Slashdot Mirror


Rocket Hobbyists Get Blown Away by Regulations

dogfart writes "Amateur rocket hobbyists are bearing the brunt of Federal anti-terror efforts. Cumbersome regulations (which include extensive background checks) are pushing many to abandon the hobby. Even clubs associated with colleges (such as Kettering) have ended up folding under the pressure. Quoting the article: '"If we're in an environment where the government says you've got to get fingerprinted and background checked, and spend three to four months to do it, (adults are) not going to participate in my hobby," said Mark Bundick, president of the National Association of Rocketry. "We need more kids. It helps them learn technology. It's the technological base here in the country that we need to protect, and this hobby is a good introduction for kids that are interested in technology. If I lose those adults, then I will not be able to train those kids."'" We wrote about these regulations before, and followed it up with a Slashback.

752 comments

  1. Hey, whose side are they on? by Skyshadow · · Score: 5, Funny

    Obviously, these people are forgetting the role that amateur rocketry played in 9-11.

    --
    Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.
    1. Re:Hey, whose side are they on? by dirvish · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yeah, when have you ever heard of an amateur rocket being used for terrorism?

      Maybe we should outlaw fertilizer and diesel fuel, since they have actually been used for terrorist acts.

    2. Re:Hey, whose side are they on? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I really dont think it's because they think they will be used for terrorism, I think it's because they can be easily mistaken as a terrorist's weapon, and therefore should be outlawed.

      Then again, I hope those assholes realize that a model rocket shouldn't look anything like a guided missle, but oh well.

    3. Re:Hey, whose side are they on? by Rivak · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Insightful?!?! I didn't realize commercial airliners were considered amateur rockets these days.. I'd hate to see what the pros use!

    4. Re:Hey, whose side are they on? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They could always use them to launch deadly crap. Or use the components to make deadly stuff. Who knows - the government is just trying to help.

      paul.guerette@effem.com

    5. Re:Hey, whose side are they on? by Rei · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Or they could use slingshots to fire firebombs through building windows. Or they could use bottles of alcohol to molotov coctail police cars and police stations. Or that could burn a fire in a building's air conditioning room without leaving ventilation so that it produces carbon monoxide.

      So, hurry up, government: Outlaw slingshots, alcohol, and fire.

      --
      I'm an owl exterminator!
    6. Re:Hey, whose side are they on? by swordboy · · Score: 1

      First model rockets and then weapons of math instruction. Tomorrow's scientists will be supplied with only a small fork with a safety cork covering the sharp bits.

      --

      Life is the leading cause of death in America.
    7. Re:Hey, whose side are they on? by yppiz · · Score: 1
    8. Re:Hey, whose side are they on? by strictnein · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      you have got to be kidding me... a new low in stupid Mods

      This post:

      Obviously, these people are forgetting the role that amateur rocketry played in 9-11.

      Gets you a fucking Score: 4, Insightful

      What the hell? IT WAS A JOKE! Amateur rocketry played no role in anything (other than getting geeks outside for part of a day).

    9. Re:Hey, whose side are they on? by ncurses · · Score: 3, Informative

      And that's what I get for forgetting to close my a tag. And for forgetting my formatting tags. God I suck at basic posting stuff :P

      --
      Help! I'm being repressed!
    10. Re:Hey, whose side are they on? by garcia · · Score: 4, Funny

      Maybe we should outlaw fertilizer and diesel fuel

      Unforunately you need fertilizer to grow plants to feed the animals that roam the ranches paid for by oil profits.

    11. Re:Hey, whose side are they on? by DosBubba · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Obviously, your forgetting how hobbyists vastly improve technology. Orville and Wilber Wright were hobbyists. They weren't forced to do anything. They did it because that's what they enjoyed doing, and look at what they were able to accomplish. Would they have even attempted to design anything if they had to go through an extensive background check?

    12. Re:Hey, whose side are they on? by Rei · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Yes, the deadly Qassam rocket, and its (0? near 0?) victims. Who knows - perhaps next, the Palestinians will invent the lethal weapon known as a "knife". Perhaps that would help them commit viscious acts of terror on the innocent settlers that are only taking Palestinian land each year and forcing them into walled in refugee camps with 20 foot high walls complete with prison-style guard towers and snipers nests.

      --
      I'm an owl exterminator!
    13. Re:Hey, whose side are they on? by tmasssey · · Score: 1

      Excuse me, may I go to the bathroom?

      </VOICE>

      One of my favorite movies...

    14. Re:Hey, whose side are they on? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Maybe we should outlaw fertilizer and diesel fuel,

      And doesn't it scare you that the anthrax lab that was used in killing americans on american land hasn't been shut down yet either.

      Seems like that whole issue was dropped in the Iraq distraction.

    15. Re:Hey, whose side are they on? by Rei · · Score: 1

      Hmm, is someone trying a new version of the with Slashdot? Posting something that on the front may look reasonable, but when you actually pay attention to what it says, is really utter nonsense?

      If that was your goal, good form!

      --
      I'm an owl exterminator!
    16. Re:Hey, whose side are they on? by AviLazar · · Score: 1

      Obviously, these people are forgetting the role that amateur rocketry played in 9-11.

      What rocketry played in 9-11? From my understanding it was three planes that were purposefully crashed into buildings (and the ground).
      While I agree safety measures should be taken, it should also not be too extreme. It is easier to buy a legal gun in PA then it is to get passed that rocketry law.
      Real terrorists will not be using your local Estes rockets to launch their bombs.

      --

      I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
    17. Re:Hey, whose side are they on? by orthogonal · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Yeah, when have you ever heard of an amateur rocket being used for terrorism?

      From the linked article:
      "There is no consistency as to what is acceptable in one region for the ATF that won't be acceptable somewhere else," said Wickman. "The ATF people seem, as a rule, to feel this whole idea of hobby rocketry being regulated by the (government is) a mistake and a waste of time. There's a disconnect between the ATF in Washington and the regional field offices."

      What's worse, even though not much has changed about the regulations, they are subject to arbitrary interpretation in the field, said Bundick, of the National Association of Rocketry. "It's a never-ending treadmill to try to pacify the local inspector."

      The Justice Department's Nowacki didn't respond to questions about the ATF's perceived inconsistency.


      What you model terrorists don't seem to understand is that it doesn't matter that model rockets can't be used as weapons of terror.

      What's important isn't controlling model rockets, per se; what's important is getting the American public used to a never-ending "war against terror", keeping them keyed-up, ever fearful and ever compliant.

      What's important is getting the public resigned to always asking permission from the government, always being afraid that they're at risk of arrest, even for hobbies the government knows full well pose no realistic risk of harm.

      And ultimately, what's important is making the people of this nation realize who is boss -- the government and its bureaucrats and its corporate owners --, and who is the servant -- the common taxpayer.

      Once you realize that your hobbies "need" to be regulated to "fight terror", you'll docilely let the FBI knock on your door on behalf of the RIAA's searches, and you'll agree to submit your open source code to government inspection to make sure it doesn't "INDUCE" violation of copyright.

      Once the formerly free American sheeple resign themselves to arbitrary governmental intrusions into their lives in order to further some ill-defined and ever elusive "war against terror", they'll stop squawking about
      Or as our beloved Reichsminister Ashcroft explained, to the Senate Judiciary Committee, "To those who scare peace-loving people with phantoms of lost liberty ... your tactics only aid terrorists, for they erode our national unity and ... give ammunition to America's enemies."
    18. Re:Hey, whose side are they on? by yppiz · · Score: 2, Informative
      The question I was responding to was not whether home-made rockets have killed people, but instead whether they have ever been used to terrorize people. The Qassam rockets are certainly in the latter category.

      --Pat / zippy@cs.brandeis.edu

    19. Re:Hey, whose side are they on? by dirvish · · Score: 1

      Yeah, the amateur rockets I have built wouldn't have done much in a war (even the ones without parachutes). You would be better off throwing rocks.

    20. Re:Hey, whose side are they on? by Rei · · Score: 1

      Erm, I must have malformed my tags: A new version of the Sokal Affair.

      --
      I'm an owl exterminator!
    21. Re:Hey, whose side are they on? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      The rocket hobbyists simply need to rename themselves to missile defense enthusiasts - no way Bush would not back those.

    22. Re:Hey, whose side are they on? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and plants could be used the feed terrorists!

      quick, kill all the plants that support terrorist activities, all grains and veggies! fortunatly we should all be on atkins diet now so it won't affect us americans.

      [/humor]

      -Joe 2-Keg (joe 6-packs fatter brother)

    23. Re:Hey, whose side are they on? by Rei · · Score: 0, Troll

      Well, tons of tools have been used to terrorize people. Probably the most widely used one is "bullets".

      --
      I'm an owl exterminator!
    24. Re:Hey, whose side are they on? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      Congratulations! You have no sense of humor!

    25. Re:Hey, whose side are they on? by trburkholder · · Score: 1
      Reminds me of the sign I saw at an agricultural fair:

      No Smoking
      Alcohol
      Dogs


    26. Re:Hey, whose side are they on? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, when have you ever heard of an amateur rocket being used for terrorism?
      A tiny device that quickly ascends to 1200 feet then ejects its little payload into the air? Give me a break, man... everybody knew this was coming after the Anthrax scare of '01.
    27. Re:Hey, whose side are they on? by Moofie · · Score: 1

      OKLAHOMA OKLAHOMA OKLAHOMA OKLAHOMA OKLAHOMA!

      That is a great scene.

      But the lameness filter is really lame, so I'm putting a bunch more text down here to make the lameness filter not flag my message.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    28. Re:Hey, whose side are they on? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know this may be hard for you to believe, but that post was insightful through the use of sarcasm. That's right, it pointed out a fact by making fun of the lack of facts to back up the opposite argument.

    29. Re:Hey, whose side are they on? by Moofie · · Score: 1

      That moist thwap was the sound of the point hitting you squarely in the forehead.

      The poster was being sarcastic.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    30. Re:Hey, whose side are they on? by TedCheshireAcad · · Score: 1

      i don't know about people, but i used to use estes model rockets on a sideways launch pad to terrorize the neigborhood dogs...

    31. Re:Hey, whose side are they on? by Citizen+of+Earth · · Score: 1

      Model rocket + GPS + Palmtop + warhead = guided missile. I'm not so sure it's such a bad idea to be concerned about this.

    32. Re:Hey, whose side are they on? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      " Yeah, when have you ever heard of an amateur rocket being used for terrorism? "

      I'm sure those rocket propelled grenades in Iraq have nothing to do with amateur rocketry.

    33. Re:Hey, whose side are they on? by TedCheshireAcad · · Score: 0

      i liked your comment better when it was called 'bowling for columbine'.

