Slashdot Mirror
DIY Cruise Missile Grounded
PSaltyDS writes "The DIY Cruise Missile project from New Zealand has been previously covered on /., but the BBC now reports that Bruce Simpson has been forced to shutdown by his government. His project web site says 'The New Zealand government has moved aggressively to shut down this project -- and by using quite unscrupulous methods which appear to be in breach of the law.'"
"The authorities here finally decided to bankrupt me over a tax debt and I have now had to give the missile to a friend for safe keeping."
You would think that people would learn. If you're going to skirt the edge of the legal system, always pay your taxes!
Remember, Al Capone was jailed for tax evasion, not organized criminal activity. His claim that "The government can't collect legal taxes from illegal money." (1) held no more water than Simpson's claim that the government is trying to "bankrupt" him.
And speaking of Simpsons...
Lisa: Bart. Bart! What are you doing? We've got to get out of here.
Bart: Target sighted. Launching air-to-nerd missile!
[launches a missile model, hitting Lisa]
Lisa: Owww!
- Sideshow Bob's Last Gleaming
Stressed? Me? Of course not. Stress is what a rubber band feels before it breaks, silly.
Well, scratch the cruise missle off of my list of things to build...guess I'll just have to move straight to the ICBM. sigh.
Wouldn't you just wait until this guy was done with his missile, and then just steal it from him? Why bother mucking around with building one yourself, when he can do it for you, and then let you know when it is done.
Free your ecomony and enact the FairTax
...are on his forums.
He has some ideas for civilian uses of the technology, i.e., "the use of small squadrons of UAVs to assist off-shore search and rescue operations."
The Army reading list
It's not so scary that the capability to build one of these is in the hands of an average joe, but that we don't hear of more projects like this being shut down. There must be more people building things like this out there.
Celebrities are like ads, if we all ignore them, they'll just go away.
I applaud the use of rocket science at home, but I don't think the general public should have cruise missles.
A Cessna 172!
If you did all numbers in hexadecimal (but still using SI), they wouldn't understand it enough to ban it. They'd probably just laugh at you and say only the decimal radix would work.
-Libertarian secular transhumanist
.... his cruise missle project was shot down *budump bum ching*
Reminds me of the days when we were kids and used to strap on cans filled with a mix of sodium chlorate and sugar to our skateboards.
Fucking cops had no sense of humor.
Step 1: create weapons of mass destruction
Step 2: declare war on USA
Step 3: Collect war repartations
Step 4: Profit!!!
A technical DIY project not news for nerds? Are you kidding?
Couple that with alleged government interference, and you have stuff that matters.
If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
He proclaims he doesn't want "nefarious types" to get ahold of the development information, but he doesn't say how he screens the subscriber list to weed out these people.
Open source software == good
Open source flying cylinder of death == bad
While I realize that some of the Star Wars technology was Pie in The Sky stuff meant to scare the USSR, I really think we should complete it. Trying to stop missile launches or radioactive materials from getting into the hands of terrorists can't be done without stepping over people's rights. (Generally considered a BAD thing by the US Constitution.)
Now if we had particle lasers in the sky that could track consumer planes and shoot down threatening bogeys, we'd have a much better defense than hoping the pilot sees the weapon and executes a barrel roll (haha).
This would also allow us to shoot down friendlies that go rouge. (e.g. 9/11 plane attacks)
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
The New Zealand government has been pretty agressive about exploiting the success of the LOTR movies to make millions of dollars in tourism revenues.
I guess they don't want those befuddled tourists who knock on doors aking where Frodo lives to accidentally stumble upon a homemade cruise missile silo instead.
but the BBC now reports that Bruce Simpson has been forced to shutdown by his government.
Well, there goes his uptime...
"Mod, mod, mod...and another troll bites the dust."
from the United States Government have helped Mr. Simpson with his debt problems by relocating him to the tax haven of Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. No longer will he burdened by oppresive tax responsibilities. Thank you John Ashcroft, humanitarian.
Yeah, and a home-brewed tactical nuke has legitimate uses as an excavation tool. Just because you can find an obscure use for a tool that has a prominent list of evil uses doesn't mean the tool should be released to the public.
... when you pry them out of my cold, dead hands.
As in Mouse that roared with Peter Sellers
Help fight continental drift.
Bruce Simpson runs a daily on-line column called the "Daily Aardvark", which gave lots of details on the bankrupting in installments last week. (Normally it is commentry on New Zealand internet related stuff - see this week for a taste of what it is normally like.)
Dec 1
Dec 2
Dec 3
Dec 4
Dec 5
I believe that Bruce appears on Slashdot as "NewtonsLaw" - I expect he'll put in an appearance.
From my understanding, it is an IRD vendetta that has bankrupted him, unrelated to the "cruise missile" project.
Quattuor res in hoc mundo sanctae sunt: libri, liberi, libertas et liberalitas.
You appear to be confusing the US (where LOTR mania is in full swing) with New Zealand (where LOTR is not quite that popular).
From the BBC site:
he believes he has proved his point - "that by using off-the-shelf technology in a suburban garage a terrorist can create a weapon against which there is no effective defence.
One would think a simple hand-delivered bomb would suffice.
Grr! Arg!
If cruise missles are made illegal, then only criminals will have cruise missles.
... or does it seem like a bad idea to piss off someone who is building a missile?
1) create weapons of mass destruction
2) declare war on USA
3) ominous silence
4) discover your ass is actually a smoking hole in the ground
You could use these to take drugs from one place to another. That would be cool. Huhhuhhhuh huh. Yeah, that would rule.
This guy may be nuts but a remote control car rigged to a interweb-connected PDA full of C4 could do serious damage. No really need for jet engines. War on terror is doomed when technology is availiable on highstreet! Ashcroft to close electronic retail outlets in name of freedom?
I am the bastard of base minus 12! Turing was the ejaculate of my complete machine!
-2, Idiot
However, there have also been a number of people who claim I'm overstating the case and that it's not possible to build a real cruise missile without access to sophisticated gear, specialist tools and information not readily available outside the military.
You don't need a *real* cruise missile, you just need a model aircraft. In fact, I've been thinking about getting one (not to build a missile, of course, but just to play with). There are even ones with gas turbines. Hell, do you really need a lot of explosives to terrorize someone/some group? You could even just load a model aircraft up with some colored gas, dump it over a group of people, and probably someone would get trampled to death in the rush to escape. I'm not a chemist, but I'm sure there's a heavier than air colored gas that's nonlethal that can be easily obtained. Even a model helicopter would be fine.
Surely there is no constitutional right to arms in NZ? im sure they could have charged him with something else. Non payment of taxes is not going to prevent someone else doing this.
Perhaps in the gun happy US it would have been legal, and possibly the worst place for this to happen.
I wonder how he could ever test this missile?
Before donning tinfoil hats here, remember that all governments like to get paid. Whilst what he was doing had very high hack value, it certainly wasn't cheap. When their local tax people saw that he was prominently spending money on a world famous endeavour rather than paying his back taxes, they acted. No conspiracy here folks, just a tax authority doing what tax authorities worldwide do on a daily basis. That being said, I watched his project with high interest.
with govt support, slashdot now reports that Bruce Simpson has also been forced to shutdown by the slashdot effect.
The truth is rarely as simple as people (you?) believe.
I can't speak for this gentleman, but I can speak for myself. In the US, even if you believe you are an employee of a company, and you believe they are witholding your taxes as they should be, you are personally liable if they didn't.
That's the situation I found myself in, and thus, the reason I ended up owing 5 figures. I'm sure if the government had something personally against me, they could work that debt into something criminal.
.sigs are for post^Hers.
Donations
On a side note, I was really hoping this guy would have built this thing.
Linux O Muerte!
The Math doesn't add up? May 28th 1987 and he got back to Germany on August 3rd, 1988. That would be a hair over 14 months. His sentence would have been 11 months or less. my first non-anon /. post. hello evereeebodeee!!!
Here's an article that was in the NZ Herald (our main newspaper) a few days ago. Interesting to see the differences in wording between this article and the BBC one, even in his comments.
e ct ion=news&thesubsection=&storyID=3537971
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/storydisplay.cfm?thes
... when you sweep the bits from my warm, moist ashes.
The ______ Agenda
In this world, the government takes taxes, and not only does it not protect its people, it actively harms them.
The taxation system in the West is not even a protection racket anymore. It's little more than an intraveneous feeding system for the elite.
I wouldn't mind paying taxes if they were A) Fairly exacted, and B) Spent on projects I bloody-well agree with. These days tax evasion is almost your duty as a responsible human being! Allowing yourself to be fed on by evil is no different than agreeing to participate in evil.
Robin Hood, where are you. . ?
-FL
What's an ICBM?
You mean like 'guns'? Oh, but those are self-defense tools. Right. Let's take the NRA stance 'Homebuilt Cruise Missles don't kill people, people with homebuilt cruise missles kill people!'. Guns exist to kill/maim/destroy things ( be they other people, animals, or else ). Should they be likewise prohibited from possesion? ( Note there is a distinction between having the plans for how a gun works and possessing a gun ).
---
Segmentation Fault ( core dumped )
He says, "Obviously the goal of this website is not to provide terrorists or other nefarious types with the plans for a working cruise missile", but then he gets permission to export his technology to Iran? I suppose it's debatable if Iran=Terrorism, but what he says and what he does doesn't match apparently.
Tactical nukes don't kill people, people kill people.
Endless arguments over trivial contradictions in books written by ignorant savages to explain thunder in the dark.
New Zealand government forced him to shut down his project after coming under pressure from the United States
Not to cast any aspersions on American readers, but WTF did this have to do with the US? Such attempts to police the entire world are virtually guaranteed to incite further hatred. Better tell Taiwan to stop making box cutters, too...
-- "We have a number of things that are weak links in the security picture." -- Bill Gates, 2003That if a privateer can build a cruise missile then all the billions the US is spending on Anti ICBM technology is money down the drain.
If either terrorists or a foreign power want the strike the US then holing up in the Ozarks and building a cruise missile out of a combination of publically available and smuggled components seems a pretty plausible way to do it.
I'm sorry to say it because I don't have a solution either, but making us take off our shoes at the airport etc. is an utter waste of time - terrorism is way too easy, just look at Iraq currently with GI checkpoints and patrols everywhere, even martial law doesn't fix the problem.
Politics is the only answer, coming up with some final solutions in the middle east...
You appear to be confusing a comment about anus licking with a serious comparative analysis of national cultural values.
I'd say this isn't rocket science, but I suppose it is.
Still, there's no magic. There's no reason any other intelligent, motivated person or group couldn't do the same project. Killing this project will have no positive long term effect. It may stop some "bad" people from buying these, but it sure won't stop bad people from building their own.
This is like every other technology. You can attempt to stop it, but it will continue to develop. So we (the US) happily agree there should be no more nuclear testing, but that's really only because we can afford to buy/build supercomputers to do nuke sims. It's all so... hypocritical.
.sigs are for post^Hers.
Maybe some rocket science company could use a self-motivated backyard tinkerer.
What did he expect??? the fkin dick.
Build weapon of mass destruction with common off the shelf items, publically announce it AND get away with it?
I think not baby puppy.
He's lucky he hasn't been caught up in some country's terrorism countermeasures, he should shut up and think himself lucky he's only bankrupt and been gagged. It's a shame he couldn't put a portion of his brain to use with a touch of common sense.
The New Zealand government has moved aggressively to shut down this project -- and by using quite unscrupulous methods which appear to be in breach of the law.
Oh, wow, really? Even though it's not technically illegal, I wouldn't be too shocked to find out that the authorities wanted to have a word or two with me if I was building a V2 in my backyard:
"Oh, no, officer, this rocket is for humanitarian purposes only! And as a gift to all mankind, I've posted the plans online so that other humanitarians can build rockets of their own! What could be wrong with that?"
It was a really cool project, but come on. Who didn't see this coming?
Ph-nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn.
If you want to do something that a large number of government officials will not approve of:
1) Pay your taxes.
1A) Don't break other laws - particulary obscure ones.
2) Do not work for the government or a government contractor.
-- $G
Bruce has put together a specification and built some bits for a device that could theoretically fly some distance in a controlled manner.
But a device to cruise some distance carrying enough ordanance to make a difference at point of impact it is not.
A pickup full of diesel and fertiliser would pose much more of a risk to the Govt of NZ and such a device is legal here, as long as intent to do harm is absent.
Ordinarily, I'd contemptuously dismiss any toothless rugby hooligan who claimed to have duplicated some of your deadly and sophisticated military hardware in the back of his yurt.
However, he's built a lot of those cool jet engines, which means his claim to have built a cruise missile is definitely credible. The New Zealand...ian government clearly thinks his claims are credible (unless they really are just prosecuting him for tax evasion, which is always a possibility people.) They might be going persecuting him for talking to the Iranians rather than because they think his missile works, and they'd still refuse to comment for Security reasons.
If you read his web page he says he's finished the missile except for some trivial details (not his exact phrasing.) My experience working with engineers (I am a Scientist, not any sort of MBA, before any of you start) leads me to believe that these "trivial details" may be less of a paint job and more of a profound deficiency that would prevent the thing from actually working. Of course, I'm just speculating here.
If they really are trying to squelch his right to free speech with the tax charge - he should give all his missile design documents to some outfit that will distribute them far and wide, raisethefist.com or something. That'll show the guv'mint what for.
The good and new comes from no quarter where it is looked for, and is always something different from what is expected.
Maybe if I send ViRISPAM(tm) just to prove anyone can do it, then the government will listen. What a knob.
Tech point: How autonomous is this thing? What's the guidance system? Where did this guy get his maps and images? Or, did he?
