? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No offense, but are you an idiot? I ask because clearly, only an idiot could have missed the dripping sarcasm of the post to which you replied. Yet you flamed away anyway, never bothering to READ what people have written...

    2. Re:Read much? by RyanAXP · · Score: 1

      No offense, but are you an idiot? I ask because clearly, only an idiot could have missed the dripping sarcasm of the post to which you replied. Yet you flamed away anyway, never bothering to READ what people have written...

    3. Re:Read much? by raretek · · Score: 1

      "No offense, but are you an idiot?"

      At times, yes.

      "I ask because clearly, only an idiot could have missed the dripping sarcasm of the post to which you replied."

      When you're done wiping the drool from your chin, take a few breaths, and repeat after me:

      I will not post a reply in which I call another an idiot, as a reply to the reply in which I call another an idiot.

      You feel better yet genius?

      Ya know clown, Sarcasm isn't always apparent. And yes I do read quite a bit, and write, and I also drip sarcasm at times myself.

      But when you grow up and graduate high school, you'll recognize that Sarcasm isn't always apparent and that you yourself, will miss it at times. Let's hope you won't think yourself an idiot for doing so.

      --
      Show me an effect without cause and then I'll believe in chaos.
    4. Re:Read much? by raretek · · Score: 1

      The sign of too much education: One vainly imagines themself better than others.

      Result? They do something idiotic like posting replies to themselves, with the original post they're replying to as the "reply".

      Bravo, non-idiot, bravo.

      --
      Show me an effect without cause and then I'll believe in chaos.
  177. So what you're saying is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...we need a law to keep Arabs out of titty bars!

  178. I'm a closet rocket geek by MojoRilla · · Score: 1

    I'm not sure I should admit this, but in 1984 I was the National Association of Rocketry's national champion for people 14 and under.

    Oh, and the national meet was in Houston that year, and I illegally transported rocket engines in my luggage

    Does this mean I'm on the FBI and homeland security watch list? Are they reading my brain waves from orbit? Have they put a spy cam on my cat? Are they looking for spent rocket casings in my garbage?

  179. Other hobbies, too by yndrd · · Score: 4, Funny

    Model railroaders can tell you that rail fanning (the act of watching trains do train-things in their natural habitats such as yards) is in danger, too.

    Many railfans are being harassed by police who have a lot of pointed questions when they see a sixty-year old man in a Casey Jones hat pointing binoculars at empty boxcars.

  180. CRAZYest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is the second stupidest thing that home land securety has done (the first being trying to get rid of guns). These people must be !@#$ing crazy with a capital C (and a capital ! for that matter).

  181. super ninjas - realultimatepower.net by jason99si · · Score: 1
  182. Re:You know....Cost Benefit Analysis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Do you know how many 'accidents' there are in America each year, with kids making their own bungers/pipe bomb?
    The medical costs of eyes, hands and burns?
    I suggest authorities allowed the sale of these motors in preference of mon/dads DYI liquid fuel rockets. Burns are horrible.

    So we ban something safe, while dad, and a bunch of his friends cook up a storm. Yes, chemistry is still taught, and Americans are self reliant. Licences and ration books suck, but the mighty buck does not. Prohibition lessons remain unlearned.

    A cost benefit analysis screams don't do this, because there is so much bullet propellant around. Once handguns are banned, and a licence to buy bullets is compulsory, maybe such a move will make sense.

  183. Dangerous for animals, Not humans. by t0qer · · Score: 1

    When I was a kid I went to live with my grandma. She got me into model rocketry seeing as how I was into all the technology stuff.

    We had gotten back from toys-r-us with an estes clear payloader. This was the 6th rocket I had built that year and I was getting pretty good at it. I had the little base for lining up your fins at perfect angles, my sanding and painting techniques were downright perfect.

    I looked at my creation in awe, this was truly one of the best rockets I had ever built.

