Short but interesting.
by
Flounder
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Short but interesting.
Kinda like the Slashdot article, just leave out the interesting part. C'mon guys, can maybe we get a bit verbose about what you choose to put up on/.?? Maybe a little cut and paste of an interesting piece of the article? Or maybe a little more witty repartee by the editors.
--
No boom today. Boom tomorrow. There's always a boom tomorrow. - Cmdr. Susan Ivanova
If the satellite monitoring is so good, how did they
manage to be so wrong abount WMD in Iraq. I can't help wondering if there was ever any real evidence...
Do us conservatives a favor, and wait 6 months before you make any more comments on WMDs that you can't prove. Just because we haven't found any yet (or possibly because the government isn't ready to revel the information) doesn't mean that they don't exist. Give us time, and I assure you that we'll discover that they had them, and they probably also moved them to other countries.
We have found quite a lot of evidence of WMD in Iraq. Even if we hadn't, freeing the people was worth it. That said, they're just taking picutes so the normal limitations of "can't see through things" are still there. If you think I'm wrong them post a picture of the inside of NORAD taken from a satalite to prove me wrong.
-- Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
Re:WMD
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 1, Insightful
Yet they found a billion dollars, in a matter of hours and days, something just doesnt add up, go figure...
(or possibly because the government isn't ready to revel the information)
You have got to be kidding. If the goverment had that information it would be rammed down our throats 24/7 for the next month as justification for the war in the first place.
and they probably also moved them to other countries
Yeah I can just see the head of some bananna republic thinking to himself that despite the fact
that Sadam was universally hated in both east and west and the most powerful army in the world will invade on the even the assumption of possession of these weapons why not hide then for him. What harm could it do eh ?
Did Iraq have limited chemical weapon capability yes, probably developed from Antrax sold to them by the US. This is where the US certainty come in. They 'know' because they provided the foundation.
Did Iraq they have WMD? more than likely not. Does it matter? NO the US has access to the Oil, all else is irrelevant now.
-- Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth What truth? There is no dupe
Long story short, even with the best survalenece(sp?) it can't find what doesn't exist. The problem the conservatives are running into is that, the US can't find WMD that were supposedly ready to use in 45 minutes. Basically they weren't hidden at all if they have to be readied so quickly and yet, there is no evidence of anything. Additionally, we supposedly had "Secret evidence" indictatin _exactly_ where those WMDs were, and lo and behold, now with unfettered access, we still aren't finding shit. We owe the UN inspectors an apology, they were did better with less, and a lot fewer dead bodies.
The best technology is worthless in the hands of people who are willing to lie to get what they want. Remember the farce that was Colin Powel going to the UN, satelite photos of tractor trailers, and warehouses.... can't image any country that was tractor trailers! They must be producing wepaons with them..
Does it matter? NO the US has access to the Oil, all else is irrelevant now.
The flaw in your argument is that the US also had access to any iraqi oil fields it wanted in 1991, but didn't take it.
Re:Karma Whoring
by
tfreport
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
OK, so he didn't put anything about the article, does that justify posting the whole article here? It is not going to be slashdotted (if it is, the NYTimes is in a lot more trouble than I thought) and if what Michael said would not get someone to go read the article than this will not make it more likely to be read.
Why not simply help Michael out by giving the summary he could have made? Such as, "As technology advances the chances for government's foul use grow. Satallite imagery is beginning to be used for spying on common citizens without a warrant. This could be used to track down terrorists or those pesky hackers. For once I agree with Judge Scalia's position..." or something along these lines. For gosh sakes, don't try to karma whore and then not add anything to the discussion or do more work than Michael did.
The problem with spy satellites is predictability.
by
cheesybagel
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
The satellites often use well defined orbits and hence are easily trackable. This means someone using deception techniques can hide their actions.
They have their uses. But you will always get higher resolution using aircraft (they are closer to the ground). Not to mention aircraft can actually be easily directed to a target.
Re:Google Partner Link
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 1, Insightful
Thank for posting.