Political point: On his web site he says he won't try to understand how politicians think. If he can't be bothered to understand why politicians want to eliminate independent sources of military weapons, he needs tocheck his grip on reality.
He sounds like one more presumptious and arrogant loon who thinks his moral dilletantism is reason to put others at risk. Good for NZ.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
there are two things a cruise missile can't defend against.
1. The tax man
2. A slashdotting
How could one stop research in so important area of science called rocket engines?
How a government could to that?
There seems to be some kind of plot in it
(from Bruce Simpson's page):
The strange thing is that just a matter of months ago, they told me I could export the very same technology to Iran -- despite the fact that it is widely considered to be a terrorist sponsor and similar exports are prohibited in the USA.
And then the government decided shut it down.
Note also that israeli x prize team recruits serious brainpower.
If things are not about money (or sex) then politics must be involved.
I hope that such a genius person as Bruce will either join Xprize or find another way to continue his very important for science work on rocket engines.
#
#\ @ ? Colonize Mars
#
Burned his ass good.
Can't even post jokes about this!
This guy really crossed the line. Maybe when he started the world wasn't in such a mess...
If the stories from the actual military pilots are true, this was not the case on 9/11.
There was only one squadron charged with covering the eastern US, and at that time only two (or four?) sets of pilots on call.
They were scrambled, and in both the NY and DC cases, they were not close enough to the rogue planes to shoot them down.
I think part of the problem was that it wasn't immediately clear which planes were rogue, but either way, on that day, the pilots just did not have the opportunity to shoot them down. They DID have clearance, and they even had a final Yes from Cheney.
.sigs are for post^Hers.
just by giving me your coordinates
I believe this guy would be saying "bugger" right now. But maybe not, since that ad was banned from NZ because bugger doesn't mean bugger like it does over here in Oz, but I digress.
Isn't NZ the country that pretty much told the USA to "fuck off" when they wanted to dock nuclear-powered ships in their ports or something? If that's true, then you'd think that a country that does that wouldn't stop a hobbyist tinkering in his shed when the USA asks them to.
Well, since you've used up your lesson for today, perhaps tomorrow you can learn manners.
That's gotta fit into your schema somewhere
Is a regular on rec.crafts.metalworking and has promised to answer questions there concerning the cruise missile. You might want to keep an eye on the newgroup if you're interested.
"Eve of Destruction", it's not just for old hippies anymore...
Hi,
I'm sorry but I have trouble believing that the DIY cruise missle actually existed other than as a mock-up.
Let me put it another way:
1) person X says I can build a device
2) person X builds website showing progress of the device
3) person X says he is going to receive big bucks from a company
4) person X says government stopped development and device is SOMEWHERE in country but doesn't know or can't say where
hmmm... maybe he did build the missile and maybe he didn't.
Jason L. Froebe
No one has seen what you have seen, and until that happens, we're all going to think that you're nuts. - Jack O'Neil
Dude,
That is a seriously good idea
Wibble-Wobble, Wibble-Wobble, jelly on a plate
HE is easy enough to make, and uranium is avalible in pitchblende, and also is decayable into plutonium in a breeder reactor IIRC. There ya go, if your a terrorist, dont read the above post...
"Sic Semper Tyrannosaurus Rex."
It appears the only one that needs a grip on reality is you. Else guns would be illegal ALL OVER THE WORLD, twit.
Fucking americans, they just dont get it.
A short list of items that people use to kill people that should be banned to prevent more deaths:
Guns, knives, hands, arms, pens, tire irons, vehicles, clubs, hammers, poison, explosives, fire, drugs, rope, nylons, anything that is heavy and easily wielded, anything that is sharp enough to penetrate the skin, water (used for drowning), etc.
Interestingly enough, firearms are only used in about 60% of murders. Take away guns or other weapons and people will still find ways to kill people they're real mad at. It's been happening since long before guns were around. How many serial killers use guns?
What?
The New Zealand government has moved aggressively to shut down this project -- and by using quite unscrupulous methods which appear to be in breach of the law.
... why should the law play fair with war-makers?
Imagine that: an effort to build a weapon of war, shut down by a breach of the law.
But then, war obeys no law
-kgj
-kgj
Ring. You keep using that word. I'm rather frightened that that word might actually mean what you think it means.
He got shut down not because he could have done it or whether it would have worked or not, but because it reveals the basic anomaly that despite the highest levels of security and defense the lowest (budget) and innovate disruptive technology will continually defeat it. Just like a high level security lab that has the back door jammed open with a pencil because the night crew has to smoke outside.
Revealing the fragile state of most secure states in this day and age is not only an unwise idea, but a foolish one to broadcast to the world.
Let's keep in mind that patents are in place to keep lawyers employed and keep them litigating. -CatGrep
Apparently ...
Slashdot requires you to wait 20 seconds between hitting 'reply' and submitting a comment.
It's been 18 seconds since you hit 'reply'!
Jeez!!
So is "shut up", if you get my drift...
By the way, your post didn't pass the grammar test either.
"If you want to improve, be content to be thought foolish and stupid." - Epictetus
So, you're building a munition that could potentially kill thousands of people, damage buildings or even somehow get into the "wrong" hands. Probably should have been a bit more discrete about this. Then again, here in the USA I could demand my constitutional right to bear arms and have every God fearing right wing chatter-box on RF supporting my cause to own missiles as a tax paying, non-muslim, straight, white male with blue eyes to boot. Hell yeah, grab be a Budweiser and lets get this son of a bitch fired up,...yeee haw!!
"If you are a dreamer, a wisher, a liar, A hope-er, a pray-er, a magic bean buyer
herrvinny: Who's there?
... mmmmph! mmmmph!
Guy in Sunglasses: John.
herrvinny: John who?
GIS: John Ashcroft, asshat. Please put this bag over your head, and come with me. We're going on a nice all-expense paid trip for one to Cuba.
herrvinny: Why? What did I do?
GIS: Does posting terrorist plots to Slashdot ring a bell?
herrvinny: But that was just hypothetical. I was critiquing a stupid government decision in a specific case --
GIS (hitting herrvinny with cattle prod, and putting a bag over his head): Shut up! We'll take care of you terrorist swine! You probably pirate mp3s, too.
herrvinny: mmmmph
(etc)
Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachtani?
www.fogbound.net
OMFG!!! DCMA violations!
Cat got your tongue? (something important seems to be missing from your comment ... like the body or the subject!)
Yikes!
You might get busted for "financially supporting a terrorist organization" or some BS like that...
what risk?
How is this deffernt then an autonamous plane?
The guy wasn't packing one with a nuclear warhead.r maa producing them. Any funded organization can build one.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
http://www.aiaa.org/aerospace/Article.cfm?issuetoc id=309&ArchiveIssueID=35
How many serial killers use guns?
Sixteen, so far.
if I was building a V2 in my backyard ...
Actually, cruise missiles are like the V1.
V2's were ballistic missiles -- predecessor to ICBM's.
-kgj
-kgj
http://tam.plannet21.com/ - a site that documents a flight across the atlantic of a model airplane using GPS. Just change model airplane to a metal cylinder.
What I don't like about his building the missile is that he's saying the main reason for his making it is to show how easy it is to make one.
I think that's kind of lame. At least tack other stuff on like, "This is to also show how our government spends like 1,000 times the cost of building a cruise missile on who knows what."
err...
Well, three outta four ain't bad.
Needle Nardle Noo
This guy is a total pussy. If I was making a missile and my government wanted to take it away (especially one with little military power such as NZ) I would test the motherfucker out on the capital and see what happens. Threaten I have 500 more and then give them my demands. Fuck, you'll probably die but you could possible live and rule all of Middle Earth. Then again...the ring.......
(sorry about the profanity, missiles and war make you want to swear for some reason)
"If you are a dreamer, a wisher, a liar, A hope-er, a pray-er, a magic bean buyer
Interestingly enough, firearms are only used in about 60% of murders.
You do realise that's more than half. As in most people who are murdered are killed using a gun
How many serial killers use guns?
So what? How mamy people are killed by serial killers?
'Although his own missile building days have come to an end, he believes he has proved his point - "that by using off-the-shelf technology in a suburban garage a terrorist can create a weapon against which there is no effective defence."'
Why would anyone need to prove this? Did this guy actually think people would stand up and thank him for demonstrating something that most people simply take for granted anyway? Not only that but "thumbing your nose" at government is not the wisest thing to do. If he ad not been such a wanker he would have likely gotten off with a slap on the wrist instead of the anal probe from the tax office.
How many serial killers use guns?
The DC sniper? Henry Lee Lucas? But that's really a stupid arguement. Your chances of getting killed by a serial killer are probably pretty low compared to other kinds of murder.
Jack Valenti and Orrin Hatch will be first up against the wall when the revolution comes.
Some phrases you just can't get used to, like this one.
"I have now had to give the missile to a friend for safe keeping."
Ah yes, and in such a case, moderation must occur.
;) This is how governments think.
Except guns, those items have significant fair use that far outweighs use for murder; whereas a "cruise missile" (as he called it, he did not call it a flying tube) typically is only used to kill people.
Remember such a thing as "market realities?"
I believe that planning to build such a thing is an exceptional undertaking, requiring relatively great intelligence. I also believe that planning is a totally different operation than building.
However, I believe that if he were to actually build one--and the same goes for any individual in any country--it should not be legally allowed.
> So what? How mamy people are killed by serial killers?
According to the last figures from death penalty rows in the US, Afghanistan and Iraqi wars, the serial killer named George W. Bush killed thousands.
What's your problem?! Are you assuming I think it is a bad thing for politicians to seek to eliminate private weapons? To the contary, I think it is just fine. I don't support people with a gun fetish who lean on the 2nd Amendment.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
What writer wants you to believe:
Guy building cool technology sqaushed by his government for doing things they don't approve of.
Reality:
Guy forced into bankrupcy because he neglected to pay taxes for several years while funding assorted high profile expensive projects. Since he's high profile and a flagrant offender, they made an example of him.
By the way, one of his projects happened to include a cruise missile, who's plans he could now sell to Iran to dig himself out of cete bankrupcy.
-Millions of Monkeys, Millions of typewriters, 6 hours of sorting through faeces encrusted pages to find: This post
OK, I'll condense the article for you. This guy basically took $5,000 worth of stuff and built a guided missile. In my book, that's a pretty cool hack. I have no problem with that sort of thing as long as the guy takes the gizmo out where no one is likely to get hurt to fly the darn thing.
I do have a problem, however, when he calls his gizmo a DIY Cruise Missile (his words, not mine), and starts handing out instructions on how to build the thing yourself. I am not worried about Mr. Simpson and what he might do (especially since I don't plan on flying anywhere near New Zealand anytime soon), but I am concerned about what others might do with his plans.
Of course, it doesn't really surprise me that you can build a DIY guided missile for $5000. We have come a long way since Werner von Braun, and I suppose it isn't this guys fault for simply pointing out the obvious. If someone wants to blow up an airplane it is not nearly as tricky or as expensive as it used to be.
On the other hand, you can't really blame the New Zealand government for "leaning" on the guy a bit. Especially considering the fact that he owes back taxes. Heck, it's even possible that the government interference isn't related to his DIY Cruise Missile project.
I know how to make the polititians let it be legal. Stuff the thing with rolls of $100 bills and launch it at any area with a high concentration of polititians. Suddenly, it wouldn't just be legal; it would be subsidized.
Mr. Simpson,
My father owns also a farm and will greatly appreciate to purchase such an Unmanned Crop Duster as you describe. He has certain questions first: can your UCD carry liquid and as well powdered chemicals for distribution? Some certain crops need liquid applied as aerosol spray, where other crops do best with a powder chemical.
Please also inform whether aircraft can fly among tall buildings (such as grain tower) and what accuracy of navigation is. My father considers starting business of crop dusting for farms in the region and may need aircraft will can fly through city areas and hit remote farms before release chemical payload.
A great thank you and may Allah shine down on your family.
Sincerely,
Abdul Mohammed al Jafar
90% of those killed by guns were in the process of committing some other crime.
I'd go electric, silent but deadly. ba-dump-ump.
The serial killer thing was a joke; the point was that most serial killers use creative means, and that even if you take away guns there are many ways to get rid of someone who don't like.
Actually, drug laws are probably most to blame for murders involving firearms. Whereas if they were legal you could take Bob the drug addict to court for not paying you for the crack you gave him, right now your only option is to have someone take care of him. Then Bob the drug addict has some friends over and they all have guns too. You figure out the rest.
What?
Risk? How about the risk of being the target?
I'm not sure what you think an autonomous plane is, but it is irrelevant whether this so-called "cruise missile" bears any similarity to any other existing weapon. He was building a weapon and clearly indicated he'd like to sell it.
I don't know about you, but I really don't care much about someone's "rights" when it comes to weapons that might kill me. I'm in favor of my side keeping all the weapons. I'm am definitely not in favor of allowing someone else the freedom to express whatever rights they imagine they have if that puts me at risk.
People have a right to put themselves at risk to assert a belief, but they don't have the right to put others at risk to assert a belief.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
You could use these to take drugs from one place to another.
Makes a lot more sense than search-and-rescue. For that application, I'd want a Moto-Guzzi powered super-slow UAV.
Drugs are a great civilian app for cruise missles, though: low altitude and high speed help evade detection and value of goods makes up for high cost of jet fuel and low payload capacity.
Maybe a more acceptable app would be delivering *legal* drugs (antibiotics, HIV triple-cocktail) to regions with poor transport infrastructure, esp. with ongoing civil wars (I've been watching too much e.r.).
Maybe taxpayers would realize that they are being robbed blind...
No kidding. The title says "Cruise Missile", that stupid thing looks like a large rocket. The difference is so huge, I don't know where to begin.