    34. Re:Hey, whose side are they on? by DAldredge · · Score: 1

      No, the 'tool' that has been most used to terrorize people has been, and still is, food.

    35. Re:Hey, whose side are they on? by hpavc · · Score: 3, Interesting

      actually the rockets that are fired into israel are pretty much amaeur diy rockets.

      --
      members are seeing something, your seeing an ad
    36. Re:Hey, whose side are they on? by Warlok · · Score: 1

      And the second would be oppressive regulation followed by incarceration without access to legal representation on a military base in Cuba.

      --
      ...and you run and you run and you can't stop what's been done...
    37. Re:Hey, whose side are they on? by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      Interesting that you left the Second Amendment out of your list at the end.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    38. Re:Hey, whose side are they on? by mikael · · Score: 1

      Maybe we should outlaw fertilizer and diesel fuel, since they have actually been used for terrorist acts.

      And we should also outlaw laptop and cellphone batteries. People have been hurt with those.

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    39. Re:Hey, whose side are they on? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "animals that roam the ranches"

      d00d where have you been? Animals no longer /roam/ or /graze/ even, they are forced into unhealthy factory like conditions and pumped full of anti-biotics so that they (barely) stay alive until it's time to feed them to you.

      http://www.themeatrix.com

    40. Re:Hey, whose side are they on? by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

      Real terrorists will not be using your local Estes rockets to launch their bombs.

      Nah, they would probably just build a cruise missile. It's more controllable and can be made to carry a 10 - 15lb payload.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    41. Re:Hey, whose side are they on? by kpansky · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Of course this same argument can be made for anything. I mean making a basic gun is easy -- long tube, black powder, and a projectile. Sure, it'll be inaccurate and the range will be crap, but the same thinking goes. Ultimately nothing can be totally prevented, but it just putting up barriers.

      As far as rocketry goes, if these type of regulations were put on other types of explosives (they are) there would be no fuss. It is just because it impacts something near and dear to our hearts that it seems so intolerable.

      Think of the complaints people made for sport shooting and hunting when gun restrictions (something most slashdotters seem to embrace) were enacted. Same basic premise, completely different reaction from the slashdot crowd.

      --

      --Kevin
    42. Re:Hey, whose side are they on? by stanmann · · Score: 1

      Why is it that people forget that that land was occupied after Israel was attacked by armies massing larger than their population, and took the land in self defense.

      YOu must have been one of the jurors that decided that the guy who popped those muggers in the NY subway did something wrong.

      --
      Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
    43. Re:Hey, whose side are they on? by siriuskase · · Score: 1
      WE need hobbies, too, especially those that educate kids and others in useful, but possibly dangerous, technologies.

      Open societies do not outlaw knowledge simply because it can be abused. If anything, if only the bad guys know how something works, then the good people can't defend themselves.

      Carried to extremes, only Al Queda will have the know-How to establish a moon base and then those of us stranded on earth will be in deep doo doo.

      --
      If you must moderate, please moderate as irrelevent, not something bad, because I'm sure someone will find this interest
    44. Re:Hey, whose side are they on? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He also left the 3rd out, what's your point? Oh right, you're a paranoid gun nut.

    45. Re:Hey, whose side are they on? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      So UN resolutions do not apply to Israel but when Iraq violates one we "Shock and Awe" them.

      Ok then.

    46. Re:Hey, whose side are they on? by wrf3 · · Score: 2, Funny

      And after all this time, I thought it was Windows!

    47. Re:Hey, whose side are they on? by Rei · · Score: 1

      Siezure of land in war is *illegal* in all circumstances. Plus, do you *really* want to get into a debate over the 1967 "war against annihilation that wasn't" with me?

      --
      I'm an owl exterminator!
    48. Re:Hey, whose side are they on? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I agree with your post, but where was the left's outrage on violations of the 10th amendment 30 years ago, (hell, 60 years ago)? It was "progressive" congressmen and pliant Supreme Court justices who changed the interpretation of the Commerce Clause to mean "anything Congress wants to do, Congress can do". I don't like the status quo either, but let's all keep in mind that it was politicians enamored with redistribution and central planning who paved the way for the Federal government to become the leviathan that it is today.

    49. Re:Hey, whose side are they on? by xenoandroid · · Score: 1

      Those four things alone still cannot make a guided missile. Even then, are you suggesting that Palms and GPSes be banned due to their potential to be used in guided missile? Ridiculous, why not ban electricity and the wires that carry it because they can be used to shock people and light stuff on fire? Or water because it can be used with a high powered hose to kill people.

    50. Re:Hey, whose side are they on? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Excellent post!

      American's are definitely being conditioned and kept fearful of potential terrorist attacks. I believe most Americans are more likely to either 1.)get shot by a fellow American, or 2.)perish in an automobile accident.

      4th Reich anyone?

      BTW. Where did the debris in AA / Pentagon crash end up at? ;)

    51. Re:Hey, whose side are they on? by Fishstick · · Score: 1

      Ruprecht, what did we do when uncle Charles was over?

      *Ruprecht proceeds to put on rubber glove and pour honey on it*

      No, _after_ that!?

      --

      There is much cruelty in the universe, John.
      Yeah, we seem to have the tour map.

    52. Re:Hey, whose side are they on? by orthogonal · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Interesting that you left the Second Amendment out of your list at the end.

      I don't like guns.

      But I'm against gun control precisely because I won't be a hypocrite who fights for the First Amendment and ignores that inconvenient Second one. Indeed, my worries about the injustice of convicting under Federal gun laws recently prevented me from sitting on a jury after I voiced my concerns.

      But I don't know of any case where Ashcroft or the current Administration has eroded Second Amendment rights; indeed, when it came to searching for terrorists after 9-11, Ashcroft told the government to search for terrorist suspects' names on all government lists except lists of gun owners.

      I'd be glad to add to my list however: if you know of an example where Ashcroft or the Bush administration has abrogated Second, Third, or Seventh Amendment rights, please let me know!

    53. Re:Hey, whose side are they on? by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      Don't forget General Aviation. The Airlines where back flying weeks before small aircraft where allowed back in the air. I mean think of how many lives would have been lost if they had crashed a scary Piper into the WTC instead of a nice safe 767!
      frankly it all comes down to money. Amateur rockets are small bussiness lots of mom and pops. No big money to get the goverment to take the time to fix the rules.

      I would not worry to much about it being the end of Amature Rocketry. From what I read a lot of them have beem moving to hybrids for a while. NOx and paper/rubber/plastic will be a lot harder to regulate than sold fuel.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    54. Re:Hey, whose side are they on? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      he didnt add it cuz its already been taken away.

      The point of having an armed citizenry is in the event of not liking the government the people could overthrow it.

      The average citizen has already lost the "RIGHT" to own any weapons big enough to effectively overthrow the gov't.

      You need permission to own handguns, you need permission to carry them around with you.
      You need a LOT of permission to own anything of decent fully-automatic quality.

      If you still had the right to bear arms, then you wouldnt have to ask the gov't permission to have them.

    55. Re:Hey, whose side are they on? by BgJonson79 · · Score: 1

      Isn't this thread about paranoia?

      --

      There are four boxes used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order.

    56. Re:Hey, whose side are they on? by BgJonson79 · · Score: 1

      In my state you need neither permission to own nor to carry. One is supposed to get licensed to carry, but it's shall issue. Our nice neighbor VT does not require a carry license.

      --

      There are four boxes used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order.

    57. Re:Hey, whose side are they on? by dougmc · · Score: 1
      Model rocket + GPS + Palmtop + warhead = guided missile. I'm not so sure it's such a bad idea to be concerned about this.
      You make it sound so *easy*.

      Well it's not. <barbie voice>It's hard!</barbie voice>

      Places like Lockheed get billions of dollars to make guided missiles. While I guess it would be ossible for a hobbyist to make a guided missile of some sort using off the shelf components, it wouldn't be easy, and requiring background checks on hobbyists trying to buy propellant isn't going to stop it from happening.

      As a general rule of thumb, terrorists (a subset of the group known as `criminals') generally are not concerned with breaking the law. They're also generally trying to get the most bang for their buck -- and that would NOT be a guided missile. It would be a truck full of explosives parked next to the big building -- which could have over 100 times the explosive power of the largest hobbiest rocket (or R/C plane, for that matter) if it were fitted with the largest explosive load it could handle.

      It's attitudes like yours that are causing this country to go to Hell in a handbasket in the name of the fight on terrorism/drugs/the Constitution/environment/disobediance/whatever.

    58. Re:Hey, whose side are they on? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do over-the-counter GPS systems function well at model rocket speeds?

    59. Re:Hey, whose side are they on? by Zeriel · · Score: 1

      You mean like the UN resolution that CREATED Israel in the first place?

      Face, rookie.

      --
      "America has done some terrible things. But I know that Americans don't cheer when innocents die." -Dave Barry
    60. Re:Hey, whose side are they on? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Amateur rockets are small bussiness lots of mom and pops.

      Amateur rockets are just fine. The kind I built as a kid are still perfectly legal and no one, I repeat, no one is talking about changing that. It just a handfull of super geeks that are upset about having to file some papers to fire really huge rockets. I don't see a problem.

    61. Re:Hey, whose side are they on? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      30 years ago? Wasn't that two years before Carter was elected? I could have sworn the two Presidents immediately preceeding him (Ford and Nixon) were Republicans.

      Is it the War on Drugs you're refering to? That was Nixon's baby wasn't it? You know something, I seem to recall that for the most part, the left is actually opposed to that.

      As for 60 years ago, perhaps you'd like to indicate what exactly happened during the twilight years of WW-II, during the death of Roosevelt and take over of Truman (quite legally, he was, after all, vice-president. Check your constitution, it's allowed. Actually, it's mandated) that violated the 10th?

    62. Re:Hey, whose side are they on? by Brandon30X · · Score: 1

      I dont know what the people in this thread are smoking, but I have family who raise cattle and wheat. And their animals do graze, and they most definatly do NOT get oil profits. Farmers are lucky to get an oil or gas well on their land, then if they are lucky, they get 1/26 of the profits. Trust me, they barely get by. And there are thousands and thousands of other farmers who are doing the same as my relatives. So next time maybe you can back up your claims.
      -Brandon

      --
      Quitters never win, Winners never quit, But those who never win and never quit are idiots.
    63. Re:Hey, whose side are they on? by Zeriel · · Score: 1

      I'd like it if you'd point me at the UN Resolution, Treaty, or any international law document at all that says taking territory from your enemies in a defensive war is "illegal" in any way, shape, or form.