As often as I see news.google display slashdot stories and as often as slash links to both google and the NYT site I am still blown away by the fact that there is no/. partner link to the NYT site, come on guys its has been years and some thousands of articles... Please someone set that up already...
In my opinion, in a few years all of america would be blanketed by satellites that archives everything that we do. However, ideally the archives would be encrypted and only a court order could enable enforcement agencies to see what people are up to.
For example, imagine if we could trace back the steps of the 9/11 terrorists right up to the point where they entered the country, I am sure that would give valuable information.
Nevertheless I am strong advocate for privacy (aren't we all?) therefore, its best that we put the laws in place before its been abused.
"Us conservatives?"
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Don't lump us all together with you. I'm a staunch conservative and considered the justifications for the Iraq "war" more or less fabricated (including the WMD charges.) The world is not as black and white as you seem to think.
Have you any idea the amount of space required to store this stuff? Bandwidth costs?
Let's say you have a (currently non-existant) 1mm imaging platform on a satellite. 1mm per pixel of resolution allows you to identify most things fairly well, but you still might have trouble reading a newspaper's body clearly. Headlines would come through okay - keeping in mind, of course, that you have to make the shot obliquely to get some sort of an angle on it - straight down doesn't help here. Now take a picture of a square 200km by 200km. How many pixels is that? Let's say you take that picture with 24 bits per pixel denoting colour (and not, say, the way you would do it which is with more than three bands... but I digress). How many bits is that?
It's easier, by far, to do things like fly over the area you want at a less sexy height, like 20,000 feet, with a high-end remote imaging and sensing platform mounted inside your medium-to-low end plane. 500TB cartridges store a good amount of images, and you can jack them directly into your central machine back home while the computers go to work analysing the data they contain.
It also costs signficantly less.
Re:Military Might
by
Glytch
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Funny, I thought the US military stopped using draftees after Vietnam because of the way that citizens were getting pissed off with the whole sordid mess.
European militaries still persist with this outdated tradition for some strange reason.
The "strange reason" is that European militaries stopped engaging in extraterritorial adventures. It makes perfect sense to use draftees to defend your own country, and you don't have to worry about "atrocities" either when your military is only defending your own territory.
But, you are right, for the kinds of actions the US military engages in, you do need a professional military; you couldn't do it with draftees. Draftees would not be well enough trained to handle it, and US voters wouldn't go along with wars like those in Iraq if they knew that their sons and daughters might just get drafted, sent over there, and killed.
Of course, if the conscript troops had spotted any submarines, the Swedish would have probably just blamed America.
To Europeans, US involvement in Europe was both a gamble and a mixed blessing. The gamble worked and resulted in great wealth and freedom for Europeans, but if it had failed, it would have turned Europe into a nuclear wasteland. To Americans, sitting comfortably in their living rooms thousands of miles away, that threat was much less immediate.
The USA was only 30 minutes away. The missiles took the closest path...across the pole.
You are preoccupied with the only scenario that mattered to the Americans: a missile attack. What was a real threat to the Europeans was a ground war in Europe that did not involve any direct hostilities between the US and the USSR. And that was a fairly likely scenario: the US and USSR knew that it would have been the end of both countries to send off their missiles, but a ground war in Europe would have been acceptable to both.
along with the point that the USA repeatedly put its ass on the line for Europe, only to receive lukewarm thanks at best,
And why do you think the US did that? Out of nobility? Out of humanitarian instincts? I don't think so. The US got involved in Europe because if Europe had fallen to the Nazis or to the Soviet Union, the US would have been in very deep trouble, economically and politically.
While Americans have delusions of grandeur because of a huge military-industrial complex, the reality of it all is that the US needs Europe at least as much as Europe needs the US. And until American politicians and voters come to appreciate that, there will be a lot more "hostility" because 600 million Europeans don't like having their foreign and defense policy dictated to them by 300 million US voters. That was vaguely acceptable in the decades after WWII, but it is coming to an end now. You'll just have to deal with it.