If any expat Kiwis feel up to it they can mail the NZ politicians to lend support to Bruce.
Jim Anderton
Michael Cullen
Helen Clark
This isn't too much about the cruise missile, it's more of the IRD (IRS to you) being right asshats. The general gist is:
- Bruce had some bad (clumsy, not evasional) book-keeping and finds out he's got a large tax bill
- He starts paying off the tax bill
- After a court hearing where the IRD is told off for being idiots (not having a record of a $16k payment and for not having his name right), an IRD employee threatens "We'll get you" in the courtroom
- Bruce sells his assets (including his house) to pay off his increasing tax bill (interest and penalties - the IRD always seemed to find new debts)
- Bruce signs up with a deal with a US company to manufacture his pulse-jet engines for a project. This deal is important because the manufacturing was going to be in NZ, creating jobs and bringing in lots of income.
- While Bruce was in the US signing this deal, the IRD gets him declared bankrupt, despite not being in the best interests of NZ - writing off a $100k debt instead of bringing in potentially millions
- Bruce contacts the Minister of Finance and Minister of Economic Development in an attempt to overturn the bankruptcy so the deal can go ahead (get-out clause is if either party goes insolvent)
- Deal expired on 1 December. Now that Bruce is insolvent and is not allowed to run a company for 3 years, he gets to go on the dole (social welfare) instead of creating dozens of jobs and bringing hundreds of thousands of dollars into NZ.
While this was happening, he received enquiries from Iran about the pulse-jet engine. He contacted the NZ Trade organisation to find out about selling this technology to countries like Iran, and was told "no worries". This didn't sit right with Bruce so he contacted the SIS (NZ Secret Service) and they said "yeah, that's wrong. He's been interviewed by the SIS and says that they're reasonable guys, it's the IRD who are being wankers.
Consultancy: If you're not part of the solution, there's money to be made in prolonging the problem
Wow, that's pig headed and ignorant. It's so bad I suspect you did it on purpose just to piss people off. Your whole premis and understanding are backward - one evil use prevents much good use.
First, you can indeed use small nuclear devices for excavation. Look up the plowshears project from the US govenment. That kind of excavation would save billions of dollars and thousands of lives when used for ordinary construction of canals. More importantly, such cost savings would make lots of nice projects possible, like harbor construction is solid stone.
Second, it's not a particular configuration of special nuclear materials that's against the law, it's the possesion of them without license.
Good cause has been shown for the control of these materails, but the control has overriden many legitimate uses. The bottom line is that materials that have one or two significant evil uses have been controled and that prevents hundreds of very good uses. We are restricted to fewer harbors and less energy production. The poor energy production makes all manner of industry more difficult. This is a shame.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Hired a CPA to handle his accounting and taxes. Turned out the bastid pocketed the withholding.
Guess what? Willie had to pay it all anyway, and the CPA got off without penalty. He be broke, and the IRS wanted to jail Willie.
And Willie is still a Democrat.
So right now I'm living in a cold, drafty, leaky house that I rent for US$70 a week (so you can imagine how crappy it is), I'm not allowed to be self-employed, there are no jobs going for a jet-engine designer and even if I wanted to flip burgers, the town where I'm living has just suffered a mill-closure that has put a whole lot of people on the unemployment line. It's not going to be a very nice Christmas this year :-(
I may be crazy, but I think that you should set up a paypal account and let the community help you. I'm sure that many people would donate whatever's been lost between the couch's cushions and it could add up to a helpful amount. I've said it before; small donations are the way of the future!
Treehugger? Treehugger... Treehugger!
.. only outlaws will have cruise missiles!
http://www.aardvark.co.nz/pjet/donations.shtml
Treehugger? Treehugger... Treehugger!
No, we're simply able to differentiate between a hand weapon and a gaddamned missile, you pig ignorant moron.
Just because you can find an obscure use for a tool that has a prominent list of evil uses doesn't mean the tool should be released to the public.
Sounds like he wants to ban cruise missles and DeCSS
Moderation Totals: Flamebait=2, Troll=1, Redundant=1, Insightful=6, Overrated=1, Underrated=1, Total=12. (not mine)
So what is the motivation for stringing Mr. Simpson up? Taxes or 'terrorism' (aka being a squeaky wheel)? Maybe it was taxes, but I notice that the BBC uses the phrase:
An interesting turn of phrase for an agency which has a reputation for accuracy. Normally tax details are protected for reasons of confidentiality, and 'national security' (aka lots of things) is protected for reasons of secrecy. So is the BBC saying 'national security' (aka war on terror) is behind things? Either way, surrounding "secrecy" with quotes seems to be a form of 'nudge-nudge-wink-wink'.
</tinfoil hat>
So what are the implications for other geeks?
Apart from his taxes, Mr. Simpson appears to have done no wrong. Indeed, reading his discussion forum, he appears to have bent over backwards to do nothing underhanded, break no laws and keep everyone (including government) informed of what he is doing. Given the media coverage of the project, it would be difficult to claim Mr. Simpson was hiding his actions.
I would compare Mr. Simpson to crypto researchers, P2P software authors and security researchers. Why? Because his work has both 'black hat'and 'white hat' uses, lends itself admirably to beng a political football and demonstrates glaring weaknesses in existing systems. If Mr. Simpson goes down without a fight, will it encourage governments to move against the other areas mentioned above?
*If* Mr. Simpson is going down due to his missile work, and not for taxes, shouldn't the geek community chip in and help him? (He has a paypal account, under the name 'paypal@aardvark.co.nz', to offset the costs of a news site he runs. There is also a 'make a donation' link to PayPal from the news site.) I would think he would be at least as deserving as the college students who have attracted public funding for their court cases over downloading copyrighted music.
No, I'm not affiliated with Mr. Simpson. I also don't pretent that Mr Simpson is some sort of an angel. It's just that the facts seem so damned hard to find in this case. Here are a few possible scenarios:
- Mr. Simpson is being screwed in the name of the 'war on terror' for pointing out how vunerable we are to unmanned vehicles.
- Mr. Simpson didn't pay his taxes and that is all there is to it.
- Mr. Simpson could see a tax bill coming and started a the cruise missile project in an attempt to make himself untouchable
Personally, I dismiss the last possibility, but don't have enough information to decide between the first two. If it turns out to be the first possibility, that scares the shit out of me and, in the name of democracy, Mr. Simpson would deserve all the support anyone can give him.Warning Warning Hypocrit alert!!!!
Do you support the same premise for guns?
I've got a cruise missile. In my pants.
I hear they have an excellent testing facility for said product, Im certain that a kind and warmhearted fellow slashdot'er armed with a GPS will provide the needed coordinates for the test site area which i hear is situated somewhere in Utah. Heads up Darl,
Its good to see that our Anglo Subsidiary, New Zealand Corp is complying with the laws and regulations of its parent company, USCorp.
Mac OS X and Windows XP working side by side to fight back the night.
whatever. you should be able to do whatever you want as long as you aren't infringing on someone else's rights. he didn't shoot the thing at anyone. and he didn't damage anyone's property. so whats the problem? just because you don't like something someone is building doesn't give you the right to destroy their property.
Unfortunately no amount of prohibition can keep something away from criminals, who by their very nature tend to violate various prohibitions.
Pinky: what are we going to do tonight?
Brain: the same thing we do every night, try to take over the world with our homemade cruise missile
I helped design one of the engines commonly used on US cruise missiles in the early eighties, and it was fairly obvious 20 years ago that a DIY cruise missile was quite an achievable goal, requiring only slightly more sophistication than the average EAA homebuilt airplane. The guidance issue is the biggest one (you could adapt a commercially available autopilot system for control purposes), but the wonderful thing about doing a cruise missile that doesn't have to penetrate USSR airspace during wartime is that you can use GPS -- possible then, almost trivial now given off-the-shelf hardware. I outlined a novel back then where a couple of out-of-work aerospace engineers built such a device for import/export purposes (the intent being to fly low over the Gulf Coast and drop 100 kilos of a suitably valuable substance after you ascertained you were really alone in the drop zone.) The plot twist was to have been having the project hijacked for more nefarious ends.
In any case, a small team of talented individuals could put something impressive together these days for less than the cost of a luxury car, and it would easily penetrate current US air defenses. Why do you think Lockheed is hard at work on the high-altitude blimp/advanced radar platform?
To me it seems like those people getting upset about this story, are living under a government that would not hesitate to use such a device for whatever reason comes to mind (even none). And probably the only people that are (kind of) threatened by this device are excactly those same people, so ... ... ehrm, how to say?
// Jens M Andreasen
Live by the sword and die by the sword.
cheers
send + more == money?
So Autonomous aircraft shouldn't be allow either? how about remote controlled aircraft?
If I build on of these. then why shouldn't I be able to fly it around on my property?
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
You sir, are against the free market.
that means that you are a COMMUNIST
RED ALERT RED ALERT RED ALERT
you damn commie pinkos are so obvious. The black helicopter will be by to disappear you shortly
The scary thing is that NZ didn't have a legitimate way of shutting the project down. You'd think the NZ would actually have a law against building your own cruise missile, and they wouldn't give random individuals permission to build them based on thinking that they won't be able to do it.
I'm not entirely clear why he thought it was a good idea to design and build a cruise missile, but NZ really shouldn't have given him the go-ahead in the first place. It's not his job to prevent the profileration of missile technology, but it is the NZ government's, and they seem to have been dangerously lax.
... which was gun related.
How to make an H-Bomb
Well, certainly not if you are actively pursuing a state of blissful ignorance. Try looking at the sky from time to time and reading some of the research on the subject.
Resolving to pretend that problems are simply not there is a form of cowardice best suited to worms.
-FL
He could always do what the rest of the population of NZ is doing, move to Australia. That said our PM is a bit of a George Bush arse licker so he would probebly be shipped off to cuba within 5 seconds of landing here.
Agreed, but just as a curious side note, the US Atomic Energy Commision investigated using nukes to excavate a harbor in Alaska, along with other "peaceful" uses.
If you love something, let it go. If it comes back to you, hump its leg.
Hear, hear ...
send + more == money?
... he is lucky US agents did not kidnap him from New Zealand and spirit him away to a nice cage at Guantanamo Bay .
You mean like Windows?
...we only have to worry about a cruise missile attack from terrorists whose taxes are paid up.
Has he! Indeed!
Not a truly difficult point to make. Anyone should be able to see, from a decade or more to this parts, that we have a system where there can be no defense, only offense. The whole idea behind MAD (mutual assured destruction). It is horribly obvious that there is only one way to be safe: not to have enemies. We cannot affort armed conflict, period.
Now, it seems that the madmen who are ruling the USA, Occupied Palestine, the UK, and to a lesser extent others, just cannot understand this simplest of points. They are putting us all in mortal danger in their attempt to prove their deliria.
I resent this very much. They will be proved wrong, and we will be force to pay the bill for the results of their lunacy, in many cases with our lives.It's the same thing about limiting access to biological knowledge because of alleged "bioterrorism", a point raised several times even on Slashdot. Preposterous! Anyone can learn anything he needs to effectively use pathogens as a weapon from a good set of microbiology books, and the technology to actually do it is not such a big deal; it's not even expensive.
An effective weapon does not need to be sophisticated: the devastanting effect of the AKM+RPG combo---simple, cheap, and deadly---has over-proven this for anyone who cares to pay attention.
Our real enemy is not some semi-mythical Al-Q'ida, but---in the words of Miller (Catch-22)---those who are trying to get us killed: the pathological Homo demens we foolishly give power to, murderous monsters like Bush and Sharon.
``L'imagination au povoir.''
Like the other poster said, I just sent him a little money - why not everyone? If everyone sends him $10 he can at least aford a nice blanket to keep warm inside the drafty house...
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Benefits? You mean like Fluoride in my drinking water? And a corrupt penal system which has more people incarcerated today than at any time since the dawn of the U.S.? And a corrupt FDA which allows GM food, Asparame, hormonally altered milk and meat products, and endless other poisons in the public food supply? Which allows the drugging of 1 in 5 children with anti-depressants? And which funds a backwards educational system designed to produce incredibly dumbed down citizens? And which allows the promulgation of cell phone devices demonstrated to cause thinking disorders? And which supports massively environmentally destructive industry? And which refuses to penalize or regulate multi-billion dollar corporate piracy? And which allowed the automobile/oil industry to buy up and rip out hundreds of public transit systems all across the nation in order to sell more cars? And which allows its secret services to devastate budding democracies in other countries so that they become ravaged drug traffic corridors? And which spends the bulk of the public's tax dollars to fund an immoral and illegal war I did not agree to while 1 in 4 children in the U.S. doesn't get enough to eat and gets zero public health-care?
You really need to do some more reading before repeating that old line of bullshit about people benefiting from 'public services and social programs being paid for by taxes.'
If you live in a democratic society, you have two choices: you can work within the system it establishes for changing the law and tailor the society more to your liking, or you can leave. For someone deriving benefits from living in such a society, there is no excuse for not paying taxes.
The problem is that we no longer live in a democratic society. We live in a military/corporate machine which pretends to be a democratic society. And I AM trying to change it from within. I am trying to starve it of the food supply it uses to further subjugate its people. If you believe that none of these points are valid or relavent, then I am afraid you are living in a dream world.
-FL
At New York's Kennedy airport today, an individual, later discovered to be a public school teacher, was arrested trying to board a flight while in possession of a ruler, a protractor, a set square, and a calculator.
Attorney General John Ashcroft believes the man is a member of the notorious al-gebra movement. He is being charged with carrying weapons of math instruction. Al-gebra is a very fearsome cult, indeed. They desire average solutions by means and extremes, and sometimes go off on a tangent in a search of absolute value. They consist of quite shadowy figures, with names like "x" and "y", and, although they are frequently referred to as "unknowns", we know they really belong to a common denominator and are part of the axis of medieval with coordinates in every country.