      --
      "America has done some terrible things. But I know that Americans don't cheer when innocents die." -Dave Barry
    64. Re:Hey, whose side are they on? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      How about these resolutions:

      UN Resolution 194
      UN Resolution 242
      UN Resolution 446

    65. Re:Hey, whose side are they on? by jebell · · Score: 1

      I, too, was wondering why you left the 2nd Amendment off the list, as allowing citizens to own firearms seems to be a prerequisite to guaranteeing them their other rights.

      At any rate, Bush's is the first administration in many years to adopt, as official policy, that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right - not a collective one. See CBS news.

      If anyone want to engage in a serious study of gun rights as protected by the 2nd Amendment, I suggest reading this site in its entirety as a starting point. Then do your own research.

      --
      This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is mine.
    66. Re:Hey, whose side are they on? by ronfar · · Score: 1
      crashed a scary Piper into the WTC instead of a nice safe 767!
      Funny thing, someone actually did crash a Cessna plane into a building in Tampa in deliberate emulation of the 9/11 highjackers:

      Police: Tampa pilot voiced support for bin Laden

      Several employees of the Tampa Club, a business and dining club, were on the top two floors of the Bank of America building when the plane crashed. There were no injuries in the building, which was evacuated.

      Though the plane leaked fuel, it did not catch fire. Firefighters inside the building sprayed the area with foam.

      Killed the pilot, did some relatively minor damage to the building, that's about it....

      I keep wondering when this became a country of snivelling cowards...

      --
      All the creatures will die, And all the things will be broken. That's the law of samurai. (Jubai, 1605)
    67. Re:Hey, whose side are they on? by susano_otter · · Score: 1

      Illegal according to who?

      Also, regarding the debate you allude to, I figure the agressors had maybe two options: Either a limited conflict, or a total conflict.

      If their intention was the latter, then Israel was certainly fighting a war against annihilation.

      If their intention was the former, then either the invaders would have had to make their invasion permanent, running into exactly the "illegal" problem you're hung up on in the first place, or else they would've had to retreat.

      If they were to retreat, why bother invading in the first place?

      And anyway, when you start a war, you pretty much forfeit everything you have, until the war is over. A forceful invasion sends a clear signal that you will subject all of your possessions and territories to the rule of the strongest force.

      If your enemy counterattacks and takes some of your territory from you, you have nobody to blame but yourself. If you didn't want to risk losing it, you shouldn't have announced to the world that it was up for grabs and then given your neighbor an excuse to grab it.

      --

      Any sufficiently well-organized community is indistinguishable from Government.

    68. Re:Hey, whose side are they on? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The geneva convention forbids colinization of any land occupied or seized during a war.

      its illegal unjustified and theres no gray area or room for debate.

    69. Re:Hey, whose side are they on? by MoneyT · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I believe he was refering to the equal oportunity laws, where the government stepped in and told PRIVATE COMPANIES, who they can and can't hire and how much they can and can't hire them for. Truth be told, anti-discrimination laws in regards to private businesses are unconstitutional, but the courts stratched the definition of the interstate commerce clause to regulate that.

      --
      T Money
      World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
    70. Re:Hey, whose side are they on? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You've cited the UN resolution giving 55% of Palestine to the Jews (30% of the population at that time) but you have never heard of any resolution after that!?

      I guess in your sick little word the only thing that matters is UN Resolution 181. Any other UN resolution is irrelevant.

    71. Re:Hey, whose side are they on? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, obviously you aren't up on your current events or your Bush family history so I'll give you a quick education:

      1. The Bushes have ranches with animals that eat grass.

      2. The Bushes are a very wealthy family due to their numerous oil ventures that were likely funded by some of the very wealthy Saudi familes.

      When you mix these two facts together you get a funny joke when speaking about diesel fuel and fertilizer.

      If you still don't get it you might want to go and vote for Bush. It's obvious you are one of the people that he is counting on to believe in him and God for the betterment of our country.

    72. Re:Hey, whose side are they on? by Halo- · · Score: 4, Insightful
      I don't know the specifics of the rockets fired into Israel, but I suspect the damage done (even psychological) is greater when the same effort and material is put into simplier devices.

      A rocket is pretty much a controlled bomb. Every joule spent on proplusion is a joule not spent on explosive. An amateur might be able to cobble together a rocket which would fly vaguely where the builder pointed it over a distance of a maybe a few miles, but the "warhead" would likely be only a few pounds. (plus the kinetic energy of the rocket.) If you took the same rocket fuel, and used it to make a big-ass truck bomb, you'd gain several magnitudes of precision and lethality.

      Rockets are good for putting a small amount of explosive in a place you can't easily access. Since we're not going to outlaw trucks, fertilizer, and diesel fuel any time soon, the best way to "terrorize" the people remains.

      Ultimately I'd much prefer the "evil doers" put their energy into exotic ideas like homemade rockets rather than simple ones like truck bombs and the classic "cheap-assault-rifle-and-a-crowd". The number of victims would be lower.

      Someone could make a weapon out of rocketry supplies, but anyone with the skills to build a halfway decent rocket could build a pretty impressive bomb a lot easier.

    73. Re:Hey, whose side are they on? by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      No you are wrong.
      Model Rockets are just fine. You know the Estes type that you are talking about.

      Amature Rockets are the big honking rockets that you are talking about. They are also called Hi-Power amature rockets.

      Model rockets= Estes A-about F
      High Power/ Amuture F+

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    74. Re:Hey, whose side are they on? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How does losing a war excuse the conditions the Palestinians have to endure?

      since when have ethnic cleansing and aparthied walls been acceptable in any circumstances either during of after a war?

      and are you seriously suggesting that since Iraq and Afghanistan have both lost wars it would be quite acceptable for americans or europeans to fly over and start buiding houses on their land?

      any claim the Israelis have for persecution since the ghettos of eastern europe during WWII are hypocritical in the least.

    75. Re:Hey, whose side are they on? by nelsonal · · Score: 1

      We had a tradition to build model rockets in fifth grade, and launch them one day. The only two I recall was the challenger which was filled with rubber cement and other potentially flammable chemicals in an attempt to get it to explode (which did not happen, but it did buzz around at 30-50 feet for a few seconds and scared the crap out of the teachers), and the rocket that didn't pop and flew into someone's roof which it penetrated to the fins.

      --
      Degaussing scares the bad magnetism out of the monitor and fills it with good karma.
    76. Re:Hey, whose side are they on? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Insightful?!?! I didn't realize commercial airliners were considered amateur rockets these days.. I'd hate to see what the pros use!

      hEY MODS! It's a joke! And a FUNNY one too!

    77. Re:Hey, whose side are they on? by AviLazar · · Score: 1

      ;-D

      --

      I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
    78. Re:Hey, whose side are they on? by Lemmeoutada+Collecti · · Score: 2, Funny

      Long straw (bamboo works nicely), needle like object (can also come from bamboo), feathering (combed bamboo), and poison (from bamboo extract)... viola, blow gun and darts. Deadly short range weapon with medium accuracy, almost totally silent.

      So please, think of the children, screw the koala, and ban bamboo!

      --

      You can have it fast, accurate, or pretty. Pick any 2.
    79. Re:Hey, whose side are they on? by Penguinshit · · Score: 1


      As has been shown in Iraq over the past few months, an urban population armed with "light" weapons can do significant damage to even a mechanized, armored, military unit.

      I'm waiting for the day the Palestinians realize that the explosives they're using for bomb jackets would be better utilized against the tanks and armored bulldozers that destroy their homes periodically.

    80. Re:Hey, whose side are they on? by smaug195 · · Score: 1

      242? You mean the one that palestinians hadn't recognized for years until they realized it might be politically expedient?

    81. Re:Hey, whose side are they on? by Rei · · Score: 1

      Illegal according to the Geneva Conventions and many other documents in international law. Need references? It's quite unambiguous. You can't permanently sieze territory, you can't settle territory temporarily siezed, or any of the other things that Israel is actively doing.

      The "aggressors" were both sides in the conflict, but one thing is clear: there was no intent on the Arab side to launch any sort of full scale invasion of Israel. Egypt had a mere 80,000 troops on the border, despite being out-teched. Their air force was not on any sort of alert (which led to their air force being completely wiped out). Syria had an even smaller border deployment (50,000) in the Golan heights, consisting of their worst military hardware (in 1967, Israel was fighting *Panzers* and *T34*s; Syria never even bothered to send reinforcements after they were attacked.). Jordan delayedly launched a minimal counteroffensive (60,000 people), which was quickly reversed, of course. The countries involved, while they had done their share of bluster and actions to worsen the situation (the blockade, the threats (partly in response to the bombing of Syria), the Golan Heights shelling (which is blame for both sides - ask me for more if you want), etc), had essentially no military threat posed against Israel, and the heads in Israel knew this (although the average Israeli probably didn't).

      To put these numbers into perspective, Israel attacked with 235,000 troops. The Egyptian forces were only minimally stronger than Israel's *standing* army. Israel dwarfed and outteched its neighbors. Israel faced only 2 Egyptian armored brigades; Israel had 5. The only serious air force in the region was the Egyptian air force (which wasn't on alert). Jordan's air force was a laughable 20 Hawker Hunters, and Syria's wasn't much better.

      After the war, several Israeli generals were frustrated enough that they became peace activists, most famously Gen. Matityahu Peled. Many high ranking officials involved in the war have admitted that it was not a war against annihilation - Gen. Haim Bar-Lev, Gen. Ezer Weizman, Mordechai Bentov, Menachem Begin, Rabin, Gen. Yeshayahu Gavish, etc. I'll give quotes and cites for them if you would like.

      The concept of a poor, at-risk Israel is a complete myth.

      --
      I'm an owl exterminator!
    82. Re:Hey, whose side are they on? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So if Saddam did not accept UN resolutions involving Iraq they did not apply?

    83. Re:Hey, whose side are they on? by shift99 · · Score: 1

      I&#146;m sure a number of people here could do something massively disruptive with software- traffic control systems, water/gas line control, publishing (stolen) classified information, etc etc.

      is developing rocketry skills any harder than learning to program?

      a desperate/creative mind will always find a way to kill and destroy. while it is easier to go after the methods of destruction, perhaps the gov should do something to resolve the *reasons* behind such acts.
      </idealism>

    84. Re:Hey, whose side are they on? by Idarubicin · · Score: 1
      Someone could make a weapon out of rocketry supplies, but anyone with the skills to build a halfway decent rocket could build a pretty impressive bomb a lot easier.

      On the other hand, it's a neat delivery system. A kit-built rocket could deliver a biological or chemical agent to a site a couple miles away. Heck, you could make a non-fatal dirty bomb quite easily, too. Remember, the goal is just to frighten people--and most people find the notion of a rocket dropping deadly substances frightening. Terrorism isn't always about blowing stuff up.