Slashdot Mirror
Kinda like the Slashdot article, just leave out the interesting part. C'mon guys, can maybe we get a bit verbose about what you choose to put up on /.?? Maybe a little cut and paste of an interesting piece of the article? Or maybe a little more witty repartee by the editors.
No boom today. Boom tomorrow. There's always a boom tomorrow. - Cmdr. Susan Ivanova
If the satellite monitoring is so good, how did they manage to be so wrong abount WMD in Iraq. I can't help wondering if there was ever any real evidence...
OK, so he didn't put anything about the article, does that justify posting the whole article here? It is not going to be slashdotted (if it is, the NYTimes is in a lot more trouble than I thought) and if what Michael said would not get someone to go read the article than this will not make it more likely to be read.
Why not simply help Michael out by giving the summary he could have made? Such as, "As technology advances the chances for government's foul use grow. Satallite imagery is beginning to be used for spying on common citizens without a warrant. This could be used to track down terrorists or those pesky hackers. For once I agree with Judge Scalia's position..." or something along these lines. For gosh sakes, don't try to karma whore and then not add anything to the discussion or do more work than Michael did.
The satellites often use well defined orbits and hence are easily trackable. This means someone using deception techniques can hide their actions.
They have their uses. But you will always get higher resolution using aircraft (they are closer to the ground). Not to mention aircraft can actually be easily directed to a target.
Thank for posting.
/. partner link to the NYT site, come on guys its has been years and some thousands of articles... Please someone set that up already...
As often as I see news.google display slashdot stories and as often as slash links to both google and the NYT site I am still blown away by the fact that there is no
For example, imagine if we could trace back the steps of the 9/11 terrorists right up to the point where they entered the country, I am sure that would give valuable information.
Nevertheless I am strong advocate for privacy (aren't we all?) therefore, its best that we put the laws in place before its been abused.
Don't lump us all together with you. I'm a staunch conservative and considered the justifications for the Iraq "war" more or less fabricated (including the WMD charges.) The world is not as black and white as you seem to think.
Have you any idea the amount of space required to store this stuff? Bandwidth costs?
Let's say you have a (currently non-existant) 1mm imaging platform on a satellite. 1mm per pixel of resolution allows you to identify most things fairly well, but you still might have trouble reading a newspaper's body clearly. Headlines would come through okay - keeping in mind, of course, that you have to make the shot obliquely to get some sort of an angle on it - straight down doesn't help here. Now take a picture of a square 200km by 200km. How many pixels is that? Let's say you take that picture with 24 bits per pixel denoting colour (and not, say, the way you would do it which is with more than three bands... but I digress). How many bits is that?
It's easier, by far, to do things like fly over the area you want at a less sexy height, like 20,000 feet, with a high-end remote imaging and sensing platform mounted inside your medium-to-low end plane. 500TB cartridges store a good amount of images, and you can jack them directly into your central machine back home while the computers go to work analysing the data they contain.
It also costs signficantly less.
Funny, I thought the US military stopped using draftees after Vietnam because of the way that citizens were getting pissed off with the whole sordid mess.
European militaries still persist with this outdated tradition for some strange reason.
The "strange reason" is that European militaries stopped engaging in extraterritorial adventures. It makes perfect sense to use draftees to defend your own country, and you don't have to worry about "atrocities" either when your military is only defending your own territory.
But, you are right, for the kinds of actions the US military engages in, you do need a professional military; you couldn't do it with draftees. Draftees would not be well enough trained to handle it, and US voters wouldn't go along with wars like those in Iraq if they knew that their sons and daughters might just get drafted, sent over there, and killed.
Of course, if the conscript troops had spotted any submarines, the Swedish would have probably just blamed America.
To Europeans, US involvement in Europe was both a gamble and a mixed blessing. The gamble worked and resulted in great wealth and freedom for Europeans, but if it had failed, it would have turned Europe into a nuclear wasteland. To Americans, sitting comfortably in their living rooms thousands of miles away, that threat was much less immediate.