    Roaming around the backyard something told me to roll over this huge rock by the fountain. Rolling it over, I saw the usual pill bugs, worms and such, but there was something strange and black squirming around in the dirt. I picked it up, and noticed there were 2 pin sized black eyes staring at me. It was a newt.

    "Astronewts!" was the first thing that popped into my head.

    My grandma was famous for getting those little german candies in the metal tin, so I cleaned out an empty tin and place the "astronewt" inside the container, hopped on my bike and rode down to the schools field.

    It was one of those hazy overcast days, one of those days that model rocketrist hate because it meant tracking your vehicle was near impossible when it was nothing more than a speck against the pale grey sky.

    "Mr. Astronewt, you're going to be the first newt in space!" I told the little guy as I struggeled to get him into the payload compartment. I stood back the normal 15' the control wire would allow. I could see him in the chamber now, wiggling and squirming, as if he knew his own fate.

    "Houston this is Astronewt oh one, we're ready to begin final countdown"
    "Roger that, 5-4-3-2-1"

    All the skill I had put into this rocket had paid off, the C6-7 engine shot the rocket up towards the heavens faster than any previous rocket I had built. I counted.

    1-2-3-4-5-6, Main burn complete, counting down parachute deployment, 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 *POOF*

    The wind had caught the parachute, and I could tell that I had better get hopping on my bike to go chase it down.

    About a mile down the road was another school, and my good fortune landed my rocket right in the middle of that field. I rode up, did my classic 180 by locking my rear brakes and looked inside.

    "A sad day of mourning for americans, as their first "Astronewt" died during launch today"

    I wasn't entirely sure what had happened. Did he die from shock? Too many G forces during parachute deployment? What?

    But anyways, onto some "ontopic" commenting

    Model rockets for the most part are completely safe. I cannot fathom anyone being able to use them for anything more than an annoyance, because you cannot control their flight path, other than pointing and praying they hit their target.

    Perhaps a better ban would be anything RC. RC cars and planes come to mind first. Strap a X-10 wireless camera and some C4 to your favorite RC vehicle and you have a really nice remote control bomb.

    Alternatively, you could also use a single board computer coupled with GPS and write your own guidance/flight software to make a cruise missle. So I guess we should ban single board computer too because they are light enough to be used in a homemade cruise missle.

    Ashcroft, get your fucking head out your ass you fucking tard.

  184. Go to a High Power rocket launch!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Every single geek reading ./ needs to go visit a high power model rocket launch. If you *ever* played with Estes models as a kid you *owe* it to yourself to see what the other end of the hobby is like. You want to do this - you just don't know it yet.

    The 'High Power' model rockets comprise the 'H' through 'N' rocket engine sizes - and they totally rock! you can loft cameras, radios, altimeters, and palm pilots to your hearts content.

    The next letter in engine size represents a doubling of the total impulse over the previous size.

    I got my Level One certification last fall - that means I can play with 'H' and 'I' motors. My certification flight was on an I-161 to something like 5200 feet. (!!) This spring I hope to fly and land my Level Two rocket and move up to the 'J' and 'K' motors. That is.. as long as AssCroft and his jack booted fun police in the BATFE don't ruin my day.

  185. America's not Cowardly, Our leaders are by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Homeland Security bill was enacted to protect the politicians and "Captains" of industry who are the likely next targets of terrorism. They will sell out your rights to protect themselves. I for one would like to see one of our leaders stand up and say "We know the terrorists are out to get us, but I am confident the America will be able to replace us if we are lost and continue on."

  186. Just goes to show by Hard_Code · · Score: 1

    We need a Schoolyard Missile Defense system NOW!

    --

    It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
  187. Too true. by tjcoyle · · Score: 1

    I recently revived my love of model rocketry, building a couple of new rockets with my girlfriend.

    Having recently relocated to an urban area from a sparsely populated suburban town, I relied on my girlfriend's suggestion of using a park located on the outskirts of town for our much-anticipated launching.