As the great greek philanderer Isosceles used to say, there are 3 sides to every angle, and if God had wanted us to have better weapons of math instruction, He would have given us more fingers and toes. Therefore, I'm extremely grateful that our government has given us a sine that it is intent on protracting us from these math-dogs who are so willing to disintegrate us with calculus disregard.
These statistic bastards love to inflict plane on every sphere of influence. Under the circumferences, it's time we differentiated their root, made our point, and drew the line. These weapons of math instruction have the potential to decimal everything in their math on a scalene never before seen unless we become exponents of a Higher Power and begin to factor-in random facts of vertex.
As our Great Leader would say, "Read my ellipse".
Here is one principle he is uncertainty of---though they continue to multiply, their days are numbered and the hypotenuse will tighten around their necks.
------------
(Not my own work -- does anyone know know the source of this barrage of puns?)
Vino, gyno, and techno -Bruce Sterling
And if you're going to do something possibly "naughty" isn't this a better risk than sharing MP3's and getting sued to the tune of $1B a song?
Perhaps they'll track my moves for a year or two for my $10 donation - I pity the poor bastard on that case! I hope they get a huge coffee budget to stave off supreme boredom.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Continental and Missile, as in Inter-Continental Ballistic Missile . . . Why, what did you think they stood for?
Should you be allowed to possess the chemical formula on how to manufacture cyanide? Should you only be prevented from actually making and storing cyanide? That is my question. Surely knowledge of these things is a far different act than possesing them.
On a related note, since you brought it up. How many of those 60% of murders would have been murders had the killer not possesed a firearm? The effort and thought behind pulling a trigger is far easier than driving a pen through someones temple ( and far more easily avoidable by the target ).
---
Segmentation Fault ( core dumped )
so? in civilized countries punsihment is up to a judge and jury, not some redneck with a shooting stick
Here we have the unrestricted right to bear arms. Had those kiwi federales done this over here in the US of A it would surely have been an unacceptable outrage.
I'll join ya... You mean like P2P? Oh, but not all the files are copyrighted.
First off, the second amendment (source):
Amendment II
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
(my emphasis added)
Where in the text of the second amendment does it say "conventional firearms"? The truth is, it doesn't. The truth is, at the time the Bill of Rights was written up, people could and did own weapons as powerful as their own government's weapons, whether that was flintlock rifles, or cannons drawn behind horses or mounted to private ships. Why? Because often, these same people were the "well regulated militia"!
You may say "well, that is the role of the Army/Navy/Air Force today" - and you would be wrong again. At the time, it was seen that a government with a standing army was a dangerous government (to the people it governs). It was argued (I believe in the various Federalist Papers and elsewhere) that such a system should not be put into place. Alas, it was never codified in the Constitution that such a standing army not be erected.
You may tell yourself that the citizens of this country have no need for weapons that equal the government's, that the government would never turn its weapons and soldiers on its own people, that the soldiers would never fire upon their own countrymen - and you would be WRONG.
I am sure there are more recent examples, but Kent State is one U.S. example - and to invoke Godwin's Law, have we forgotten Nazi Germany?
What the hell is it going to take to open your eyes and see what our government has already done to our rights? Need I list them?
War on (some) Drugs (aka, Prohibition Redux)
DMCA
UCITA
Gun control laws
PATRIOT Act
Echelon
Carnivore
Driving Laws removing the Right to Travel
and on and on...
WAKE UP, PEOPLE (if it isn't already too late)!!!
Reason is the Path to God - Anon
As in most people who are murdered are killed
Yes, yes, that is indeed some impressive logic.
I'll just skip the ICBMs and start nudging asteroids into enemy countries for sport.
does anyone else think that it is funny that this guy honestly thought that the government of New Zealand wouldn't have a problem with him building a cruise missile?
I don't. New Zealand is ostensibly a democracy that offers its citizens a reasonable degree of freedom
Then again, so is the US. So I see your point.
There are millions of people that have guns, but have no intentions of killing another person with them (hunting, marksmanship, plinking, just because). But I seriously doubt that there is a single person with a cruise missile that has no intention of ever killing some one with it.
Life is Short and Hard like a body building Elf
With that said, what you need to do now is put in some kind of deadman's escrow the plans, etc for the missle, as well as for the pulsejet. This way - should you be "disappeared", these plans would be distributed far and wide (torrent files, p2p systems, freenet, usenet, etc) - spread the info.
I would try to immediately put up and have mirrored any and all ideas you have on the "building a pulsejet using parts from auto parts stores" or whatever it is called. No government can stop the flow of information - they can only stop the people. Look at things like DeCSS - enough people wanted it, now it is everywhere (and actually better stuff has superceeded it), the genie can't be stuffed back. You need to make your stuff the same.
I realize that you wanted to make a business out of this - and I sincerely wish you could. But in the here and now, you have two choices: let the secrets be silenced and/or die with you - or distribute them far and wide. Personally, I would rather give away something that I knew how to do, than to keep it in the hopes of profiting on it later - especially if the government has already shown me it doesn't care about my welfare by taking my house, etc - who says they won't take your life to take your ideas and knowledge from the world away?
Reason is the Path to God - Anon
Interestingly enough, firearms are only used in about 60% of murders.
Ummm... not that I want to get into the middle of a pro/anti gun debate because it's offtopic and pointless, but that struck me as a really odd piece of support to put up so I have to comment on it.
You listed 18 different potentially fatal weapons, yet only 1 of them (which comprises 5.5% of the list) accounts for 60% of the fatalities? What point are you arguing, exactly?
Alito: A vote for Alito is a punch in the eye to put that bitch back in her place!
You'd rather have a dead victim and a perpetrator who gets to sit before a judge and jury than live victim and a dead perpetrator?
If that's what you mean by 'civilized country', no thanks.
Code or be coded.
I doubt this guy was going to arm this thing with explosives - obtaining the explosives would have been one thing, plus none of this projects dealt with explosives, and why would he put explosives that could destroy his one-off prototype into said prototype?
Personally, he set himself up - he should have *never* put any verbage in about a "cruise missile" - it should have been "autonomous robotic jet plane project" or similar. Sure, that is all a cruise missle is - but ignorant (and I would daresay stupid in this world of instant information and learning) people see the words "cruise missle" and think "death" and "scary", whereas they see "autonomous robotic jet plane" and think "???".
We really need to seriously cull the herd...
Reason is the Path to God - Anon
Also, I've been reading Gravity's Rainbow again, so the V2 was the first thing to pop into my head.
... one complete reading took me about five tries ... I'm not sure I can go through that again!
Let me get this straight:
1) You finished reading Gravity's Rainbow;
and
2) You're reading it again?
I know it's a great book, but dear God
-kgj
-kgj
Too bad you didn't RTFA (for the 99.9% who posted.)
The whole premise of this project was to build a off the shelf "cruise missle" to prove that any reasonable handi person could do it.
It also was to show that hijacking jets wasn't necessary anymore if you were a motivated terrorist.
Cruise missles are pretty low tech.
The V1 is a prime example.
His experince homebuilt with pulse jet and ram jet engines were the stepping off place for this.
His whole point was that we need to be very afraid if he could do it in his garage in NZ.
The result of that is being fucked with by his Socialist government.
If the government wants to fuck with you it can.
The Taxes he supposedly owes are a ruse.
Socialist goverments are no less opressive than any other.
All governments are all suspect when repressing the truth.
The Truth is they don't want you to know how impotent they are in defending you against missle technology of any type.
They can't have anything that might detract from you putting up with their latest greatest bulshit infringment of your rights.
If I was going to trust anyone with a missle it would be this guy.
Much he did to build it he didn't make public to prevent it from falling into the wrong hands.
This was the plan from the begining.
Good luck dude you are going to need it.
If you don't like what I write don't be a CS and mod it down. Refute it.
Yea I can't spell. So what is your point?
I suppose I can answer my own question by saying the X-jet deal never raised any red flags from the US gov't, even while the cruise missile project did. As many have pointed out, building a cruise missile per se can't be that complicated, thanks to the wonders of GPS and model aircraft, although a fast jet powered one is rather more impressive and many times more capable. In any case, denying the issue won't make it go away.
Based on your posts, I can't help but think that maybe if you had taken a more proactive legal approach to the IRD, tying them up in court, raising a stink, and winning penalties against them for their shoddy bookkeeping they might have been less abusive. Maybe you can still sue for some of it. But then again, IANAL in New Zealand.
It's really a shame, because frankly the X-jet is what I'm really interested in. (I'm one of the people that donated money for the book. OK, I also did it for the homebuilt pulsejet plans.) Propulsion technology is the most significant element of aerospace capability. If that company was really interested in the X-jet enough to build production facilities overseas, and there are no legal reasons to prevent you from developing the idea, you can probably still negotiate a profitable deal with them for the rights to the design, if perhaps on terms somewhat more amenable to them.
---If you can't trust a nerd, who can you trust?
using quite unscrupulous methods which appear to be in breach of the law.
at least they didn't bomb his house.
Often wrong but never in doubt.
I am Jack9.
Everyone knows me.
why the hell are you worried about a tax debt...you already have a more effective arsenal than the NZ govt ever had.
Go on...you know you want to...
You gotta spend money to make money, you know.
---If you can't trust a nerd, who can you trust?
What other uses for guns besides firing a high speed projectile with the intent to kill/maim/destroy something are there?
How about firing a high speed projectile with the intent to put a hole in a piece of paper? You know, the kind with concentric rings around an X printed on it?
Oh, wait, but that would be "destroying" the piece of paper, and therefore target shooting must be evil.
I'm with you, brother - when's the next 'Save the Targets' meeting?
Code or be coded.
Cyanide is actually a poor example - WMDs are much better examples of this. Unfortunately, for some reason most humans and human societies are very, very UNWISE. It may prove to be the death of us.
Reason is the Path to God - Anon
Good luck in all your future endeavers. I hope things work out better for you in the future.
Er, actually guns do have a fair use, self defense. Things like pepper spray and tazers aren't always that effective.
That's why police forces carry guns, to defend themselves. I hardly think it's out of bounds for private citizens to have the same right.
The gov't had ample opportunity to make his problems go away and chose not to
The point behind banning firearms is basicly that guns make murder too easy, sure if your planning on killing somone you could do it, BUT it'd take a few minutes, or some prior planning.
With a gun its simple, "that guy pisses me off", point, pull trigger. Guns remove the need to consider and plan e action, thus letting you rage wear off during that time.
I'm not saying "spur of the moment" killings don't happen, i'm just saying they make it much easier for people who dont goto the gym everyday or do some sort of martial arts.
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty, to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety"
Meh, i use P2P apps to download linux isos, do you use a gun to change the tv channel? :)
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty, to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety"
You need a paypal link man. Maybe we can get you through for a while. Just an idea.
Ahh.. The beauty of the google cache:
: www.interestingprojects.com/cruisemissile/+A+DIY+C ruise+Missile&hl=en&ie=UTF-8
http://216.239.57.104/search?q=cache:XGH4CP6G74sJ
Let's make sure they know where I live:
The GoDaddy registration information for scolawsuit.com. (Annoying CAPTCHA response required)
;-)
Isn't this just basically an appeal to security through obscurity?
Don't get me wrong, I don't particularly want the bad guys to know these things. But why do we seem to always think that they can't figure things like this out for themselves.
I am not commenting on this particular instance here. Just making a general observation.
Theres a big difference between making a jet powered go kart (which a great many have done), and making an autonomous machine with the brains to keep it self not only flying, but flying to a specific target.
Look at his website, only 3 of the 15 or so pages that document the project actually link to anything even though the project is basicaly done, and those three show nothing of any substance except that more will be uploaded 'in a few days'.
He doesnt even show any hint that he has any understanding of aeodynamics and design and control of flight surfaces.
He just happens to know how to bolt a mini jet engine to a go-kart. Thats it. The engine he claims he is designing is just as much a scam! Posters on his forums point out how his engine looks exactly like the off the shelf engines anyone can buy!
I call shenanigans! The subscribers and donators to his project and all of you that believe it have been scammed. His tax bill wasn't paid because he couldnt fool enough of you to send him money. Notice how eager he is to sell exclusive media rights to his story yet the best you see is the go kart? its all a money grab.
And now that he's bankrupt, he is conveniently blaming it all on the government. Claiming the missile is in a friend's possesion, ignoring the fact that if the government really cared, they could just demand that he identify the friend or else jail him as a threat to society. Surprise proof of the missile's existance is gone. Let's hope he has a few friends that aren't as imaginary as the one hiding the missile.
Only the taxman is after him, not the military. There is no conspiracy to prevent him from making the missile, just his own inability to report and pay his taxes properly.
Gee a scammer who avoids taxes, there's a new twist.
Could a cruise missle be manufactured for $5,000? Probably after all the research and development.
Did this guy do it? no way.
Move on, there's nothing to see here, the little grey men, silent black helicopters, and missing snipers from the grassy gnoll will escort you out.
George Bush + Linux = "I will not let information get in the way of the fight against Windows"
This is why you need to be careful on taxes. Like it or no, they are YOUR responsibility in most countries. For most people, with just a saliry/wage and maybe some investments it is as simple as getting all the standard documentation and filing a form. However if you start to play around substantially with investments (espically complex ones) or running your own bussiness, make sure your books are clean. Don't think every thing is fine, KNOW it's fine, or you could find you owe money you didn't think you did.
Yes, they were being wankers about it, but all in all, that's ther job. For every 1 guy like this there are hundreds that are just trying to get away with not paying. I'm also sure that "but I have the big bussiness deal that will get me all the money I need real soon" is not an uncommon excuse that gets tried.