      Of course, I agree with the idea that banning model rocketry is an inane way to fight terrorism.

      --
      ~Idarubicin
    85. Re:Hey, whose side are they on? by Halo- · · Score: 4, Insightful
      The problem is scale. In a lot of places in the US, you can buy small fireworks, but I can't go to a commerical supplier and pick up professional mortars and shells without some sort of license.

      I've got no problem with there being limitations of people's ability to build, say, something which uses propellant measured in pounds (or tons). When it's clear the rocket poses a clear threat if accidents occur or it is intentionally misused. But people should still be able to build smaller things without massive hurdles.

      I don't want to get much into guns because it is a bit of a charged subject. The issue is where do we set limits between the right to bear a squirt-pistol and the right to bear crew-served artillery? Obviously there needs to be a ceiling somewhere, but quantifying it is hard.

      The question is where do you set the ceiling? And what are reasonable requirements for people who wish to exceed it? Model-rocketry is heading towards the squirt-pistol range of the scale...

    86. Re:Hey, whose side are they on? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Freud was a nutcase who thought everyone had sexual problems.

    87. Re:Hey, whose side are they on? by avgjoe62 · · Score: 1
      Hmmm... Makes me wonder. The Second Amendment gives me the right to bear arms, but it does not say what kind of arms.

      Does this mean that it is legal for me to have a nuke in my basement? Just in case we require a little revolution now and then?

      --

      How come Slashdot never gets Slashdotted?

    88. Re:Hey, whose side are they on? by ShadowRage · · Score: 1

      yeah, how are you gonna fertilize your lawn with diesel fuel if it gets banned?!

    89. Re:Hey, whose side are they on? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your right they have nothing to do with them.
      Unless you can show where someone has MADE THE ENTIRE RPG by him or her self.

      Stupid

    90. Re:Hey, whose side are they on? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean like the roadside bombs that took out Israeli troop transports and led to the recent Israeli actions in Rafah cause those bad Arabs killed innocent Israelis. Since even Israeli soldiers on their way to destroy Palestinian homes are innocent victims of terrorists.

    91. Re:Hey, whose side are they on? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      A.) Koala bears eat eucalyptus leafs, not bamboo
      B.) Panda bears eat bamboo shoots
      C.) Bamboo, to quote Jackie Chan is "really strong wood!"

    92. Re:Hey, whose side are they on? by Zeriel · · Score: 1

      You mean, the conditions the palestinians brought upon themselves when they refused to return to their homes in Israel (freely offered until the terrorist bombings started in earnest in the 70s), or when they took the UN Relief moneies and supplies and used them to build random mansions for the tribal leaders instead of the schools and hospitals that had been planned?

      Yeah, it must be rough to be a population composed of fucking morons.

      --
      "America has done some terrible things. But I know that Americans don't cheer when innocents die." -Dave Barry
    93. Re:Hey, whose side are they on? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just one small point sport rocketry would not be able to lift a payload big enough to to do anything. Some over the REALLY big ones might be able to lift a small payload. But their are all ready regulations in effect for that class of rocket. But you have obivousely made up your mind don't worry about the facts.

    94. Re:Hey, whose side are they on? by dekeji · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      let's all keep in mind that it was politicians enamored with redistribution and central planning who paved the way for the Federal government to become the leviathan that it is today.

      No, it wasn't. The US federal government is a leviathan because of one thing: the US military. That takes up 50% of discretionary spending.

      Yes, the US federal government also happens to run a bunch of huge social insurance businesses (social security, medicare, etc.), but they seem to be doing that quite well, actually.

    95. Re:Hey, whose side are they on? by mpe · · Score: 1

      American's are definitely being conditioned and kept fearful of potential terrorist attacks. I believe most Americans are more likely to either 1.)get shot by a fellow American, or 2.)perish in an automobile accident.

      In a country like the US more people are killed by cars than guns. It's only in warzones that people are more likely to get killed by guns than cars.

    96. Re:Hey, whose side are they on? by Rei · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Security council resolutions 242, 338, 465, 681, 181 (there's only 5 that it's currently violating because the US has vetoed most of the ones that came forth)

      General assembly (just a sampling; most passed almost unanimously, usually with just the US, Israel, and a handful of other nations obstaining):

      Resolution 106: "condemns' Israel for Gaza raid".
      Resolution 111: "condemns' Israel for raid on Syria that killed fifty-six people".
      Resolution 127: "recommends' Israel suspends it's 'no-man's zone' in Jerusalem".
      Resolution 162: "urges' Israel to comply with UN decisions".
      Resolution 171: "determines flagrant violations' by Israel in its attack on Syria".
      Resolution 228: "censures Israel for its attack on Samu in the West Bank, then under Jordanian control".
      Resolution 237: "urges Israel to allow return of new 1967 Palestinian refugees".
      Resolution 248: "condemns Israel for its massive attack on Karameh in Jordan".
      Resolution 250: "calls on Israel to refrain from holding military parade in Jerusalem".
      Resolution 251: "deeply deplores Israeli military parade in Jerusalem in defiance of Resolution 250".
      Resolution 252: "declares invalid Israel's acts to unify Jerusalem as Jewish capital".
      Resolution 256: "condemns Israeli raids on Jordan as 'flagrant violation".
      Resolution 259: "deplores Israel's refusal to accept UN mission to probe occupation".
      Resolution 262: "condemns Israel for attack on Beirut airport".
      Resolution 265: "condemns Israel for air attacks for Salt in Jordan".
      Resolution 267: "censures Israel for administrative acts to change the status of Jerusalem".
      Resolution 270: "condemns Israel for air attacks on villages in southern Lebanon".
      Resolution 271: "condemns Israel's failure to obey UN resolutions on Jerusalem".
      Resolution 279: "demands withdrawal of Israeli forces from Lebanon".
      Resolution 280: "condemns Israeli's attacks against Lebanon".
      Resolution 285: "demands immediate Israeli withdrawal form Lebanon".
      Resolution 298: "deplores Israel's changing of the status of Jerusalem".
      Resolution 313: "demands that Israel stop attacks against Lebanon".
      Resolution 316: "condemns Israel for repeated attacks on Lebanon".
      Resolution 317: "deplores Israel's refusal to release Arabs abducted in Lebanon".
      Resolution 332: "condemns Israel's repeated attacks against Lebanon".
      Resolution 337: "condemns Israel for violating Lebanon's sovereignty".
      Resolution 347: "condemns Israeli attacks on Lebanon".
      Resolution 425: "calls on Israel to withdraw its forces from Lebanon".
      Resolution 427: "calls on Israel to complete its withdrawal from Lebanon.
      Resolution 444: "deplores Israel's lack of cooperation with UN peacekeeping forces".
      Resolution 446: "determines that Israeli settlements are a 'serious obstruction' to peace and calls on Israel to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention".
      Resolution 450: "calls on Israel to stop attacking Lebanon".
      Resolution 452: "calls on Israel to cease building settlements in occupied territories".
      Resolution 465: "deplores Israel's settlements and asks all member states not to assist Israel's settlements program".
      Resolution 467: "strongly deplores Israel's military intervention in Lebanon".
      Resolution 468: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to rescind illegal expulsions of two Palestinian mayors and a judge and to facilitate their return".
      Resolution 469: "strongly deplores Israel's failure to observe the council's order not to deport Palestinians".
      Resolution 471: "expresses deep concern' at Israel's failure to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention".
      Resolution 476: "reiterates that Israel's claim to Jerusalem are 'null and void'".
      Resolution 478: "censures (Israel) in the strongest terms for its claim to Jerusalem in its 'Basic Law'".
      Resolution 484: "declares it imperative that Israel re-admit two deported Palestinian mayors".
      Resolution 487: "strongly condemns Israel for its attack on Iraq's nuclear facility".
      Resolution 497: "decides that Israel's annexatio

      --
      I'm an owl exterminator!
    97. Re:Hey, whose side are they on? by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1
      But I don't know of any case where Ashcroft or the current Administration has eroded Second Amendment rights;

      True enough. Only Clinton has eroded Second Amendment rights recently.

      And my congratulations on being open-minded enough to oppose ANY infringement of the Bill of Rights. Not many people will - most have the attitude that the parts THEY care about are the only ones that count.

      Out of curiousity, why are you restricting yourself to the current administration? Admittedly, if you opened things up for even the lst half century, the only one that SOMEONE hasn't tried to infringe is "quartering soldiers in provate homes" (far as I know, that hasn't happened, except possibly in the War Between the States).

      I think you will find that every administration in history has done its bit to erode our rights....

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    98. Re:Hey, whose side are they on? by kpansky · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I agree that for most model rocketry restrictions like these are draconian and stupid. But from the article "Today, thousands of people fly model rockets that range in size from about 12 inches to more than 30 feet tall." Now. That covers quite a range there. A 30 foot tall rocket should almost certainly have some restrictions to it, no? Once you get to 2 feet it length you can start thinking of homemade RPGs. A complete stretch, but one illustrating a point that not all model rockets are squirt guns. A 1/100th model is pretty small, but a 1/10 model can be pretty fucking huge.

      --

      --Kevin
    99. Re:Hey, whose side are they on? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You really are from Bizarro-world aren't you?

    100. Re:Hey, whose side are they on? by Rei · · Score: 1

      LAF!!

      Oh, please, point to where Israel ever offered the right of return. *Ever*. There's a reason that these people have been sitting in refugee camps since the 40s.

      "Oh, I can go to my home that I was driven off of, for which I've kept the key around my whole life and in cases passed it down among generations? mmmm... nah, I'll wait in this squallor a little bit more..."

      Is that the sort of logic that you think the refugees were using?

      --
      I'm an owl exterminator!
    101. Re:Hey, whose side are they on? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You get to bare the two arms that God gave you no more no less. You did not think it refered to fire-arms did you?

    102. Re:Hey, whose side are they on? by Rei · · Score: 1

      But in Bizarro world, that means he likes me!

      --
      I'm an owl exterminator!
    103. Re:Hey, whose side are they on? by Agripa · · Score: 1, Insightful

      This is hardly surprising.

      The news and government leave out that the fourth 9/11 plane was stopped my the militia the second amendment applies to and that they would like to see disarmed.

    104. Re:Hey, whose side are they on? by Brandon30X · · Score: 1

      Actually no, I was just helping people understand some numbers. Your example: Bush = 1. My experience (from relatives), regular joe = 1000's. The original poster did not make that distinction. As for the joke, well there is nothing to get. When you know that most farmers/ranchers are not like the "joke" protrayed... well then it just doesnt seem that funny. Oh well, lots of crap on slashdot is not that funny, I guess shoveling on a little more wont hurt.