    Launch date came, and we headed off to our planned site. Much to my surprise, the suggested park was located DIRECTLY at the base of our local international airport. This was made evident by the large, rumbling underbody of a 747 roaring off to faraway places only a couple of hundred feet above our heads.

    Needless, to say, launch was scrubbed. The rockets work just fine as decorative objects, anyway.

  188. Wow by baldass_newbie · · Score: 2, Informative

    The fact that oil is mostly priced in dollars and that everybody is dependent on it is a good portion of what makes the dollar so strong. If too many people price their oil in euros, the dollar loses demand and may inflate a whole lot due to the sudden oversupply of currency.

    This might be the dumbest argument I've ever seen. Congratulations.

    --
    The opposite of progress is congress
    1. Re:Wow by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

      This might be the dumbest argument I've ever seen. Congratulations.

      Wait ten years.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
  189. Jamie Lee Curtis Is My Cousin by Acidic_Diarrhea · · Score: 1

    Look up the definition of a republic again genius. And you can't drive vehicles of any type because the manufacturing process has to be such that certain emissions are curbed dumbass. You're talking nonsense and therefore I'm not going to waste any more time on you. In conclusion, you're probably Muslim.

    --
    I hate liberals. If you are a liberal, do not reply.
    1. Re:Jamie Lee Curtis Is My Cousin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nice argument, fucko. How again is the US a republic? Demonstrate the last time public opinion has caused bush to back down or take is easy? Yeah. That's what I thought. It's only democracy if those in power ACT on the belief and convictions of it's constituents.

  190. Dork! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Right. Stealth ICBMs, launched from whitebred suburbia, rising straight up for a few hundred or a couple thousand feet, and then falling straight down.

    I bet you voted for Bush.

  191. This is ridiculous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The handbook of Model Rocketry by the only official association in the world states that any interested hobbyist WILL NOT USE model rockets to deliver payloads that are weapons!

    Futher, the FAA limits model rockets to under 1 pound, unless you have written permission from them for a larger one.

  192. No, it's not stupid by njdj · · Score: 1

    It would be stupid if the purpose were to increase our safety or security. But that's not its purpose at all.

    Its purpose is to help to persuade a lot of ignorant voters that their government is "doing something" about security. It will probably succeed in this. So it will do what the politicians want it to - help them get re-elected.

    It's harmful, damaging, takes away freedoms, etc and is therefore bad for the USA. But if you think it is stupid, you just don't understand what motivates politicians.

  193. MOD PARENT UP by grommet_tdi · · Score: 1

    "War with a local model airplane group"? Are you kidding me? I laugh my freakin' arse off everytime I think about it.

  194. Kang and Kodos... by ukavu · · Score: 1

    "That board may have defeated us, But the humans won't stop there, they'll make bigger boards and bigger nails and soon they will make a board with a nail so big it will destroy them all...hahahahaha"

  195. Hold the phone ... by yusing · · Score: 1

    Now *where* did I see that site about making rocket engines out of *duct tape* ?

    --

    "You must try to forget all you have learned. You must begin to dream." -- Sherwood Anderson

  196. Sports, Science, different by Hug+Life · · Score: 1
    While I respect everyone's opinion, you have missed two critical points about the payment of athletes.
    One:If you think athletes are overpaid, you haven't paid attention to corporate structure recently.
    CEO's of businesses which are losing money still get huge salaries, stock options and bonus packages. For losing money, for whoring our environment, for not caring about public health, these people get tens of millions of bodies.
    Two: Pro sports destroys your body
    Being a scientist is cooler than being an athlete, because, for one thing, you can still walk at 45. 70% or more of retired football players get debilitating arthritis. Countless other athletes retire and 10 years later can't even lift their children. Keep your money, I want to be able to hold my grandchild.