So I can feel some sympathy, but not too much. A friend of mine got nailed with a $2000 tax bill from a web design bussiness he had for a bit. He didn't properly document all his expenses (he lost money on the venture) and so he got screwed. I feel kinda sorry for him but ultimately, it was his responsiblity to know this shit.
I'm sure the /. crowd doesn't have all the facts, but I can't imagine that every major legal firm in New Zealand is worried about pissing off the IRD, Anderton or whoever else was gunning for you. Any lawyer worth his salt should be able to cut through the IRD's nonsense and keep them from delaying your day in court. I've long respected your work and considered ordering from you (to make my own jet powered go-kart), but you were backlogged with no estimated delivery time in site. I wish you good health and I hope you can regain the energy needed to aggressively respond.
The part of my head wearing the tinfoil hat tells me its better to post anonymously. If the U.S. was cranky about your general field of expertise, I can only imagine the interest they'd take in your potential customers. Kudos to you for being loyal to democratic ideals and notselling to Iran, but your gov't has failed you, time to get your money back. And don't do as others have suggested and release your plans to the wind.
If someone wants to blow up an airplane it is not nearly as tricky or as expensive as it used to be.
I thought the point of the last 100 years is that it's now harder to blow up a plane, at least on purpose.
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
People have a right to protect themselves, and if you cant have a Ballistic Missile in your back yard, they may as well goose-step all over us!
Manipulate the moderator system! Mod someone as "overrated" today.
Instead of calling it a "cruise missle", why not call it an "automated in-flight mail carrier" or "hobby hover-craft". Then the military would not get their panties in bundle over it. Typical of us nerds to open our big mouths without realizing how the rest of the world will interpret it.
Table-ized A.I.
Why make all the fuss about terrorists being able to make a missle using off the shelf parts?
Why call the thing a cruise missle? No one would've noticed if you just called it a remote controll aerial drone.
Why tell the govt that Iranians wanted to buy them?
When the govt said 'that's ok Iran's a soverign state & there's no embargo against them, meaning you have as much right to sell them misssles as you have to sell them to the US' you should have just said ok, instead of making another fuss. Even if you didn't want to sell them to Iran, no one was forcing you too, so why use this as another excuse to make more of a fuss.
Lets be honest, if you had just called them remote controlled aerial drones, shut the fuck up & had never told the whole world all the sensationalist drivel you told, & just kept your paperwork up to date, no public servent would've cared, even the ones who would've rubber stamped your export licenses.
Most murders are not pre-meditated. While you might hear about the 50,000 that were killed by guns last year, you don't hear about the 290,000,000 that used a gun without firing it to defend themselves.
What?
Why do you need cyanide? Why do you need a brick of C4? Should you be allowed to possess the chemical formula on how to manufacture cyanide?
The real question I'd like answered, is how can you justify taking these things away from me without cause? Who do you think you are?
The only real solutions to these problems is educating people to defend themselves against these threats, not outlawing them and then pretending they don't exist.
Higher Logics: where programming meets science.
If someone wants to blow up an airplane it is not nearly as tricky or as expensive as it used to be.
Pardon the nitpick, dude, but cruise missiles aren't for blowing up aircraft.
Yeah, you've screwed up, but i've done the same thing on an very much smaller scale.
Anyone that makes jet engines, makes a good faith effort to pay his obligations and manage to piss off the man that badly is all right by me!
I know that this doesn't mean much, but you and yours will never have to buy their own beer if they are in my town. Good luck friend.
Why do I have this? I don't smoke.
n./t
As far as I can tell, here in the US, the second amendment of the constitution protects my right to have cruise missiles, nuclear warheads, anthrax (as long as it's weaponized), and any other military armaments that a well-organized militia might want.
If you don't like that, then you can try to amend the constitution, but until then, the right to keep and bear arms seems pretty well self-explanatory.
True,
but it takes a lot more guts and energy to kill someone with a knife or strangle them than to just pull the trigger.
If you're pissed at someone and pull the trigger, chances are good they are dead, if you hit them in the head with a tire iron that might not quite be the case, plus they most likely saw the tire iron as you have to be very close in order to use it and they can (probably) outrun you.
"Smith and Wesson -- The Original Point and Click Interface"
If you want to e-mail me, use my PGP Key.
It is an interesting point to note that the New Zealand government DO NOT have an air force sufficient enough to defend itself from any form of missile attacks. Is the New Zealand government trying to hide from this shaming fact and the humiliating possibilities by stopping Mr. Simpson from conducting researches on missile technology? I think it's funny how they restrict the knowledge from being publicized.
According to one of the articles that Mr. Simpson has written, the government itself has breached some of the laws to prevent him from continuing the project. This is absurd. For what reason should the citizens of New Zealand follow the law imposed on them by their government, if it is not consistently applied to all New Zealand citizens, military personnel and governors alike? If the government has "publicly admitted that the project broke no laws," they certainly owe Mr. Bruce Simpson an open apology and should permit him from continuing his projects in missile technology.
Propagating ignorance will not prevent terrorist attacks. If they should silent those who has the knowledge that could be potentially used by terrorists, no industry could possible exist anywhere in this world. Explosives can be obtained from some readily available chemicals; shoe laces can be turned into a lethal weapon; a plane can become a cannon shell; a pencil can be used by a professional trained person to kill hundreds... and the list simple goes on. Whether some seemingly trivial things can become a terrorist's tool is merely a matter of how limited your imagination is.
I don't see how shutting down Mr. Simpson's project will be to the benefit of national security or the worldwide hype of anti-terrorist champaign. It is, however, a desperate endeavor of politicians to secure their positions from being put in a vulnerable state, from those who possess the knowledge of technology so much more powerful than what they command.
I thought the point of the last 100 years is that it's now harder to blow up a plane, at least on purpose.
That's funny, I thought the point of the last 100 years was to build a plane big enough that it could carry enough people to make it worth blowing up.
Don't forget, the 100 year anniversary of powered space flight (measured from the flight at Kitty Hawk) is still around the corner, and hasn't happened yet.
Like what I said? You might like my music
Last I heard, the deal was:
#1 Laugh up the sleeve of your djelleba while 14 of your totally indoctrinated haters blow up a metric arseload of New Yorkers
#2 The US turns two uninvolved countries into smoking holes in the ground
#3 PROFIT!!
sir, you are either on crack, ignorant, or something.
there _is_ no solution, that you are seeking. that is the nature of the problem. thousands of years of religious termoil and revenge fueled war is not going awy, period.
you DO have the right idea that martial law fixes nothing, and that terrorists will strike terror into us no matter what obscene protections we have from them. but the idea that there is anything that CAN be done is absurd. the time when you COULD have solved things was long, long ago, quite possibly before the british empire started growing free from the romans.
part of the reason that the islamist and other movements are so fueled against the peace-loving democratic nations(if you can call them that), is the torture their descendants endurred. remember that, and try to imagine them suddenly putting their hatred aside. it's not going to happen.
ok actually there IS a 'final solution'. and it is just that, the final solution. and worse still, is that you are actually talking about it. even if you don't know this. and a lot of jews, gypsies, and other non-"aryan" people died, during one attempt at 'the final solution'.
you can't change the past. but you can be aware of it's significance.
GENERATION 26: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation.
Drugs are a great civilian app for cruise missles
Stoner (on the phone): Um, State Farm agent?
State Farm Agent: My name is Cindy, I'll be your agent today. what can I do for you?
Stoner: Um, I need to submit a claim on my renter's insurance, you know. *sniff*
SFA: Ok, what's the disaster?
Stoner: Well, you see, it's like this. My homeboy down in Mexico sent me this package, and everything, and it got here and all you know. *giggle*
SFA: I don't see why that would result in a claim on your renter's insurance.
Stoner: Um, hang on. (sound of paper crackling) *crunch* Um, yeah. Where were we?
SFA: You were about to explain how you received a package in the mail and it resulted in a claim on your renter's insurance.
Stoner: In the mail? I didn't receive a package in the mail? *crunch crunch*
SFA: Sir? You said that one of your friends in Mexico sent you a package in the mail.
Stoner: Friends? Oh! You mean my homeboy Paco. Yeah, he's a cool guy, you know. But he didn't send me a package---*crunch*--ooooooh yeah. Yeah. No, that package didn't come in the mail, you know.
SFA: It didn't?
Stoner: No, Man. See. It's like this, you know. *crunch* *swallow* Um, hang on. (water flowing) Aaaah. *zip* *snap* Ok, where were we?
SFA: I don't know.
Stoner: Oh yeah! I know! See, my buddy Paco said he has this new delivery system, and everything, and he sent me a package with it! It just got here today, you know.
SFA: Riiiiight. And how does that make it a renter's insurance claim? Do you have renter's insurance?
Stoner: Of course! You wouldn't think--*crunch*--you wouldn't think I wouldn't? I mean, I'm calling in a claim and everything, so of course I have renter's insurance, you know.
SFA: Riiiiiight.
Stoner: So, anyway. This new delivery system is like totally guaranteed to not be picked up by the DEA, you know, and everybody. But it blew up my house!
SFA: He sent you a bomb, through the mail?
Stoner: No man! It's not a bomb! He read some website in New Zealand, you know, that told him how to build a cruise missile with like, only $5,000 dollars and everything. I told him, I told him I said "Look man, you're crazy!" But he isn't! He built the fuckin' thing, and everything, you know! And it worked!
SFA: Your friend Paco, in Mexico, put a cruise missile in your house?
Stoner: Yeah man! That's crazy!
SFA: That's not covered by your renter's insurance, you know.
Stoner: It's not?
SFA: No, it's not. You know, if you read your policy, you'll see that your policy doesn't cover acts of war.
Stoner: But it's not an axe of war, you know. It's like, I mean, you know, it's just a cruise missile, and we're not like at war with anybody, I don't think. Are we?
*click*
Like what I said? You might like my music
do you use a gun to change the tv channel?
Mod this shit up! That's the best single use of a gun I've ever heard. Reminds me of that Queensryche song... "Bless me father for I have sinned" *bang* *crash*
Like what I said? You might like my music
Quick! Piss off 50 hippies! Oh, crap, you already did. As usual, slashdot runs so far to the left my monitor is crooked again. For more fun, talk about how global warming doesn't exist.....
Bad example. Cyanide is used extensively in industry and there are some home uses. Mostly, home uses I'm aware of involve KFeCN -- don't recall the valence -- such as photography and growing pretty crystals (despite the name it's not particularly toxic as long as you keep it away from acids).
Should you be allowed to possess the chemical formula on how to manufacture cyanide?
The top secret formula? Add an acid to a cyanide salt. Congratulations, all you terrorists out there now know as much as a high-school chem student. As Kibo says, You're Allowed.
Should you only be prevented from actually making and storing cyanide?
I'm storing a cyanide salt right now, perfectly legally. I purchased it from a photography supply store which sold it legally. With effort, I could make it into a weapon, but I can think of much better things to do with it. For that matter, I could do the same with fertilizer and diesel, or gunpoweder, or about a gazillion other things. But then, last time I checked, I wasn't a sociopath.
We'll never be able to prevent terrorists or murderers (or recreational drug chemists, whom I don't put in the same category) from knowing basic chemistry, and there are just too many widely available precusors for things like cyanide or explosives.
It's an entirely different issue than gun control. Many gun murders are crimes of passion or opportunity. Crimes involving poisons or home-made explosives are almost exclusively premeditated.
Gravity's Rainbow ... it's got rocket science, calculus, drug abuse, World War II, Qabalah, musical interludes, philosophy, poetry, religion, more wanton depravity than a stack of Hustlers this tall... there's something for everyone, you know?
... the scene with the strange British candies is extraordinarily funny:
Right on: omnivorous, it rings all the changes. The coprophagia was shockingly unpleasant
"Cubeb? He used to smoke those!"
As you say, Something for everyone.
-kgj
-kgj
a V1 (generally considered the first cruise missile) had nothing like what you're talking about.
Most military scholars consider the V2 to be the first crusie missile.
The V1 was a rocket. The V2 was pretty much an unmanned airplane with an impressive explosive payload. At the time, its gyroscopic guidance system was revolutionary.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
Or perhaps you need to make holes appear in the paper faster, so a full auto ar-15 is needed.
Or maybe a hole punch just isn't feasible. :)
---
Segmentation Fault ( core dumped )
From www.nationmaster.com:
United States of America:
Population: 280,562,489 (July 2002 est.)
Murders: 12,658 (1999) per capita: 4.5 per 100000
Murders with firearms: 8,259 (1999) per capita: 2.9 per 100000
United Kingdom
Population: 59,778,002 (July 2002 est.)
Murders: 850 (2000) per capita: 1.4 per 100000
Murders with firearms: 62 (1999) per capita: 0.1 per 100000
If you calculate the numbers per capita of murders without firearms (knifes, etc.) it's about 1.4-1.6, so pretty close.
Seems to me these figures mean that, by addopting Brittish firearm laws about 8000 lives per year could be saved in the USA.
RogerWilco the Adventurous Janitor
Who do I think I am? I think I am a person who would like to be safe in my home, knowing that if you want to inflict harm upon me, you'll have to come up to me in person and deal with me. No cowardly standoff attack. I can defend myself just fine face to face, hand to hand.
The argument you are espousing is that everybody needs to walk around armed to the teeth. BTW, how does one protect against a .50 cal projectile? What should the DC Sniper victims have done differently since they obviously failed in protecting themselves properly from random sniper attacks? ( and yes, I know the DC sniper used a .223 not a .50, those are two separate questions )
---
Segmentation Fault ( core dumped )
You also mention that 'with effort' you could make it into a weapon. I'm not suggesting that we ban all possible precursors to every possible lethal substance. Rather that if you *have* converted it to a 'weapon', as you put it, that you have crossed the line between 'theoretical knowledge' to 'imminent threat'.