      --
      Quitters never win, Winners never quit, But those who never win and never quit are idiots.
    105. Re:Hey, whose side are they on? by mpe · · Score: 1

      Someone could make a weapon out of rocketry supplies, but anyone with the skills to build a halfway decent rocket could build a pretty impressive bomb a lot easier.

      Solid rocket propellent is a low explosive specifically designed not to go bang that easily. Someone building a truck bomb is likely to prefer a high explosive. Anyway they are more likely to steal explosives than buy them.

    106. Re:Hey, whose side are they on? by heptapod · · Score: 2, Funny

      Bamboo is a grass not a wood.
      Cite. Cite. Cite.

    107. Re:Hey, whose side are they on? by BgJonson79 · · Score: 1

      Nukes are ordnance, not arms.

      Besides, most people can't afford them anyway, and who wants the liability?

      --

      There are four boxes used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order.

    108. Re:Hey, whose side are they on? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean the same way employers force the acquisition of a university degree on people ???

    109. Re:Hey, whose side are they on? by Halo- · · Score: 2, Informative
      I agree about the notion of terrorism and rockets, after all, one of the first modern rockets with the V2 used by Hilter in WWII.

      I'd have to disagree about the delivery mechanism part though. I used to build these things as a kid, and the amount of thrust needed to get just a tiny bit of payload into the air is enormous. The biggest thing I ever saw was an extremely light disposable camera, and the rocket it took to lift it used several of the biggest engines available at the time.

      Even when they do lift off, they go straight up, and come down on a parachute. (If you are lucky) a few blocks away in a high wind. The mechanics and force required for lateral flight is a lot greater than almost any amateur can overcome.

      And as for biowar and dirty bombs... I dunno... Heat and unreliablity aren't something I'd want to put my hard-obtained anthrax into. And most the radioactive metals are extremely massive. Combine that with the problems associated with lateral flight, and it's a pretty iffy proposition. I think anyone who obtains and uses radioactivity or biologicial agents is going to scare the pants of the general public reguardless of the delivery method.

      I'd be much more concerned about people using balloons. If you're just trying to indiscrimately drop sometime nasty on people, a weather balloon and a tank of helium would reliably put a lot more payload in the air for a lot less money and exposure. The Japanese were able to achieve mild success during WWII using incerdiary devices and similiar devices from halfway across the world to the west coast of the US.

    110. Re:Hey, whose side are they on? by nosphalot · · Score: 1

      Ryder Truck + Map + Fertilizer + Diesel = guided bomb. I'm not so sure it's such a bad idea to be concerned about this.

    111. Re:Hey, whose side are they on? by BgJonson79 · · Score: 1

      Aren't you thousands of times more likely to be killed by a doctor than a gun?

      --

      There are four boxes used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order.

    112. Re:Hey, whose side are they on? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The other sheep are calling from the barn. They need their leader.

    113. Re:Hey, whose side are they on? by darth_zeth · · Score: 1

      So what about that extra arm Zaphod has?

      --
      "Nobody writes jokes in base 13." - Douglas Adams
    114. Re:Hey, whose side are they on? by Zeriel · · Score: 2, Interesting

      If you'd bother checking history instead of propoganda, the right of return was always open until the suicide bombing started. No one ever forced Arabs OUT in the first place. When the Jews started settling Israel, they bought land legally and settled it, and then had to fight off Arab attacks ANYWAY. In the 1948 War, most of the Arabs who fled did so on the basis of rumor and speculation and fear that the Israelis would attack civilians in repraisals for Arab destructions of Jewish villages--which, I might add, never happened. And many Arabs that started said rumors stayed, and kept their land and that of their neighbors, and made a tidy profit out of being bastards to their brother Arabs.

      Look at the Arab population still living in Israel. Full suffrage, full rights, full citizenship. I had an Arab Israeli professor in college, and several friends who visited Israel at various points, who all confirm it.

      They'd probably give that to the Palestinians, even now, if asked.

      It's this pro-terrorist propoganda I can't stand. The Israeli military is justified in just about every action it's taken against the PLO terrorists and their ilk.

      --
      "America has done some terrible things. But I know that Americans don't cheer when innocents die." -Dave Barry
    115. Re:Hey, whose side are they on? by BostonPilot · · Score: 1

      Similar to aviation - large commercial airliners, used in the attack, were operational again just a few days later. Small aircraft, not used in the attack, were basicallly grounded for a month. :-(

    116. Re:Hey, whose side are they on? by mpe · · Score: 1

      Of course this same argument can be made for anything. I mean making a basic gun is easy -- long tube, black powder, and a projectile. Sure, it'll be inaccurate and the range will be crap, but the same thinking goes.

      Guns are an old technology, which were perfected without the benefit of modern materials and tools. There's no actual reason to use black powder either, especially for a vehicle mounted gun.

      As far as rocketry goes, if these type of regulations were put on other types of explosives (they are) there would be no fuss.

      You can easily buy gas and liquid hydrocarbons which explode very well when appropriatly mixed with air. But it would be impossible to ban the sale of these...

    117. Re:Hey, whose side are they on? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In 1948 Irgun attacked Arab Civilians forcing them to flee their homes. Try reading ANYTHING written by Jewish Israeli historian Benny Morris. Or are the works of Israeli historians now pro-terrorist propoganda?

    118. Re:Hey, whose side are they on? by Dizzle · · Score: 2, Funny

      A tomato is a plant, not an animal.

      What's your point? He never mentioned wood.

      --
      -Dizzle
      "I most likely AM so interested in myself."
    119. Re:Hey, whose side are they on? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We need to have a little talk about the difference between fiction and reality...

    120. Re:Hey, whose side are they on? by jazman_777 · · Score: 1
      Once the formerly free American sheeple resign themselves to arbitrary governmental intrusions into their lives in order to further some ill-defined and ever elusive "war against terror", they'll stop squawking about...

      Remember those tales about how there were many Southern slaves who were happy in their condition, were treated well enough? I'm starting to understand. It's all around us.

      --
      Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
    121. Re:Hey, whose side are they on? by Lord+Prox · · Score: 1

      Just so everyone is on the same page here... high power rocketry ain't no toy. I used to do this years ago, but it got too expensive. I'm thinking about going back though. You have always had to get certified from NAR or Tripoli to get the big stuff, the feds just decided to crash the party. I can see why they are doing it, but I am sure they are going to fuck things up as usual. If you are in the LA area check out lucerne lake bed on the 2nd saturday of the month. Google for it.

    122. Re:Hey, whose side are they on? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is it the War on Drugs you're refering to? That was Nixon's baby wasn't it? You know something, I seem to recall that for the most part, the left is actually opposed to that.

      Define "the left" because it sure isn't going to be either Republican or Democrat presidents in the near future. The Democrat party as it relates to the White House moved decidedly to the right when Clinton took office and he did nothing to make it easier to smoke a joint while he was in office either. A political candidate who advocates decriminalizing 'soft drugs' will still get pounced in most places in the US still. There are brave politicians of both major parties who dare to break away from that stand, but they are still too far and few between.

    123. Re:Hey, whose side are they on? by Saeed+al-Sahaf · · Score: 1
      >> Real terrorists will not be using your local Estes rockets to launch their bombs.

      Nah, they would probably just build a cruise missile. It's more controllable and can be made to carry a 10 - 15lb payload.

      And if you're looking, Build Your Own Cruise Missile

      --
      "Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
    124. Re:Hey, whose side are they on? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why is it that people forget that that land was occupied after Israel was attacked by armies massing larger than their population, and took the land in self defense.

      So what land should Afghanistan and Iraq take in their "self defense"?
      This argument dosn't really address the issue of encouraging "settlers" into the occupied territories.

    125. Re:Hey, whose side are they on? by TopShelf · · Score: 1

      Wow, I didn't know David Spade read /.!

      --
      Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
    126. Re:Hey, whose side are they on? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Jackie Chan did though.

    127. Re:Hey, whose side are they on? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You've cited the UN resolution giving 55% of Palestine to the Jews (30% of the population at that time) but you have never heard of any resolution after that!?

      Which also comes with a map, which is interesting to compare with "Israel".
      A real challenge would be to find anywhere in the UN Charter which would have allowed such a division in the first place.

    128. Re:Hey, whose side are they on? by sneakers563 · · Score: 2, Informative

      This is true - I'm a private pilot (another group targeted after 9/11) and there's an area near my local airport that we're told to avoid because of the very large "model" rockets flown there. I don't know the exact ceilings, but I do know that typical cruising altitudes (3 - 5 thousand feet AGL) are not considered enough. I still think this is a bit of an overreaction, but the mental picture we have of a foot-tall rocket with an egg payload is not necessarily accurate.

    129. Re:Hey, whose side are they on? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, I have heard of homemade rockets used for terrorism. Ever heard of Hamas' constant use of the Qassam rockets? I'm not saying that overregulating model rocketry for law abiding citizens is A-OK, but since you posed the question, yes, amateur rockets have definitely been, and continue to be used for terrorist activities.

    130. Re:Hey, whose side are they on? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I fixed your typos for you...

      If you'd bother checking history instead of propoganda, the right of return was NEVER open until the suicide bombing started. Jewish Militias forced Arabs OUT in the first place. When the Jews started settling Israel, they bought land legally and settled it, and then they forced the Arabs, who had been farming the land for the absentee land lords the land was purchased from, to leave. In the 1948 War, most of the Arabs who fled did so because of ethnic cleansing by jewish forces. And many Jews that started said rumors stayed, and kept their land and that of their neighbors, and made a tidy profit out of being bastards to the Arabs.

      Look at the Arab population still living in Israel. Look at the charges of racism put forth by Israel Jewish and Arab groups.

      It's this pro-israeli propoganda I can't stand.

    131. Re:Hey, whose side are they on? by Rei · · Score: 1

      Oh come on, even Israeli lobbying sites aren't claiming anything as ridiculous as that. The best that *they* claim is that they were *willing to negotiate* the right of return of *some* refugees, but that Israel never would have, and never would accept all of them because then they'd comrpise 40% of the Israeli population.

      Besides, most *Jewish historians* even are at odds with your view of what happened in al-Nakba. Please realize that you come across sounding like a holocaust denier when you deny something that even the historians of people who committed it in general accept.

      Here, why don't you read what historian Benny Morris has to say on it, for starters, and what documents are available from the time to indicate what went on and what was deliberate/unintentional. Morris, who supports the *complete* ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians in the *present day*, even admits what happened in 1948.