    It's easy to bash those that are living what you perceive to be an easy life, but take all the factors into account first. Sports and science have both done wonderful things for my development as a human being. Finally, neither is easier than the other. One day it may be easier to go to the lab, the next it may be easier to go to the gym, depends on the day. -js

  197. By the Walt Disney Company by yerricde · · Score: 1

    Is Ariel kite photography now gonna be banned?

    I don't know about aerial kite photography, but Ariel kite photography is already outlawed in Title 17, United States Code. The Walt Disney Company holds exclusive rights under copyright in The Little Mermaid, accidental dick tower and all.

    --
    Will I retire or break 10K?
  198. Why not ban mothballs, ammonia, and lemon juice? by MrJerryNormandinSir · · Score: 1

    Do any of you know what you can make if you cook these ingredients up correctly? I think the Patriot act is anything but. I've been flying model rockets with my kids for years! They are going to force hobbyists to create a small kerosene/hydrogen peroxide engine. Gee.. a solid rocket propellant is a lot safer. Next thing you know anyone with a brain that thinks for themselves will be thrown in a concentration camp. If we start outlawing everthing then the terrorists won.

    www.amazing1.com has a schematic for a weird
    rocket engine, I'm going to check that out.
    I have no clue if it will work with my homebrew
    rocket powered glider.

  199. bwahahahaha..... by dfj225 · · Score: 1

    Yes....with my amassing of model rockets I will take over the world! What's this? Bah! ... They're on to me! Fools! My plan foiled!

    --
    SIGFAULT
  200. We can all agree? by hugesmile · · Score: 1

    While we can all agree that child porn is bad

    I had a conversation with my friends R Kelly, Pee Wee and the principal from Ferris Buehler's Day Off, and they didn't agree! Michael Jackson was undecided.

    this sort of approach starts us down a slipperly slope

    I DO love pron with slippery slopes.. what's the URL?

    Not sure what "slipperly" means... is Hugh Hefner "slipperly" when he is in his robe?

    1. Re:We can all agree? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Michael Jackson wasn't nailed for child porn!

  201. Fuck the ACLU by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Listen Duffian, the ACLU is a special interests organization. They only support extremist entities that are threateded by US law and the Constitution.

    The ACLU, more than anything they do, attempts to remove our freedoms as Americans.. and all freedom loving individuals of the world. They do this through deception and lies. Hmmm, sounds much like Mr Hussein to me.

    Saying to us, become a member is like saying to us, become a terrorist.

  202. Ban July 4 Displays! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Time to ban "the rockets red glare, the bombs bursting in air" that we associate with the celebration of our freedom on the fourth of July!

  203. WMD don't kill people, I do! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    just wrote the comment for the subject line

  204. How Times Have Changed by cjsnell · · Score: 1

    When I was a kid, my father and I were *really* into model rocketry. We had, I think, at least two hundred Estes rockets--at least one of every model they made. Where we live, it's hard to find places free of tree cover so guess where we went to launch them? Fort Sam Houston! We went to an Army post to launch our rockets. We'd drive over to the parade grounds, set up our launch pad and launch all afternoon. Occaisonally, the MPs would stop by and watch us (more out of interest than concern) but nobody ever told us to go away.

    These days, you can't even *get* on Fort Sam Houston without a military ID and I'm scared to think about what would happen if you launched a model rocket there.

  205. Flying Bombs by rynthetyn · · Score: 1

    We had a rather eccentric neighbor who was ex-military (WWII, Korea, and Vietnam), and who worked on one of the US missile systems (patriot, I think). Anyway, one day he was telling my mom about how easy it would be to put a bomb on a remote controlled airplane, fly it in to someone's house, and then detonate it, with no one knowing what happened. Thing is, he probably could have done it himself with stuff in his garage or something.

    Let's just say that he was the sort of neighbor you wouldn't want to get mad at you. He wouldn't blow anything up (at least I don't think he would), but he's the sort of guy that, when he got into a dispute with the county about hooking up to county water, ended up deeding a one foot perimeter around his property to the government of Iran because that would make it too hard for the county to pull emminent domain. Yep, you got that right, I lived across the street from property owned by a member of the Axis of Evil!