The rest of your points are very well put. The violence and speed with which murders can be comitted with guns are what bothers me the most about them. I never argued nor do I think that eliminating guns from society will prevent every murder. Simply that we will remove a major factor in the 'crimes of passion or opportunity'.
---
Segmentation Fault ( core dumped )
Some people claim the intention of the US's 2nd Amendment really is to enable militia to overthrow the government. One of the arguments against this interpretation is that it is unreasonable to expect militia to fare as well against the US Army as they would have historically. Therefore cruise missles should be more legal than handguns -- harder to use in crimes against individuals and much more effective at usurping.
I've always wondered about the "V1 rocket" considering the modern convention that "missiles are rockets designed to blow up". If this wasn't the convention during WW2, then can't we still retroactively rename it? Or is it because we're doing the most direct translation from the Deutsche overloaded word "rakete"?
Terrorists don't need his project to make a weapon. They already have tech which can zoom in to a target mere feet off the ground and avoid being detected. There are several versions: compact, mid-size, luxury, minivan...
I'm sorry to say it because I don't have a solution either, but making us take off our shoes at the airport etc. is an utter waste of time - terrorism is way too easy, just look at Iraq currently with GI checkpoints and patrols everywhere, even martial law doesn't fix the problem.
The USA has been unable to keep hard drugs out of their prison populations. It hasn't stopped the passing of new drug laws, has it. The other approach is to fix the underlying issues that are making people shoot at you (or do drugs). That is much harder.
Although, I guess you can just kill everybody who disagrees with you. It's worked in the past.
I don't know about you, but I really don't care much about someone's "rights" when it comes to weapons that might kill me. I'm in favor of my side keeping all the weapons. I'm am definitely not in favor of allowing someone else the freedom to express whatever rights they imagine they have if that puts me at risk.
Only thing I can say about this is that this was a popular sentiment in Germany in the 1920s and 1930s.
Like what I said? You might like my music
...how fast was the missile going when it arrived at his place for safekeeping.
Yeah, you can target shoot with a pellet gun.
.50 caliber holes in paper, why shouldn't I be allowed to?
You can web surf with a 486 with no software but a browser.
You can ride a 50cc motorcycle.
You can skate down the street on a fiberglass banana board.
The fact that there's a less powerful alternative does not mean we should ban the more powerful alternatives.
If I want to put
If I want to put a bunch of 5.56 caliber holes in a piece of paper, really fast, what's the problem?
If I want to bust some clay targets that are flying through the air, why does that concern you?
It doesn't. Not if I never misuse it.
The same way that my having a super-evil-looking black-tactical-special-forces-approved combat knife should not concern you if I never use it for anything other than cutting steak.
The point is that there *are* entirely valid non-destructive uses, and there are entirely legal destructive uses (self defense).
The misuses are already illegal, and more law abiding gun owners will mean that those who misuse are quite likely to run into people willing and able to stop them.
btw, the biggest holes I've put in paper were 12 guage, but that's only because the rifle range I was shooting at only allowed you to shoot slugs from a shotgun. I'd have preferred to put a lot of smaller holes all at once rather than one big hole.
The 'no valid uses' and 'you should lay down and die and let your killer get his chance before a judge and jury' attitudes of some people strike me as particularly silly.
Code or be coded.
....considering the fact that the Prime Minister of New Zealand is a neo-bolshevik schmuck who has done everything she can to cripple their military. If you think the left in the US is bad, wait till you see what crawls out from under rocks in other countries.
Lee
Muslim community leaders warn of backlash from tomorrow morning's terrorist attack.
Everyone doesn't need to be walking around armed to the teeth.
However, enough responsible people need to be armed so that criminals can't assume that people are *not* armed.
Code or be coded.
You won't remove 'a major factor'.
The crimes of passion/opportunity will still be committed, just with a different tool.
In an apartment complex down the street a guy stabbed his wife to death, about two weeks ago.
Shall we ban kitchen knives? They, after all, allow a murder to be committed with violence and speed.
Code or be coded.
Military Cruise missles cost 1 million each.
How many did we launch at the Iraqi guy we are supposedly trying to kill/find at one time?Did we hit him? nope. Did we kill a bunch of people. Yes we sure did. We killed chemical Ali - remember. One hundred percent confident we killed chemical Ali.
Oh wait, no we didnt.
but dont worry we killed that other guy in afghanistan. and nine of his body guards.
oops - those were children playing in a field. Our official appology and condolences.
Dont try to claim that just because the military weapons cost but loads of money thatthey are any more precise, smart or otherwise more effective than any other weapon that may have a smaller price tag. And to call anything other than a military cruise missle automatically a Terrorist weapon is just rediculous.
This article states that we hit Iraq with over 500 cruise missiles.here
How about a jet tipped helicopter for a challenge. Never have seen one.
How about a ultra small jet plane ?
How ironic. The *exact* same argument has been used successfully against P2P and DeCSS. Personally, I'd rather place the blame on the person or entity who misuses a tool, rather than the tool itself. But maybe that's just me.
Now the panic has died down, nobody is bothered. Would it be the same if powder came out of an aircraft, I guess so - it could be a duster.
See my journal, I write things there
Being a 'missile', people who really really really like to freak out about these things would get there likeddy split. The "Oh my GawD!" effect would last for months. The U.S. government goes to Defcon 1, the U.S. senate approves a bazillion dollars for guns, guns, guns, and everyone in the world is in cahoots and can't be trusted! DANM FOREIGNERS! becomes the watch-word. Every American is made to sign a loyalty oath (in blood), and made to undergo mandatory brain-scans for un-patriotic thoughts. Civil liberties are completely eliminated for security reasons. There are 2 opinions left: 1. Lock and load and 2. Traitor! Steps are made to ensure everyone is of the same opinion...
I think he's so effective he's become parallel killer. As a regular chur.. wargoer he has had succesful series of wars. Hence, a serial war wager.
actually, the easy, cheap way to make
plutonium is to expose uranium-238 to
fast neutrons. neptunium beta-decays to
plutonium, and u-238 is abundant. heck
you can scrape it out of the lungs of iraqi
schoolchildren, or buy trashed 747 counter-
weights, or niger yellowcake.
there's a time/money tradeoff however.
a high-volume fast neutron source is
expensive, while a low-volume source takes
time:
for us$4m you can have a plutonium charge
in 6 months, or for us$4k you can have one
in 500 years. obviously its well within the
budget of a UBL, but perhaps too speculative
for a risk-averse jihadi.
-I like my women like I like my tea: green-
Yea right. 'I hate what you say but I'll fight to the death for your right to say what I like'
This may be of interest, Bruce Simpson appeared in an epsiode in the current series of Scrapheap Challenge (the UK version of Junkyard Wars)
I have sympathy for this guy. I'd love to carry a stubby Roman-style gladius sword around town, I've played with tiny amounts of low-power explosives for years and even dabbled with napalm and fuel-air detonations, yet there's no desire on my part to harm anyone, and those inclinations of mine have been legislated into criminal acts anyway. So long pocket-size weather-proof ready to use napalm devices... Sniff.
Hammers are not optimised to kill, guns are. That's the difference. The widespread availability of devices designed to kill is what causes killings with guns.
And *only* 60% ? How can somebody other than a moron not see the benefit in having 60% less murders ?
You and your NRA buddies are really a bunch of idiots. I hope you get shot.
How long do you have to wait the bankruptcy out before you can start again with a clean slate ?
Lets get one thing straight. He had not built a weapon. He had built an autonamous flying object that could travel to a given location. Just because you call something a cruise missile does not make it so. Without a warhead it is no different than a plane. The guy is clearly doing this as an intelectual and technical challenge and should be lauded for this fact. The real interest of this work is his jet engine and his tiny budget. As far as his tax situation he should not have got into this trouble but at the same time it is very unusual for a tax department to bankrupt somebody who is actively making repayments. Let us not forget that 9/11 was perfomed with two jet liners not cruise missiles. Good luck to him and hope his Xmas gets better.
A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state; the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
:) Time to get to work!
Cruise missiles are arms, aren't they?
Outlaw the guns, and only outlaws will carry guns. As the discussion goes, there seem to be 2 issues with guns: #1 they are used for premediated criminal activities, like robberies, murders, assassinations, etc.; #2 they are used in "crimes of passion", ie. by people who are generally law-abiding, but "just have had it enough". While there is maybe a valid point in saying that "having a gun makes manslaughter easier" - psychologically and physically it might be easier to squeeze the trigger, than to snatch a knife from kitchen table, simply saying it does not mean it is proved. I do believe there might be some research which indicates your point, but then please quote it, rather than just assume it is so. There is a difference of course, between owning a firearm which can reasonably be used for defence, like a pistol, and owning an AK47 or a sniper rifle. If the things are that bad you need THAT for your PROTECTION, you are probably better off requesting your defence from the police anyway. An interesting point to consider, by the way, might be that most totalitarian countries have always outlawed guns for their citizens. Whereas not a lot of democracies do. If I'd be a robber, outlawing the guns for general populace would make me grin broadly though.
For the purposes of analogy, let us say that a program was designed which allowed anyone to easily hack into the CIA and NSA. Should that program be controlled? Under your logic, it should not be as long as any possible alternative mechanism exists for accomplishing the same task.
Alphanos
Politics is the only answer, coming up with some final solutions in the middle east... (emph. added)
Er, I hope that is just a poor choice of words ...
Anyway, I don't know what "political" solution you think will work. The Arabs have been offered everything that is reasonably possible multiple times, and they don't want it. "Well, go ahead and slaughter the people you hate" really isn't an acceptable bargaining chip, so I'm not sure what you want the West to do, non-militarily.
Uhh, hopefully I'm mistaken, but are you actually arguing that you have a right to posses and keep in your home bricks of C4?
.50 cal projectile?
.50 cal projectile is now illegal.
Unless one actually uses them to inflict harm, there is no reason why one shouldn't.
I think I am a person who would like to be safe in my home, knowing that if you want to inflict harm upon me, you'll have to come up to me in person and deal with me.
Your desire is immaterial. A determined attacker can obtain any sort of distance weapon regardless of whether it is illegal. You are desiring a level of security where there can be none.
The argument you are espousing is that everybody needs to walk around armed to the teeth.
No, I am suggesting that it should *not be illegal* for someone to be armed to the teeth. Anyone can feel free to walk around unarmed. Attackers would be much less hesitant if they didn't know the limits or capabilities of their potential victims.
BTW, how does one protect against a
You tell me. The laws of physics don't change just because that
What should the DC Sniper victims have done differently since they obviously failed in protecting themselves properly from random sniper attacks?
Nothing obviously; that's what makes them victims. If they were somehow responsible for their own deaths, we wouldn't call them victims now would we? Besides, what difference does it make how he killed them? The fact is he did; it doesn't matter what weapon he used. All these laws which draw distinctions between the method of attack are just silly. How is "aggravated assault with a knife" any different than simple "aggravated assault"? What matters is the amount of damage inflicted, not the means of inflicting said damage.
If you want to be really pedantic, you can say the sniper victims shouldn't leave their homes or should always stay behind cover (and only frequent establishments that have sufficient cover). It's up to each person to decide to what extent they wish to protect themselves. Outlawing weapons simply imparts a false sense of security.
Higher Logics: where programming meets science.
Here you assume that those are the only two options. If there's no gun involved (on either side), you can't get killed by one. You should look up the numbers of police officers shot with their own guns, it's staggering.
Interestingly, neither side on this debate is right. The numbers don't support the idea that more guns means less crime, but they also don't support the idea that less guns means less crime. In reality, crime results from income inequality and poverty, mixed in with some lesser factors, like inherent morality of a society, and so on. Bridge the gap between rich and poor, and crime will drop to virtually zero. Unfortunately, the US is moving in the opposite direction, with the gap growing, and every year a larger percentage of the population living below the poverty line.
Target shooting is just dress rehearsal for killing someone. What exactly is the point behind target shooting, if it's not to learn how to more effectively kill people?
If it's about the power trip, go get laid. If shooting a gun gives you a better orgasm than having sex, there's something seriously wrong with you.
And in every other country in every other era I can think of.
The world isn't a perfect place. So long as people are prepared to use violence to advance their own interests, other people must be prepared to counter their violence in kind to protect themselves.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
No. If you put me at risk -- for any reason -- I have a right and an obligation to stop you and eliminate that risk. The surest way to do that is to keep you from owning weapons in the first place, and making sure my side has enough weapons to defeat you if you do acquire weapons.
Expecting people to behave differently is equivalent to expecting human nature to change.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
Nonsense. The guy was making a weapon by copying known techniques. There's no reason to praise him for meeting "an intellectual and technical challenge". Frankly, he seems a bit challenged in the area of social responsibility.
It's incredibly naive to expect any government to allow any private individual to make military weapons that are not under the control of the state. Military and police power is a monopoly of the state.
He was endangering other people by asserting a bogus right to build a weapon. The right of people to avoid being targets for homemade weapons supercedes this guy's right to play with guns.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
If there's no gun involved (on either side), you can't get killed by one.
Very astute observation.
Now, please explain how you plan to eliminate every single gun in th eworld, AND eliminate the means of making more.
Well?
?
?
You can't? Then "no guns" isn't a practical goal, is it?
STFU.
Ahh so its a 'redneck' problem????
Bigot's make me sick. You disgust me.
The point in banning guns isn't to stop crime. Those countries that do ban guns only have a minor decrease in gun-related crimes. If somebody wants to kill somebody, they'll find a gun. (This brings us back to the "pay your taxes" post above - the more crimes you commit, the easier it is to get caught). Say we ban guns, and now only 50% of murders involve guns. SO the fuck what?