      --
      I'm an owl exterminator!
    132. Re:Hey, whose side are they on? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The "aggressors" were both sides in the conflict, but one thing is clear: there was no intent on the Arab side to launch any sort of full scale invasion of Israel. Egypt had a mere 80,000 troops on the border, despite being out-teched. Their air force was not on any sort of alert (which led to their air force being completely wiped out). Syria had an even smaller border deployment (50,000) in the Golan heights, consisting of their worst military hardware (in 1967, Israel was fighting *Panzers* and *T34*s; Syria never even bothered to send reinforcements after they were attacked.). Jordan delayedly launched a minimal counteroffensive (60,000 people), which was quickly reversed, of course. The countries involved, while they had done their share of bluster and actions to worsen the situation (the blockade, the threats (partly in response to the bombing of Syria), the Golan Heights shelling (which is blame for both sides - ask me for more if you want), etc), had essentially no military threat posed against Israel, and the heads in Israel knew this (although the average Israeli probably didn't).

      Actually Israel did attack a country which could have completly obliterated them. However the US instead decided to keep quiet about the attack on the USS Liberty. Prefering instead to give Israel lots of American taxpayers' money...

      To put these numbers into perspective, Israel attacked with 235,000 troops. The Egyptian forces were only minimally stronger than Israel's *standing* army. Israel dwarfed and outteched its neighbors. Israel faced only 2 Egyptian armored brigades; Israel had 5. The only serious air force in the region was the Egyptian air force (which wasn't on alert). Jordan's air force was a laughable 20 Hawker Hunters, and Syria's wasn't much better.

      The military inequality between Israel and the rest of the region is even greater now.

      The concept of a poor, at-risk Israel is a complete myth.

      At least in military terms. Israel does however have an effectivly bankrupt economy and a problem with people who have seen through the myth of Zionism wanting to leave.

    133. Re:Hey, whose side are they on? by Halo- · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Exactly.

      The propellent in rocketry is not well suited to explosives. Major truck bombs, like the one used in OKC, were ammonium nitrate and diesel. Technically that's a low power explosive too. Elsewhere in the thread someone was saying that a two foot rocket is starting to sound like an RPG, but they are forgetting that the lethality of an RPG is because they carry very exotic shaped charge high explosive and penetrators which turn into jets of plasma upon impact. Even assuming the rocket is easy to make, the warhead takes a lot more work.

      And finally, I totally agree with you about stealing explosives. Without sounding to much like the "when guns are illegal only criminals will have guns" crowd, putting restrictions of materials that an accomplished amateur chemist could make from common ingredients isn't going to stop a serious terrorist. Look at the problem with illegal drugs. Thousands and thousands of less-than-rocket-scientists manage to cook up crystal meth in dilapidated shacks and bathrooms all the time.

      Sure, a terrorist would prefer to buy off the shelf, but I don't think it's going to stop them if they can't. And, more to the point, they could always just knock over a quarry for some dynamite.

    134. Re:Hey, whose side are they on? by The_REAL_DZA · · Score: 1
      the US federal government also happens to run a bunch of huge social insurance businesses (social security, medicare, etc.), but they seem to be doing that quite well, actually.


      Yeah, running a "business" is really hard work when all you have to do to correct a costly "business mistake" is to go pick more money off the money tree...
      --


      This space intentionally left (almost) blank.
    135. Re:Hey, whose side are they on? by susano_otter · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You argue that Israel was never at risk because their military was stronger than their neighbors' military.

      Would Israel still have been safe if their military was weaker than their neighbors'?

      You say that Israel used overwhelming force to end a conflict as quickly and decisively as possible... as if that's a bad thing.

      Would it have been better for Israel to commit no more than 80,000 troops, and limit their tech usage to the obosolete tech level of their opponents?

      Did you allow for the possibility that Israel has such a large army because their neighbors insist on massing whatever troops they have on Israel's borders, along with the best weapons technology they can muster?

      Did you allow for the possibility that the only hope Israel has of winning a war of agression is to apply overwhelming force immmediately? That perhaps that's why Israel maintains such a large and advanced military?

      That Egypt, Syria, et al were unwilling or unable to follow up with a counterattack is hardly an indictment of Israel. Rather, it indicates that Israel struck at the right moment, before the forces massing on its borders were in a position to achieve the victory they sought.

      The Geneva convention is opt-in, and applies only to signatories who abide by its rules. Like all other "international law", it is only worth the enforcement that underwrites it. In the case of the Geneva Convention, enforcement comes in the form of "tit for tat"--if you violate the rules, then your enemy is free to also violate the rules. In fact, the retaliation is not against the rules at all.

      According to the Geneva Convention, the first entity to use biological weapons is in violation. The second entity is in total compliance when it retaliates with biological weapons of its own.

      Before we discuss this further, though, it might be interesting to know which of the parties involved were signatories of the Geneva Convention at the time.

      As for the rest of "international law", it is essentially meaningless without enforcement. Israel was bound only by its treaties, and by the ability and willingness of other entities to police Israel (and its neighbors) effectively. Absent a higher power with legitimate authority to dictate policy to nation-states, and with enough force of arms and force of will to enforce that policy, whatever Israel has done may be "unfair" in your opinion, but it cannot be "illegal".

      There are many veterans who stand by John Kerry's Vietnam record and support his anti-war sentiments. But there are just as many veterans who repudiate his record and denounce his anti-war sentiments. It never occurred to me that all Israeli generals would think--then or now--that the 1967 war was a good idea. It also never occurred to me that if a general opposed the war, it must therefore have been a bad idea. What about all the generals who supported the war? Do their opinions not count?

      --

      Any sufficiently well-organized community is indistinguishable from Government.

    136. Re:Hey, whose side are they on? by SquadBoy · · Score: 1

      Does it hurt not to have a sense of humor?

      --

      Cypherpunks: Civil Liberty Through Complex Mathematics. Those who live by the sword die by the arrow.
    137. Re:Hey, whose side are they on? by AviLazar · · Score: 1

      Not as much as laughing so hard that your sides start to hurt

      --

      I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
    138. Re:Hey, whose side are they on? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, hurry up, government: Outlaw slingshots, alcohol, and fire.

      If Bush hadn't been a drunken coke addict they would have done just that.

    139. Re:Hey, whose side are they on? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Someone needs to have that same talk with George W. Bush...

    140. Re:Hey, whose side are they on? by Rei · · Score: 1

      You completely missed over the issue. Trace back this conversation: it started out in response to someone who claimed that Israel took the land legitimately against aggressors who threatened its existence. This is not true.

      Israel was not being threatened with its existance. Certainly, I support the Powell doctrine of using all of the force that you can as quickly as possible when war breaks out - but I support the other points of it also, which involve leaving as quickly as possible and not getting into conflicts that you need not get into. Israel not only launched an attack against a phantom invasion, but used it tried to take more land as theirs, not only violating the Geneva Conventions, but setting themselves aside as a rogue state and, in the arab mind, a threat to their very existance.

      What evidence do you have that Egypt, Syria, and Jordan actually planned to increase their deployments? They had all the time in the world to increase their deployments before. They did not. Syria is an especially telling case - they hardly even fought, even with the time that they had from when Israel invaded Egypt till they invaded Syria. They just retreated, without even bothering to send reinforcements. How could this possibly be a nation planning an invasion? On the other hand, Israel's well-coordinated, well designed attacks *do* indicate long-term invasion planning (either that, or some sort of miraculous telepathic powers ;) ).

      By the way, is your argument about how, given Israel broke International Law, that international law is irrelevant? If so, I think we have a fundamental disagreement here. I feel that the only good guideline of a "rogue state" is how well they follow international law.

      --
      I'm an owl exterminator!
    141. Re:Hey, whose side are they on? by the+morgawr · · Score: 1
      This is WAY off topic and probably a troll but I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you, like most people, are just restating what you've been told and don't know the facts. If you'd like a liberally-minded view point on the the situation I'd suggest Alan Dershowitz's Book "The Case for Israel". It's a very enlightening well documented read.

      1. General Assembly Resolutions arn't binding and are used mostly for political posturing. They are generally considered worthless. The people sponsoring these things are the same people who invaded Israel with the goal of KILLING everyone in the country. They are also the same people (Egypt, Jordan, and Syria) who originally invaded and took the land the Security Council had set aside for the Palistinians to have. They don't care about either side and only want the conflict to continue. While we're on that topic the General Assembly never condembed Egypt, Jordan, or Syria for invading and taking Palistinian land. It also never condemned China for it's abuses in Tibet. I has however managed to condemn the US for having a death penalty (although it overlooks the state torture allowed in Palestine). In short the organization is biased and it's oppinion is usesless to 90% of people.
      2. Contrary to popular belief, Israel is not in violation of any UN Security Council Resolution. The Resolutions you refer to direct Israel to return "lands" in exchange for recognition, security, and peace. Notice that this says nothing about the 67 borders, giving up everything but the original size of the state, or any other mess people would have you believe; it says that Israel will return SOME land in exchange for diplomatic recognition, and reasonable (their call, not anyone else's) chance of peace and security. In fact this is what Israel has done. First by returning land to Egypt and then to Jordan. However, as part of the peace deal Egypt and Jorand GAVE the West Bank and the Gaza Strip to Israel (they didn't want it; after all, the Palistinian terrorists had just tried to kill the King of Jordan). Israel has offered to do the same with the Palistinians is these areas but Arafat and his gang refuse to do their end of the deal (to the detrement of the Palistinian people).
      3. Anyone who has studied this situation will tell you that Arafat is to blame for the current problems in the region. If the Palestinians had a leader who was willing to actually participate in negotiations instead of making demands and then leaving when they are only 98% met, the situation would be over very quickly. Unfortunately Arafat isn't elected, he's just there and Palistinians who go against him have a habit of disappearing. Nothing is probably going to happen until he dies.
      --
      The policy of the United States is worse than bad---it is insane. -- Ludwig von Mises, Economic Policy(1959)
    142. Re:Hey, whose side are they on? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Case For Israel you mean the book that Norman Finkelstein claims is a fraud and a rip off of the discredited From Time Immemorial by Joan Peters?

    143. Re:Hey, whose side are they on? by karmatic · · Score: 1

      "I don't like guns.

      But I'm against gun control precisely because I won't be a hypocrite who fights for the First Amendment and ignores that inconvenient Second one."

      I was beginning to think that I was the only one that feels this way.

      Personally, I think that large asssault rifles/fully automatic weapons etc. should be banned, however the second amendment is very very clear on this matter. If such things are to be regulated, it should be done with a constitutional amendment.

    144. Re:Hey, whose side are they on? by rjstanford · · Score: 2, Insightful

      But from the article "Today, thousands of people fly model rockets that range in size from about 12 inches to more than 30 feet tall." Now. That covers quite a range there

      Exactly. You could have thousands of people flying 12 inch rockets, and one flying a 31 foot rocket, and that sentence would still be just as true. I'd like to see some more breakdown of that personally, purely because its such a vague yet emotionally charged claim.