    --
    Eagles may soar, but weasles don't get sucked into jet engines...
    1. Re:Flying Bombs by mpe · · Score: 1

      We had a rather eccentric neighbor who was ex-military (WWII, Korea, and Vietnam), and who worked on one of the US missile systems (patriot, I think). Anyway, one day he was telling my mom about how easy it would be to put a bomb on a remote controlled airplane, fly it in to someone's house, and then detonate it, with no one knowing what happened. Thing is, he probably could have done it himself with stuff in his garage or something.

      If you have terrorists prepared to kill themselves you don't need to modify an aircraft at all. Even an explosive loaded truck can do a lot of damage.

  206. RTFA you morons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The link talks about the inability to SHIP the rockets... it's still legal to sell the ones that are sold today. So if Estes wants to ship the rockets (and stay in business) they'll need to find another transportation method. Have you ever seen non-ups delivery trucks (like for target, a bakery, etc)? Yea, that's what you use if you're not shipping by UPS. Probably not as cheap, but a far cry from outlawing model rockets as people seem to assume the article was talking about.

    As to all of the talk about warheads: it's been illegal to have bigger rockets for a while (but I remember being able to send off for M size rocket plans when I was a kid).

  207. Hmmm... Fear tactics being used by the government? by BFaucet · · Score: 1

    We've got to put a stop to this insanity.

    People are using the war as an excuse to hack away at the constitution. With model rockets banned, that'll set a precedent and there's no telling what else will be banned. Well, I'm sure we'll still have our guns, but I guess my books, keyboard, and mouth (since they could be used as terrorist weapons.) will be illegal.

    I'm sick and tired of 9/11 and the so called "war on terror" being so abused. It's exactly what hitler did. Distract the masses while you take away their freedoms and make them fear "the enemy" so they'll love you.

    Bush 'n pals have been (and still are) trying to get rid of checks and balances in our government (in the name of security.) Gee what a great idea, lets just trash that which keeps the country from being taken over by the tyrannous megalomaniacs in the government! Oh wait... Bush is a tyrannous megalomaniac. He isn't even listening to the voters who put him in office... oh wait... voters didn't put him in office.

    By definition, terrorism is, "The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons."
    Hmmm... Who's doing that more than Bush, Ashcroft and Rumsfeld?

    --
    -Derick
  208. I Agree by SGrater310 · · Score: 1

    We need to get involved to stop this madness! This county is heading for a police state! There is no need for any of these restrictions and we need to do something about it! There are many of people and groups out there trying to put this bs to a halt. Write your congressman and tell him about it. The only way things will change is if people get involved!

  209. ThinkGeek by EuroChild · · Score: 1

    ThinkGeek will be closed any day now for funding/supplying terrorists!

    --
    Does this make my brain look big?
  210. Ban the Slinky, then, too by Zhe+Mappel · · Score: 1
    God knows, you don't want al-Qaeda letting one of those things loose in the White House...

    The president needs to stay focused at this important hour.

  211. Murder ain't silly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > What I don't get either is why CIA snipers just cant do their job. Instead US ends up spending
    > billions on dollars on bombing entire nations back to stone age.

    Because civilized nations are supposed to be against premeditated murder being carried out by the government.

    War - in theory - is meant to terminate policies, not people. Death is - again, in theory - never the goal of war, but is a tragic side effect. War - still theory - is waged to protect cherished ideals, with the purest of intentions.

    These views are, of course, hopelessly idealistic, but clinging to what we can of that idealism - trying as best we can to do what we believe is right, even in the messiest of situations - is what stops us from being merely thugs with big guns. If we officially condone murders of convenience, saying "we'll kill people we don't like", not only do we lose the very ideals we're trying to protect, we provide instant reasons for people to hate us, ensuring an even larger population of people we don't like in the future. Either we keep killing more and more, or we stop and say "this is not right."