The point is that the rates of accidental deaths and injuries from guns is insane. In my city alone, there were seven gun-related murders this year, over thirty accidental gun-related deaths (seventeen of which were children). There were also over fourty non-fatal criminal shootings and over two hundred accidental, non-fatal shootings. All this in a city of 30,000. The point is that, make guns illegal, most of those fourty shootings and seven murders would still happen, but how many of the two hundred+ accidental shootings would have happened?
If only criminals have cruise missles, at least they would take proper care to only aim and detonate them at targets of their choice.
:)
If Joe-the-inbred-yankie has a cruise missle, what's stopping the US citizens from firing a bunch of home made missles at Canada for the hell of it?
A gun doesn't affect a country necessarily, but a cruise missle or enough cruise missles could be considered an act of war, even if the President did not declare war!
Think about it. What if a hundred people in northern New York had cruise missles and aimed them at Ottawa?
That is the kind of thing that makes for great B movies!!!
NZ's government (or any other) would be VERY negligent in allowing somebody to do this.
Manipulate the moderator system! Mod someone as "overrated" today.
Why should the government waste money protecting us from our stupid selves? Spend money on firearm education and other stuff, put it in public schools, etc. and you'd probably see those accident numbers go down considerably.
What?
My hands would sure bother you then. I assure you I could kill you faster with them, than with a gun, because I don't have to "draw" my hands. If I were so inclined, my bare hands could kill you within two seconds, no problem.
Please note that this is not a threat. I'm just stating facts...if I were in a situation where I needed to kill someone quickly, I don't need to look for a weapon. I already have four (hands and feet) which are perfectly functional.
Note that the only real chance you have against someone trained in unarmed combat is a gun, or equal training which involves a lot of work. It's also possible that your physical gifts are insufficient to achieve equality no matter how hard you work. That's the reason for the old saying "God created Man, but Sam Colt made 'em equal". That saying applies to women in particular.
You also don't seem to give any weight to hunting as a legitimate activity. That's just wrong.
In summary, I feel that banning guns would help the criminals more than the legitimate citizens. Thankfully, so do a majority of Americans.
I hope this opened your eyes a little bit.
You're assuming incorrectly that eliminating firearms will eliminate all of those murders that happen with them.
The United States is more violent in general. That fact has little to do with firearm laws, and more to do with our culture, drug laws, and many other things. If you took away our firearms, you would see murders without firearms rise with inverse proportionality to murders with firearms (which arguably, would not change much, since I imagine that firearms would remain as easy to obtain as most drugs are in the US.)
What?
Exactly! It's like some people that expect the entire world to get ride of their nuclear weapons. The United States will never get rid of hers because she knows that they're not that hard to obtain anymore, and if you really really want one, you wil get one.
Now, how many of you "ban guns now" people think it would be wise to "ban nuclear weapons now"?
A semiautomatic 5.56 mm. rifle (say an AR-15 or Mini-14) is a fine home defense weapon. It has less overpenetration problems than a pistol with sufficient stopping power (.357 Magnum, .40 S&W, .45 ACP etc.). It is also effective against body armor, if you happen to run into a well-equipped burglar.
As to the "sniper rifle" comment...ROFL. Almost all modern centerfire hunting rifles are decent sniper rifles. Any reasonably good rifle will put a bullet into a 7" circle at 700 yards, and drop is no problem if you know the range. Rangefinders are now easy to come by, plus a sniper can typically plan his shoot and know the range ahead of time.
There is no safety. Our best hope is to have good, happy citizens...that know how to shoot the bad guys.
I've read it [Gravity's Rainbow] several times, probably my favorite Pynchon. I'm even enshrined in a book about the Pynchon mailing list.
GR is awesome, but my favorite is Vineland -- an astonishingly sad/funny portrait of modern America.
-kgj
-kgj
That's the point, a determined attacker, not Joe Pissed-Off who happens to have a .45 in his glove box. I have *NEVER* stated that banning guns would stop a determined attacker.
Regarding the .50 cal. I'm not asking for physics to change. Simply responding to the position that I need to take the appropriate steps to protect myself or it's my own fault for getting shot. My question was what steps the previous poster would suggest.
Regarding the DC sniper victims, please answer the following: If they had concealed carry permits and were all armed with handguns, how would that have prevented any of them from being killed vs. the killer not being able to easily procure a bushmaster? Which would have been more effective at preventing those deaths?
( Also note I am *not* saying that nobody will ever get their hands on a weapon, but that the ease with which it can be done will be greatly reduced ).
---
Segmentation Fault ( core dumped )
I'm going to posit that a non-zero number of 'crimes of passion' would be prevented if the attacker had only a kitchen knife, instead of a handgun.
It requires a lot more effort to kill someone with a knife that with a handgun. If it requires more effort, fewer people are likely to do it.
Now let's avoid the circular argument about banning every conceivable implement that could be used to kill someone. Kitchen knives have a primary use in the kitchen as a cooking utensil. Handguns do not. If you can't see the difference there, then arguing with you further is pointless.
---
Segmentation Fault ( core dumped )
BTW, I've served in the US military, and am familiar with how to use weapons and have respect for them. I do *not* think that as a civilian I need to have or should have the ability to have access to the same weapons. Those weapons used exist for the sole purpose of taking lives. Arguments regarding "oh but I want to shoot targets, clay pigeons, etc." don't explain why you need to be able to carry a weapon around on your person at all times ( unless you are expecting clay pigeons to fall from the sky ). If you want to shoot at a range, leave the weapon at the range.
Look at a lot of european countries and their gun laws. Some are more strict, some are less strict. And both have higher and lower homicide/crime rates. No, it's not conclusive that higher gun ownership prevents crime, nor is it conclusive the other way. Both sides can find studies or data to back up their point. :)
---
Segmentation Fault ( core dumped )
That's the point, a determined attacker, not Joe Pissed-Off who happens to have a .45 in his glove box.
.50 cal. I'm not asking for physics to change. Simply responding to the position that I need to take the appropriate steps to protect myself or it's my own fault for getting shot. My question was what steps the previous poster would suggest.
The temptation to anger an opponent with a gun is greatly diminished; tempers are brought under control or those with tempers die out. Either way, the problem is self-correcting. There is no need for an expensive infrastructure which serves only to make people feel safe to lose self-control.
Regarding the
It's not your fault getting shot unless you deliberately stepped in front of a bullet. Blaming victims may be a popular practice nowadays, but it has no justification. If such bullets are flying everywhere as a common occurrence, then I suggest you move. As for the steps to take to protect yourself, for starters, don't piss off someone with such heavy artillery. Courtesy goes a long way.
Regarding the DC sniper victims, please answer the following: If they had concealed carry permits and were all armed with handguns, how would that have prevented any of them from being killed
Obviously it wouldn't have mattered a snit. Fortunately, this is besides the point. As you yourself said, a determined attacker will circumvent any deterence. You have to survive every attack; he need only succeed once.
vs. the killer not being able to easily procure a bushmaster?
I think you'll agree that the snipers were determined attackers; they would have found a way. This example does nothing to bolster your argument.
The only way you could convince me that preventing people from carrying weaponry is beneficial is showing me some controlled studies to that effect. Since none exist, we are arguing over psychology of the mind and social patterns. Given my position that a society should maximise personal responsibility as the only effective means of organization, my stance on weaponry naturally follows.
Humans will adapt to any environment in which they find themselves, and while I don't doubt that the adjustment would be rough at first, I think it would ultimately turn out better. My position is a natural extension of capitalism and the free market which is itself a natural extension of the processes under which nature itself operates. The dangers inherent in shirking personal responsibility for some illusion of safety are significant.
Higher Logics: where programming meets science.
You have a funny definition of avoidance.
Sure it takes more effort to kill someone with a knife.
However, you *cannot* dismiss that some number of those murders would still be committed with a different implement.
The ease is just why the gun is picked over the knife. If someone is gone enough that they'll use a gun, they're gone enough to use something else if the gun is not there. You're even tacitly admitting this, as you 'posit that a non-zero number of 'crimes of passion' would be prevented', not "all", or even "most".
As a side note, if you take away guns, you take away any advantage a smaller person would gain against a larger/stronger attacker.
IMHO, the downside to banning firearms outweigh any gains.
If more guns are bad, if people carrying guns is bad, why aren't we in the throes of the biggest murder wave ever? After all, there are more than thirty states with shall-issue concealed carry laws.
So where's the bloodbath we were all warned about, that people were screaming would occur when those laws were up for passage? Because I'm not seeing it. Murder rates are *down*, not up.
Code or be coded.
Really?
I've never killed anyone, and I don't intend to unless someone is trying to kill me - Which I would naturally do by instinct in the right circumstances, gun or no gun. Fight or flight, and fight usually meant someone dies.
A better orgasm than having sex? No. It doesn't give me any more pleasure than any of my other hobbies that require skill do.
Such as skateboarding, or playing chess, or throwing horseshoes. Do *those* activities have a point? Do you think people who partake in them do it because they get a 'better orgasm than having sex'?
The pleasure I get from those activities is definitely *not* orgasmic. The pleasure I get from shooting is the same as the pleasure from any other activity I enjoy.
The fact that you think that people who target shoot are in it for a power trip or 'a better orgasm than having sex' says a lot more about *you* than it does anyone else.
Code or be coded.
Nope, I never did dismiss it. In fact I explicity acknowledged that this would happen. Did you read my comments?
Also, I'm not screaming that there will be bloodbath, and that civilation will revert back to neanderthalic conditions. So please, spare the hyperbole, and have a real debate sans the strawmen, eh?
We don't allow unliscensed doctors to perform medical procedures. Why should we allow what is in effect unliscensed police aka vigilante justice to be performed? If you want to carry a gun in order to prevent crime ( referring to the argument that no one will want to rob banks if they think that bank customers might be armed ) why not go through a 'deputy certification course'?
I'm not against guns, I'm against Joe Random Public being able to walk into a store and walk out with a gun ( waiting periods and other restrictions kept in mind ). Why is it easier in our society to get permission to own an instrument designed to *take* a life, than to own instruments designed to *save* a life ( as in the case of unliscensed medical practice )?
More to the point, I don't see a problem with concealed weapon permits, as for the most part those are fairly stricly controlled. However, there is a huge disparity between the checks required to get such a permit and to simply own a gun. If every gun owner had to go through the same strict tests as a concealed carry, I'd feel a lot safer than the current state of affairs.
---
Segmentation Fault ( core dumped )
Except the police are not legally required to protect you. If you are a victim of a crime, and the police refuse to help, you're as good as dead. Better to shoot the attacker with an AK47 than leaving him alive to assault another person when he's finished with your sorry anti-gun carcass.
We don't allow unliscensed doctors to perform medical procedures. Why should we allow what is in effect unliscensed police aka vigilante justice to be performed?
I never said anything about "vigilante justice".
If you attack me I have the right to defend myself. Period.
If you attack me with lethal force, I have the right to respond with lethal force.
If guns are illegal, the attacker, who is performing a criminal act already, is not going to care that he breaks an additional law by possessing and using a gun.
If the illegality of guns had any effect, how do you explain the murder rate in D.C.?
However, there is a huge disparity between the checks required to get such a permit and to simply own a gun.
Hmm - so your feeling (irrational, imho) that people owning guns will make *you* unsafe should mean that people who need a gun for self defense should be denied one?
You do understand that there have been cases where someone was trying to obtain a firearm, because they had *imminent* need of one, (a stalker, a pissed off ex-boyfriend/husband who wouldn't leave them alone, etc) who were murdered while they were waiting to obtain that firearm?
Now, if they had obtained the firearm immediately, there is no guarantee that they would be alive - but at least the odds would be better.
imho an 'instant background check' is ok, but a ten day waiting period is a bit insane.
Guns are very -simple- machines. It's not rocket science, the level of knowledge required to be safe is -very- low. *Far* less than the knowledge required to operate a car safely.
The problem is not that we let people have guns with a low level of knowledge. The problem is that there's such a fear of guns that people don't give their kids that very minimal base of knowledge required to be safe.
Code or be coded.
Just another note to add to your comment. One very valid use of guns isn't to kill/destroy, it is to protect. In fact, it appears that there's more of that going on, by an order of magnitude, than murders/accidents/etc.
So...all of these posts that say "they're only designed to kill" are somewhat correct, but are missing half of the concept.
Personally? I own several firearms. And, yes, I would use them as they're designed if I HAD to. But only if, so the implication that they're only for evil/bad/etc is incorrect, at least for me and two other people that I know (guaranteed).
The key word being hypothethically.
In case your language skills need a little refresher: Of, relating to, or based on a hypothesis
Manipulate the moderator system! Mod someone as "overrated" today.
I'll be looking out Gravity's Rainbow and Vineland as soon as I've finished this one.
Thanks for the heads up - I'm always on the lookout for real authors.
oh brave new world, that has such people in it!
Like I mentioned somewhere else, it's the sort of the same approach we have to nuclear weapons. Are we ever going to use them again? Probably not unless we absolutely had to (and definitely not in agression.) But the whole point of nuclear weapons is to convince the other person that you just might crazy enough to pull the trigger.
In most cases that's enough to stop somebody from hurting you. Pull out a firearm, and convince them you're crazy enough to pull the trigger to defend yourself. Most of the time they'll back down.
What?
"you don't hear about the 290,000,000 that used a gun without firing it to defend themselves."
That's because they don't exist. There are not that many gun owners in the US. Additionally, I at least have never once been in a situation where having a gun would have been useful. I have been in several situations where, in retrospect, I'm glad I didn't have a gun. For the vast majority of people, most of the time, having a loaded gun with you is incredibly stupid.