      --
      You're special forces then? That's great! I just love your olympics!
    145. Re:Hey, whose side are they on? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Amateur Rockets buddy... NOT model Rockets.

      There is a difference. if you didn't know that then you really need to get educated on this subject before you start spouting. Amateur rockets have the capability of a small bomb, biological or even dirty nuclear payload. It might be small payload, but the terror it would produce would be *HUGE*.

      ~me

    146. Re:Hey, whose side are they on? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In 2003, the US federal government employed between 21 and 22 million people. (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics). Of those, 1.4 million were active duty military (U.S. Census). So yeah, the military is what makes our government a leviathan. RIIIGGHHHTT. I think the fundamental point of disagreement is whether one thinks that Social Security, Medicare, et. al., are being run well. I'd have to say no. I would quit complaining about the size of the government tomorrow, if we passed an amendment suspending the voting rights of government employees (to be replaced upon exit from government "service"). There's too much conflict of interest. Is a government employee going to vote to reduce the size of government? Never! So we've reached a point where there's too little restraint on the growth of government.

    147. Re:Hey, whose side are they on? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Afganistan and Iraq should get to send "settlers" to a ranch in Crawford Texas.

    148. Re:Hey, whose side are they on? by Rei · · Score: 1

      Excuse me? Did I just hear a mention of "Barak's Generous Offer"? You stated:

      "If the Palestinians had a leader who was willing to actually participate in negotiations instead of making demands then leaving when they are only 98% met"

      I suggest you read about specifically what the "offer" made - what you're calling "98% met" - actually entailed.

      The West Bank and Gaza Strip comprise 22% of historic Palestine. When they signed Oslo, they gave up 78% of their historic homeland and agreed to recognize Israel in that 78%. However, this wasn't enough. Barak wanted 69 of the illegal settlements to remain in Palestinian territory, confiscating another 10% of the 22% and slicing it up into little chunks. Then, *another* 10% was supposed to remain under "temporary Israeli control" - a region that heavily cuts the West Bank into little chunks, with a promise to hand it over at some vague, undetermined date (which the entire West Bank was). Essentially, that land could be viewed as confiscated. The net result for travel was that in many places, to travel between cities that were 5 miles apart, would require a 50 mile trip.

      Is that all? Nope! Right of return for the millions of people who were kicked out of their homes? Nope! Control over your own borders? Nope! Control of the majority of the water supply in your own 22%*.9*.9 of your land? Nope!

      What did Israel offer in return for taking more of Palestinian land? A small strip of desert used as a waste dumping ground.

      How generous. Is this what you call "negotiation"?

      By the way: have you ever actually talked to anyone who lives in the West Bank or Gaza Strip? Do so some time - it will be enlightening.

      Anyways, I'll just skim over the rest of your post - that was the main thing I wanted to address. "... sponsoring these things are the same people who invaded Israel with the goal of KILLING everyone in the country ... ". Not only do essentially zero arabs support killing every Israeli (lovely straw man you've got there), nor were most conflicts "Arab invasions", but the vast majority of the resolutions I listed had major, if not universal support in the UN. Who cares who sponsored it? Everyone except Israel, the US, and a small handful of other countries *agreed*.

      Next, I'll ignore your ability to read the minds of what the people of Egypt, Jordan, and Syria all want. The general assembly never condemned China for its abuses in Tibet? Oh really? Read resolution 1723 some time. And Resolution 2079. Never condemned Egypt, Jordan , and Syria? What on earth are you talking about? The UN Partition Plan falls on the borders that Israel/Palestine exist in today, apart from the territory that *Israel* has siezed. In short, what on Earth are you talking about?

      As for what the resolutions call for, apparently you never read the resolutions that I listed. Go figure.

      --
      I'm an owl exterminator!
    149. Re:Hey, whose side are they on? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you, like most people, are just restating what you've been told and don't know the facts...

      The fact is Dershowitz is a fraud.

    150. Re:Hey, whose side are they on? by peachpuff · · Score: 1
      "It is just because it impacts something near and dear to our hearts that it seems so intolerable."

      Yeah, we only complain when we care. Don't you?

      --
      -- . . ramblin' . . .
    151. Re:Hey, whose side are they on? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Amazing that the guy posting propoganda is the one that gets a +1 Interesting even though he is off topic and wrong.

    152. Re:Hey, whose side are they on? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know. And I get rated as offtopic for posting a list of resolutions in a discussion about resolutions, listed as troll in a debate that I didn't start and did stick around for, etc.

      They should just go ahead and add a "Said-Something-Not-Flattering-About-Israel" moderation penalty, and get it over with.

    153. Re:Hey, whose side are they on? by hpavc · · Score: 1

      here is a good look at what they are (rocket wise):

      http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/Terrorism/Qassa m. html

      --
      members are seeing something, your seeing an ad
    154. Re:Hey, whose side are they on? by admiralh · · Score: 1

      In 2003, the US federal government employed between 21 and 22 million people. (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics). Of those, 1.4 million were active duty military (U.S. Census). So yeah, the military is what makes our government a leviathan. RIIIGGHHHTT.

      The military is far larger than just active-duty personnel. Let's not forget the various reservists and national guard units. Then you have ROTC and the like.

      And oh, one more little thing. Defense contractors. Lockheed-Martin. Boeing. Halliburton. This list goes on and on.

      I don't have any hard numbers in front of me, but I guarantee that all the people who support our military endeavors is far more significant percentage of the USA'a production than what you would have us believe.

      Eisenhower didn't warn us about the Military-Industrial Complex for nothing.

      --
      Hopelessly pedantic since 1963.
    155. Re:Hey, whose side are they on? by admiralh · · Score: 1

      One of my theories about the Right's dislike of government has to do with these constitutional restrictions. The government is restricted by the constitution on what it can and cannot do, but private companies and individuals are not. So by hiring private contractors (not government employees), the right can get government to do thing that the government wouldn't be constitutionally allowed to do.

      Here's a question: considering the rightward tilt of the SCOTUS, why hasn't anybody tried to get those rulings overturned? Or are they waiting for ("G-d help us all") Bush's second term?

      --
      Hopelessly pedantic since 1963.
    156. Re:Hey, whose side are they on? by gnu-generation-one · · Score: 1

      "actually the rockets that are fired into israel are pretty much amaeur diy rockets."

      As opposed to the official U.S. government rockets fired out of israel?

    157. Re:Hey, whose side are they on? by mcheu · · Score: 2, Interesting

      We're talking about hobby rockets here. The rockets are fairly small, and can't hold a lot of payload. You can build bigger rocket motors and bigger rockets, but then we're not talking about hobby rockets anymore. For terrorism events to be successful, you need something that can be deployed quickly with a large effect. It has to be something big enough to draw attention. Think national networks, not evening news. If you think a model rocket can do that sort of damage, you need to think bigger. National coverage requires Bond villian level evil. It has to have a higher body count, and greater property damage than your typical drive-by or arson. As for using the components to make "deadly stuff". Check the net and you can find recipes for making your own solid rocket fuel. Some people make their own to save money or add effects like coloured smoke trails. You'll find the ingredients are probably already in your possession or obtainable within 30 minutes. Estes rocket packs, meanwhile are considerably more expensive, and even before 911, they were difficult to buy in any great numbers (the hobby isn't big enough to warrant that sort of production). If that freaks you out, feel free to write your local representative about banning shit and diesel fuel. If you're creative in your wording, you might just do it.

    158. Re:Hey, whose side are they on? by taniwha · · Score: 1
      let me reiterate this point - the propellant we use for sport rocketry (AP/rubber/Al usually) is pretty expensive - lofting any usefull payload is going to mean spending $1000s on propellant alone. And the motor would almost certanly be bespoke so none of the limitations that the BATF is pushing would have any effect

      On the other hand the hybrid style used by Rutan last week uses NO2 as an oxidizer - it's MUCH cheaper - we occasionally fly small versions of them, they're a lot more fiddly and need a lot more ground support .... besides the Republicans aren't going to ban nitrous ... they'd piss off the NASCAR crowd .....

    159. Re:Hey, whose side are they on? by crbowman · · Score: 1

      I get worried any time anyone sais obviously blah. Because things aren't obvious to others, thats the whole reason you are making an argument. If they agreed with you, you wouldn't be talking. Obviously they are just avoiding making an argument since they know the one they have doesn't hold water.

    160. Re:Hey, whose side are they on? by mcheu · · Score: 1

      "quartering soldiers in provate homes"

      If that's the wording, I can sort of see why it's hasn't come up much. Either it means: Putting up armed forces soldiers in the guestroom for the night -or- Tie each limb of a national guardsman to a horse and yell giddy up.
    161. Re:Hey, whose side are they on? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well if you are wealthy Republican candidate you have a "ranch" but if you are a wealthy Democratic candidate you have a "compound." Of course if you are a Bush you have both.

    162. Re:Hey, whose side are they on? by Thomas+Shaddack · · Score: 1
      Aren't you thousands of times more likely to be killed by a doctor than a gun?

      In many such cases it could be argued that the doctor was only an innocent bystander and the real killer was a cumulative overdose of McFood.

      There are many ways to get killed (not only) in the US. Cars, guns, and terrorists are the less insidious ones.

    163. Re:Hey, whose side are they on? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The ENTIRE idea of the US government was to protect the individual from oppressive governments: federal, state or local. State and local government are free to make whatever laws they desire as long as they do not violate the Constitution. That was the dream but has been was bastardized because some people insist on telling others how to live, even if they live on the other side of a continent.

    164. Re:Hey, whose side are they on? by Halo- · · Score: 1
      Okay, I'll bite.

      The issue is where do we set limits between the right to bear a squirt-pistol and the right to bear crew-served artillery? Obviously there needs to be a ceiling somewhere, but quantifying it is hard.

      I'm pretty confident that the vast majority of citizens are opposed to private ownership of large artillery pieces. If they weren't, then the "ceiling" for gun ownership wouldn't be centered about "Class 3" weapons (fully auto, sound suppressed, etc), it would be around warhead yield or some such thing.

      The argument was about the limitations being placed on rocket engines are overly restrictive. I think there "obviously" needs to be a point at which we regulate, but the criteria for regulation is going to be difficult to determine.

    165. Re:Hey, whose side are they on? by admiralh · · Score: 1

      I certainly understand about the individual, but have you heard about the idea of "Corporate Personhood."

      I submit that this was the beginning of the end for our Constitutional government where individual rights mattered.