    Finally, don't forget that not all the people a government dislikes live in other countries. If the US government murders people it doesn't like in other countries, why not Americans it doesn't like? This is a ball we do not want to start rolling.

  212. If things keep up like this... by darkonc · · Score: 1
    we'll end p having too deal with them deciding that belts can be used as garrottes and outlawing them too... then realizing that the same applies to shirt sleeves and pants and...

    OH, shit. Soon we'll have officially mandated nudity in public spaces (my nudist friend would be in hogg heaven).

    I'm still of the opinion that the best thing to happen to the anti-terrorism effort in the air isn't goverment prohibitions on anything more dangerous than a hat -- It's the fact that passengers are now willing to take responsibility for their safety and security. If passengers had reacted on Sept 11 like they seem to now, the hijackers would probably have never made it into the cockpit, much less to their respective target buildings.

    --
    Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.
  213. Safety matches by MoogMan · · Score: 1

    Well, safety matches are (were?) the same material used in certain high-order explosives, namely Ammonium Nitrate. Some other things like those freeze packs you chuck in with food to keep it cold at the beach are full of it. Are these going to become illegal? And if not, wouldnt these be a big threat - just as much as solid rocket fuel?! While you're there, you may as well ban knives to stop murders. Hell, get rid of all those doors so people cant actually *go* anywhere. That'd stop the terrorism

  214. look at my hooves ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    clipy clop clipy clop

  215. Crawl back under your rock troll! by BobBoring · · Score: 1

    Although you have rendered your arguments vacuous by resorting to invective I will reply in your mode of communication.

    Look up the definition of a republic again genius

    My point is, moron, that too many people, like you, let the representatives drive the operation of the government. You confuse definitions and operations.

    Why bother to check on the beliefs of someone you selected to represent you after you send them to the government? I guess you're just to busy trying to grok the essence of hexadecimal for your freshman computing class mid-term to capture the subtlety of my meaning.

    Why don't you look up the definition of a representative and re-read my post, sonny?

    And you can't drive vehicles of any type because the manufacturing process has to be such that certain emissions are curbed dumbass.

    Too technically incompetent to do an aftermarket modification, eh? There are thousands of sources for aftermarket equipment. Just because you drive a POS made in Japan and designed by the EPA doesn't mean I must.

    Since none of the six "lot cars" on my farm are registered to drive on public roads, they have no catalytic converters or other smog control devices, no license plates, no inspection stickers, no insurance, two have no doors, all have no seatbelts and all are fueled by propane. Both my tractors run on propane as well. Since these vehicles don't operate over public roads they are not bound by the governmental controls for vehicles manufactured for use on the public road system. All those process controls to curb emissions apply only to vehicles on public roads.

  216. blame microsoft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All these prohibitions, like copiing files forbidden, paper rockets forbidden, as far as eating pork forbidden, etc. are by way inspired with "naive user" idea introduced by microsoft. The idea, that public is stupid, is strange somehow, but was surprisingly accepted by this stupid public itself.

    Now public wants to be regulated by government to not do unsafe things. Well, they are so naive, they need big brother to help them in this unsafe world. ...and big brother is allways ready, of course.

    Microsoft role is that it teached people how naive they are. This is once again a big achievement in the history of world.

  217. but by HoChiWaWa · · Score: 1

    ... if you outlaw model rockets, then only outlaws will have model rockets *fear*

  218. Re:You are a dumb nigger. by mpe · · Score: 1

    Try buying a car with no catalytic converter.

    Simple, find someone who wants to sell one and offer them money.

  219. What part of ... by BobBoring · · Score: 1

    after market modification don't you understand, you ignorant fool?

  220. I'm gonna make em anyways, bigger, better and by A55M0NKEY · · Score: 1
    More Dangerous Than ESTES EVER DREAMED OF!!!