Because DC is not a very large place, and immediately surrounded by places with less restrictions. One could also go into the socio-economic forces which usually parallel crime rates.
"Guns are very -simple- machines. It's not rocket science, the level of knowledge required to be safe is -very- low. *Far* less than the knowledge required to operate a car safely."
The very simpleness of their lethality is what scares me about them. The simpleness and suddeness.
Back to "You do understand that there have been cases where someone was trying to obtain a firearm, because they had *imminent* need of one, (a stalker, a pissed off ex-boyfriend/husband who wouldn't leave them alone, etc) who were murdered while they were waiting to obtain that firearm?"
Never in any of my comments have I stated that gun control would be a global and complete panacea for anything. There will always be cases you can point to and say "if they only had a gun". And I can point to just as many cases of "our son/daughter would be alive today if only their attacker hadn't had a gun". A related question, what statistics in the cases you site were the victims killed with a gun?
Let's also address your presumption that making guns illegal means that any criminal who wants one will be able to get one, sounding as simple as just walking down to the corner. For a career criminal, sure, they'll find ways, just as you can find ways to get coke, crack, etc. For the average person in fit of rage/anger, if they don't have immediate access to a gun, or had to sit through a 10 day waiting period. You are aruging that every single one of those people will instead commit the same crimes if they didn't have ready access to such a simple and suddenly lethal instrument?
Also address the point I made previously, that I'm not opposed to someone who can pass a stringent qualification ( such as for a concealed carry permit ) from owning a gun. I think that *everyone* who wants to own a gun should go through similar tests to validate their necessity for owning and possesing one.
Yes, there are people in this world, quite a few who I would feel comfortable around carrying a weapon. There are far far more, who can pass the very simple tests to simply own a gun today, who scare the living fuck out of me.
Do we agree that the cold war was a good thing or a bad thing? Mutually Assurred Destruction is an insane policy to follow, whether between world superpowers, or between private citizens. I do not feel that the best path we can choose to take is an escalating arms race with our fellow citizens.
If everybody having guns is supposed to level the playing field between criminals and victims ( an arguement btw, that I do not buy into ), what happens when everyone has a gun, and criminals move up to more fire power? Will we all be driving armored humvee's with mk-19's on the roof and armored doors and windows, wearing kevlar vests and helmets? What is next?
---
Segmentation Fault ( core dumped )
That's an awful big number to not hear about. How did you hear about it?
Who ever modded the parent a troll is a dip shit. How is it a troll? I wish we knew when we were being modded by editiors. Slashdot is getting usless. And like SCO the mods are on crack.
If you don't like what I write don't be a CS and mod it down. Refute it.
Yea I can't spell. So what is your point?
Because DC is not a very large place, and immediately surrounded by places with less restrictions.
;)
Well, then, explain the increase in gun crime in Britain since they banned handguns.
While you're at it, you can explain why the homicide, assault and armed robbery rates are up in Australia as well
After all, they're obviously not very large places, and surrounded by places with less restrictions -- oh, wait, no they're not.
ne could also go into the socio-economic forces which usually parallel crime rates.
Of course we could, and there would be the meat of a cause of a lot of crime - but it's so much easier to blame guns, especially when you want to ban them (not you specifically, I'm referring more to the anti-gun movement in general).
For the average person in fit of rage/anger, if they don't have immediate access to a gun, or had to sit through a 10 day waiting period. You are aruging that every single one of those people will instead commit the same crimes if they didn't have ready access to such a simple and suddenly lethal instrument?
No. I am arguing that many but not all would.
If everybody having guns is supposed to level the playing field between criminals and victims ( an arguement btw, that I do not buy into ), what happens when everyone has a gun, and criminals move up to more fire power?
210 lb rapist. 110 lb woman.
Both with guns, the odds are evener than niether with a gun - whoever is quickest wins, rather than who is stronger/heavier.
I don't understand how you can not see that as leveling the playing field.
As far as "everyone having a gun", I've already said that not everyone needs to have a gun. We just don't need gun ownership arbitrarily restricted to 'necessity'.
Code or be coded.
A cruise missile is just a remotely guided vehicle of a certain configuration. You could load Sarin gas into a RC plane and get a weapon. As far as I know this device was built with a payload specification but not a payload. By your criteria of concern we'd have to now consider all passenger aircraft for their weapons use only. If you'd read his site he's stated that in addition to pointing out his concerns for use of the device as a cruise missile, he'd also considered the project for promoting his engine designs and as possible reconfigurations for use in search and rescue missions. Sending out low cost recoverable aircraft with built-in guidance and payloads would probably be cheaper than sending out manned aircraft and with the jet engine design cover more territory than most current commercial RC aircraft. The things weigh ~70kg too, that's light enough to consider as a low cost/lightweight equipment for FA controllers I think and artillery observers that might for whatever reason need jet speed more than slow stealth. Then there's low cost entertainment uses I suppose, cheap enough to make for a throwaway camera shot or vicarious thrill nosecone racing. The thing isn't a cruise missile in the sense that people want to portray it as, anymore than a bus is a tank just because they're both large vehicles with horrible gas mileage and diesel engines. His main sin here seems to be in labelling his device in a way that was meant to provocate, which isn't a crime in the US and I don't believe is a crime in NZ.
Not paying your taxes is a crime, if you draw the ire of the government, be sure your nose is clean. IE, if you live in a glass house, don't throw stones.
Why is that every argument against what I've said chooses to take a childish hyperbolic extreme interpretation? Let's stay in the realm of reality please. Oh, but it's so much easier to dismiss the points by stretching things so far out of context. Right.
Anyway, you've got your opinions, I've got mine. We'll have to agree to disagree.
---
Segmentation Fault ( core dumped )
"Why is that every argument against what I've said chooses to take a childish hyperbolic extreme interpretation?" Perhaps it's your own childish notion that things like capability determines usage. A bus would make a better bomb than a tank, does that make the bus more dangerous? How can you stretch your definition of weapon enough to include an unarmed aircraft? Even intent isn't enough to move a man from merely murderous to being a murderer, nor is a criminal thought enough to make one a criminal. If Simpson had instructed more on than the aircraft then I might see your point, or if he'd advocating building the missiles for some nefarious purpose. Instead he outlined several legitimate usages and statements, one of which was the _pursuit of revenue to pay off his taxes_.
Thank you. Reminds me of a quote I heard once:
Criminals love gun control. It makes their job safer.
How to build a REAL cruise missile...
: : ...hehe... ok..its lame acronym) must fly at 20 feet or less above : :
(without looking like a kook)
ok for all those who want to build an actual CRUISE MISSILE ( as
opposed to building a GPS guided flying go-kart with a pulsejet stuck on it ),
this post may help.
Firstly, get your objective straight. Remember the ABC's of cruise missile
development (or any engineering work...)
Amusement - Its fun to make things fly.
Boredom - Blowing shit up is fun.
Cash - Nothing like a few hundred K to line that empty bank account.
With any one of these factors applying to you, you're well on your way
to getting an actual cruise missile flying.
Remember that this is an actual working device so we need an actual
budget. Get at least 50K USD (preferably 100K USD) in cash before you start.
This should not be a problem for the average dot-com engineer who is now
"retired" in his early 30's and is bored.
Assessing your objectives
We need an actual device which is an improvement over the crappy
military grade hardware. As a basic guideline, we need to improve
on the current state-of-the-art -- Block D Tomahawks.
So here's a few objectives - The UTHV (Unmanned Terminal Homing Vehicle
rocky terrain, must travel for at least 1000 miles, must carry at
least a 1000Kg payload, make the minimum noise possible, fly with the aid of
passive sensors as far as possible and use no external radio signals for
navigation. That should get us a good standard to build from.
Why ?
Simple. 10-20 years in the future everyone and their dog will have
[1] GPS jammers and [2] ALARM missile systems stuck on balloon platforms
with look-down SAR sets on board. By flying less than 20 feet off
the ground we can make our toy disappear into radar clutter completely,
while benefitting from improved lift and flap control using the
wing in ground effect. By doing it low and slow most modern SAMs would
have a heck of a time tracking our little toy since they're all optimized
for supersonic or ballistic trajectories. I've tried tracking a prop
plane with a Hawk using the electro-optical tracker...believe me
it was bloody hard. Even experienced operators had problems doing it.
A 1000Kg payload allows plenty of room for whatever we want to carry.
Keep in mind that the primary purpose of any vehicle is to get stuff
from point A to point B safely.
So heres how to do it
Remember the objectives for ABC would exclude you from publicity (which
our resident kook requires), since any government hearing these specs
would REALLY get you (and i dont mean they'd harass you with tax problems,
they'd simply shoot you.. see Bull's ERFBBB gun story for a real life example).
Hence we can only buy COTS (cheapo off the shelf) parts and not bother
about redundancy and EM hardened parts. We want it to work -- military
versions can be developed later with a real budget.
Platform
We can use a simple 200-400 HP jet engine off the shelf for around $10K.
These are freely available and cheap. They're used for business jets,
turboprops and pretty much everything from marine engines to generators.
Buy it with an APU and fuel pump to make things easier.
Cant get it ? Just get a standard prop engine. It doesnt matter if its
a jet thats pushing your toy or a prop. as long as it flies who gives
a crap ? cant get that either ? Stick a car engine into it. whatever.
Cant get a car engine either ? where are you located ? the moon ?
A simple arc welder and sheets of metal can make your airframe. Neither
airframe nor engine is very important. If you sell your unit to a
suitable Evil Axis Sponsor-Of-Evil-Stuff(TM) country, they can use the
freely available Silkworm SSM system as a platform. These are readily
available to everyone anyway and can be upgraded with extended range.
They're sold like p
import com.sun.image.codec.jpeg.*;import com.sun.image.codec.*; // TERCOM algorithm simple applet. This is only to get you started. // Code is completely crappy. Sorry, this code is very very old. // A good TERCOM algorithm will optimize its search using inertial nav data // and use something much better than the crappy linear search here. // This is a very old applet. Progress has advanced way beyond this. // Usage of the applet : Create two images tercom0 & tercom1 in // PNG format (450x300 recommended). On tercom0 put your height/terrain map or // satellite image. on tercom1 leave it black except for the centre where // you can put the scaled down snapshot/RADAR/LIDAR terrain data from your // vehicle (or just cut a bit from tercom0 and put it in the centre to test). // comparing the two it will give you a rough location using the best match. // Your exact location on the satellite image (in x,y coordinates) is : // (matched B coord X-black area X),(matched B coordinate Y-black area Y) // You can then scale this to give longlitude and latitude from the sat. image. // A scale function is included to eventually allow you to automate this // process of taking the photo from your UAV and scaling to map(tercom0) scale. // Use mouse clicks on the applet to force a redraw of the matched regions. // put the following into an html page replace the square brackets with less // and greater than signs. Open up the java console to see the msgs & %match. // [html][head][/head] // [body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" onLoad=document.tercom.letsgo();] // [APPLET WIDTH="700" HEIGHT="500" CODE="tercom.class" name="tercom" SCRIPTABLE] // [/body][/html] // This program is licensed under the GNU General Public License // http://www.gnu.org/gpl (C) 1992-2004 Free Software Foundation Inc. // this code sucks. use for learning only. // image comparision, differencing & tercom matching applet // object only // find image->bufimg cnv. Represent heights in 3D terrain maps with colours. ;log("Drawing..");g.dra wImage(of1,320,200,null);
import javax.imageio.*;import java.awt.*;import java.awt.event.*;
import java.awt.image.*;import java.applet.*;import java.io.*;
import java.lang.*;import java.net.*;
public class tercom extends Applet {
int x1=50;int y1=50;String postit=new String(); boolean DEBUG=true;
int w=0; boolean nogo=true;int h=0;Graphics g;
BufferedImage f0; BufferedImage f1; BufferedImage d0;
BufferedImage xf0; BufferedImage xf1;
BufferedImage of0; BufferedImage of1;
public void init(){clean(); nogo=false; }
public void letsgo(){try{
while(nogo){Thread.yield();Thread.s leep(100);Threa d.yield();}while(!nogo){
log("Lets go start 1.0.0.h");loader("tercom0.png","tercom1.png");
lo g(" Syncing... ");syncimg(f0,f1,32);log("Lets go done");g=this.getGraphics();
g.drawImage(xf0,0,0, null);log("Drawing..");g.drawI mage(of0,320,0,null);
g.drawImage(xf1,0,200,null)
Thread.yield();nogo=tru e;}}catch(Exception e){log(" "+e.toString());}}
public void loader(String imgstr0, String imgstr1) throws Exception{
this.setBackground(Color.black);g.setF ont(new Font("Sans-Serif", Font.BOLD, 18));
g.setColor(Color.white);postit=new String();repaint();
log(" Image 1:"+new URL(getCodeBase(),imgstr0)+" Image 2:"+new URL(getCodeBase(),imgstr1)+":");
try{URLConnectio n urlConn;
DataInputStream dis;urlConn=(new URL(getCodeBase(),imgstr0)).openConnection();
ur
Right, but the 90 lb woman attacked by the 250 lb man is likely to lose if she does not have a gun. The 250 lb man can kill the 90 lb woman (or a 90 lb man, of course) with or without a gun. So a gun in this situation can only change things for the better.
Admittedly this can go either way, a 90 lb man could use the gun to attack a 250 lb woman. Er, wait, I'm getting mixed up here, the genders don't matter. The point is that people will kill people with or without guns. The reason that 60% of murders are done with guns is that guns exist. You are neglecting the 40% of murders committed without guns, which prove that guns are not the cause of murder. Well, not YOU, you seem to understand that it doesn't prove anything. why the hell am I ranting at you? Or even talking about gun control on slashdot? Who fucking knows.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"