    Pyromainia, Pyromania, Pyromania!! YEAH!!!

    --

    Eat at Joe's.

  221. Re:What? Balloonatics is where it's at! by Tungbo · · Score: 1

    Ummm. For dispersing biological and chemical agents, a Balloon is much more useful as it'll stay afloat in one area for much longer. So are we going to ban helium and party balloons !

    In any case, the effectiveness of Bio/Chem is very doubtful, any mild breeze might compromise it completely.

    The problem is that people are ruled by FEAR. Unscrupulous and naive politicians / officials are taking FULL advantage of that.

    I choose not to live in fear and deny myself freedoms.

  222. Obvious threats vs. Unconventional Warfare by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It is stupid to use legal technicalities to make life intolerable for companies simply because the regulation is poorly designed. Sadly, we are vulnerable as an open society, and a bit of mayhem now and then is the price we pay for our freedom, boneheaded regulation won't change that. A gallon of gasoline killed all those people in Korea, we aren't outlawing that. A remote controlled airplane would be a much more accurate and powerful delivery device than a model rocket. A potato cannon could be used to launch bio/chem mortars. My bare hands are a weapon, my mind is a weapon. The entire point of unconventional warfare is that you don't see it coming. I recently found a document on a local county web page which provides information for contractors bidding on a new police communications system. It had the entire emergency infrastructure in a big .pdf file that was just sitting there without a password for free download by anyone. Where any terrorist could get exact directions to every emergency services facility and system in the county, from emergency radio transmission points to 911 primary and backup sites. And the general architecture for their new CRIMNET and the national NCIC so if you were a good hacker you could get in and issue false arrest reports, derail an investigation or get rid of your traffic tickets or whatever you want. A small group of evil doers could cause chaos with that info. That is the kind of thing that needs regulation and protection, not model rockets.

  223. on the contrary- you mean no and yes by dpgumby69 · · Score: 1

    you had it the wrong way around: No because an estes type model rocket couldn't carry much mass to any useful height. you several magnitudes larger to carry even a hand-grenade (think bazookas- way bigger than an estes. range: several hundred meters). Yes because it's people with guns that kill people. Countries that have an ingrained gun culture (and lots of guns) have higher death rates. for many reasons obviously murder is number one. then there's manslaughter where the gun was intended only as a threat but it all went wrong. also accidental plays a large part. it varies from year to year but last i heard the US were loosing about THIRTY THOUSAND people a year to gun related violence (9/11 was nothing). granted if you want to kill someone you will but your resolve will have to be much stronger. whens the last time you heard of someone accidentally strangling someone (sorry, we were arguing and my hands just 'went off'). or a drive-by stabbing? P.S: should you want to make your own rocket all you need is potassium nitrate (fertiliser from a hardware store) and sugar. you can buy 25KG for about $30 australian. that'll make you a big enough rocket :-) that is until they ban fertiliser.....

    1. Re:on the contrary- you mean no and yes by dpgumby69 · · Score: 1

      and sugar ;-)

  224. Really? by spreer · · Score: 1

    I'm thinking of the one on Van Ness that's part of the UDC campus. It's just west of the main quad, and south of a football field. The mapquest photo make it look like it's still there...

    To be honest, though, I haven't been back there in years.

    spreer

  225. opps by Lord_Of_The_Beer · · Score: 1

    I stand, or rather, sit corrected.

    I guess I am a failure as a bio-terrorist.

    Yeay.

    --
    D.A.K.D.A.E.---- Deny all Knowledge, Destroy All Evidence
  226. Last Post! by alpg · · Score: 0

    These download files are in Microsoft Word 6.0 format. After
    unzipping, these files can be viewed in any text editor, including
    all versions of Microsoft Word, WordPad, and Microsoft Word Viewer
    -- From Micro$oft

    - this post brought to you by the Automated Last Post Generator...