      --
      Hopelessly pedantic since 1963.
    166. Re:Hey, whose side are they on? by gcaseye6677 · · Score: 1

      Just like the ACLU.

    167. Re:Hey, whose side are they on? by loraksus · · Score: 1

      starship troopers (the book) had a similar idea.

      --
      1q2w3e4r5t6y7u8i9o0pqawsedrftgthyjukilo;p'azsxdcfv gbhnjmk,l.;/
    168. Re:Hey, whose side are they on? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course, it's not a problem of intrusive, draconian, self-interested (every law is more power) over-reaction on the part of the government into a hobby practiced for decades without an incident, it's Slashdottian hypocrisy! Amazing how often the latter is the true issue.

    169. Re:Hey, whose side are they on? by loraksus · · Score: 1

      yeah, it's a daily thing over there. . .

      --
      1q2w3e4r5t6y7u8i9o0pqawsedrftgthyjukilo;p'azsxdcfv gbhnjmk,l.;/
    170. Re:Hey, whose side are they on? by 3263827 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      What a troll. "Significant damage?" The insurgents in Iraq have barely damaged the US military. Just because the media is hypersensitive about casualties doesn't mean that we're experiencing substantial losses. If you compare Iraq to other conflicts the US has been engaged in, our losses per day and per capita are incredibly low. Force protection is the key for most of our field commanders. But then again, your last sentence displayed your true grasp of reality in world affairs. Go back to playing Everquest, loser.

    171. Re:Hey, whose side are they on? by Frogbert · · Score: 1

      Sadly in Australia farmers now need to do a police background check and show a reasonable cause to buy fertilizer and keep it under lock and key. I call it the waste more money act #223.

    172. Re:Hey, whose side are they on? by SEWilco · · Score: 1
      Maybe we should outlaw fertilizer and diesel fuel, since they have actually been used for terrorist acts.

      People are already trying to control petroleum products. Diesel fuel as a carbon fuel, and fertilizer as a water pollutant.

    173. Re:Hey, whose side are they on? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      These resolutions are from the UN.
      How many UN members have freely elected governments?

    174. Re:Hey, whose side are they on? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      What conditions did the natives have before Israel was created?

      Is land in Israel now owned only by Jews?

    175. Re:Hey, whose side are they on? by ShadowBlasko · · Score: 1

      I am fascinated by this statement and wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order- Ed Howdershelt Via Tass
    176. Re:Hey, whose side are they on? by grozzie2 · · Score: 1
      Yeah, when have you ever heard of an amateur rocket being used for terrorism?

      Its being effectively used today. By setting up such rules, and making an issue of it, so it gets coverage, millions of americans who otherwise had no clue amateur rockets ever existed, now firmly believe they are 'terrorist stuff' and there must be laws to prevent it.

      Those that dont 'get it' today, will surely understand in a few months when the government dials up the 'fear meter' to yellow, because 'reliable sources confirm that model rockets are possibly in the DC area', so they will dial up the meter to 'yellow' and the population will obligingly get 'very scared'.

      What I want to know tho, is, if the meter gets dialed up to 'red', is that telling the public 'now its time to panic' ?

    177. Re:Hey, whose side are they on? by nyseal · · Score: 1

      I think people tend to forget that a handful of terrorists brought a superpower to their knees with nothing more than box-cutters. Is the government overreacting? Maybe, however as a politician I would be hard pressed to explain to a family or nation why their sons/daughters and 3000+ people died because of a razor blade. Hence the PA crash I imagine. I will never condone the Patriot Act, however I can understand the backlash, which according to news articles has identified at least 12 (highly) potential terrorists living in the US. Is it right? Not by our standards, however we're not playing by 'their' rules. Most Americans just want to go on with life with no spectacular terrorist acts or bombings; as I suspect most world citizens want to do......either from the US, Israel or the UK. I guess there is no simple answer other than taking a 'time-out' to truly evaluate what's happening on a global basis. Are terrorists a threat? Yes. What can we do about it globally....I don't know. Maybe we just just all hold hands for a moment (as governments) to reflect and project vision on what the planet is to become. I don't have all the answers but I wish people here on Slashdot would not pretend that they do...it makes the problem worse. No, I'm not tree hugging hippie, just someone who sees a situation getting out of control.

      --
      [SIG] Remember Mattel handheld games?
    178. Re:Hey, whose side are they on? by The+AtomicPunk · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Gee, you begin to think that maybe prohibition isn't the solution to every problem we face?

      My primary hobby is machine gun collecting and shooting. Let me tell you the fun of throwing down $10-20k, finger printing, filling out forms, then waiting 3 months for a background check for the opportunity to pay a $200 tax so I can own one of a class of firearms by which *ZERO* people have been killed by civilians in the entire 70 year history of NFA firearms.

      Meanwhile, John Q. Gangbanger buys a MAC-10 on the corner for $50 and hoses down whoever.

      It makes you think maybe we should outlaw killing people.

    179. Re:Hey, whose side are they on? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Koalas eat eucalyptus, not bamboo (at least in their native habitat).

    180. Re:Hey, whose side are they on? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In california as I remember it the same restrictions for fireworks are for rockets.
      (liccens, approved area etc) This was in place before 9-11 due to fires and deaths resulting in misuse of both.

    181. Re:Hey, whose side are they on? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since you don't have any hard numbers at hand, let me help you out. The reserve component is about the same size as the active duty military. Each of those companies that you listed employ at most a couple hundred thousand people. The federal government dwarfs them all put together. Perhaps the military does consume 50% of the _discretionary_ budget. Nice weasel-wording. The real problem is the size of the non-discretionary programs. Since they're entitlements, they're much harder to cut, and the cost of those programs will soon consume 60-70% of the _total_ budget.

    182. Re:Hey, whose side are they on? by G-funk · · Score: 1

      Me without mod points.

      *sigh*

      Lousy control nuts, anti gun nuts. Don't complain tho dude, here in .au I can't own anything resembling a machine gun, and if I tried, it'd be mucho jail time for me. Unless of course I were an aborigine.

      --
      Send lawyers, guns, and money!
    183. Re:Hey, whose side are they on? by glitch23 · · Score: 1

      The question is where do you set the ceiling? And what are reasonable requirements for people who wish to exceed it? Model-rocketry is heading towards the squirt-pistol range of the scale...

      I say around 50,000 feet but that's just me.

      --
      this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom. -- Lincoln, Gettysburg Address
    184. Re:Hey, whose side are they on? by Mycroft_VIII · · Score: 1

      "I don't want to get much into guns because it is a bit of a charged subject. The issue is where do we set limits between the right to bear a squirt-pistol and the right to bear crew-served artillery? Obviously there needs to be a ceiling somewhere, but quantifying it is hard."

      Well we could set it were the guys that wrote the second amendment did.
      "What are arms? Every sword of the soldier, however terrible" - Thomas Jefferson (IIRC)
      I think a reasonable level however would be any single man usable weapon, preferably also excluding NBC, especially Bio. (nuclear and chemical are finite per release, biologicals have a nasty habit of reproduction and mutation)
      Problem is to be totatly in compliance with the 2nd here in the usa, you need a new amendment to ban ANY weapon from the citizens if you are not going to ingnore the actual meaning of the 2nd.

      Mycroft

      --
      https://signup.leagueoflegends.com/?ref=4c3ed6600b6ea
    185. Re:Hey, whose side are they on? by dekeji · · Score: 1

      Yeah, running a "business" is really hard work when all you have to do to correct a costly "business mistake" is to go pick more money off the money tree...

      That's a theoretical argument, because, in practice, those federal entitlement programs are, in fact, comparatively well-run.

      It is private businesses that constantly "pick more money off the [public] money tree". Just look at the S&L disaster; the tax payer paid for that. If you privatized social security and similar programs, you'd get more of the same: companies would waste the money, disappear, and the tax payer would end up paying the bill twice, once for funding the program and once for paying for the necessary benefits and services anyway.

    186. Re:Hey, whose side are they on? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You did not think it refered to fire-arms did you?

      I did not. it was quite stuffy wearing all those fancy cloths back then without air conditioning, they wanted the right to be casual, they were sick of the stuck up british.

    187. Re:Hey, whose side are they on? by Mycroft_VIII · · Score: 1

      I'm not shure, but didn't Bush sign an extension on the so called 'assault weapons ban'.
      Of course the only difference in many cases was the stock of the rifle. on banned weapons it's lightwieght plastic, on 'approved' weapons it's heavy hardwood.
      Just currious why you don't like guns. The bad guys will always have them. But if the good guys have them then the bad guys are much less able to terrorize the good guys. Note that bad guys aren't just the muggers and rapist.
      Still your a lot more honest and reasonable than most anti-gun people. Most are nutcases who can only see the rare tragedy and scream 'what about the children' almost incoherently.

      Mycroft

      --
      https://signup.leagueoflegends.com/?ref=4c3ed6600b6ea
    188. Re:Hey, whose side are they on? by dekeji · · Score: 1

      In 2003, the US federal government employed between 21 and 22 million people. (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics). Of those, 1.4 million were active duty military (U.S. Census). So yeah, the military is what makes our government a leviathan. RIIIGGHHHTT.

      So, what are those 1.4 million people doing with half the discretionary spending? The other 22 million have to make do with what is left. Seems to me, they are doing a lot with comparatively little, then: keep the roads running, keep you from catching communicable diseases, keep your food safe, keep the forests safe, etc.

      I think the fundamental point of disagreement is whether one thinks that Social Security, Medicare, et. al., are being run well. I'd have to say no.

      People are never satisfied with anything. But the existing, large public health care system in the US is far more efficient than private health care in the US, so claims that privatization would improve things are probably wrong. And the S&L disaster shows you what can happen when private businesses take in large amounts of deposits and can just disappear when they have mismanaged them--do you want to repeat that with retirement savings?

      The US has, overall, a pretty well-run, efficient, and corruption free federal bureaucracy. We should be grateful for that and use it effectively, not try to dismantle it: the alternatives are far worse and more costly.

    189. Re:Hey, whose side are they on? by Penguinshit · · Score: 1


      Pretty substantial for a country that was supposed to welcome us with flowers and kisses. And I don't see much abatement of the insurgency, despite the efforts to quell it. We'll see what the final loss tally is in a couple of years when we're finally lucky enough to extract ourselves from that needless mess.

      Go back to watching FAUX News and reading your Soldier of Fortune magazine, clownboy.

    190. Re:Hey, whose side are they on? by Mycroft_VIII · · Score: 1

      You know, coinincidently that same question, no not about nukes in your basement, about what are arms in the second amendment.
      The reply was "Every sword of soldier, however terrible" Jefferson IIRC.

      Mycroft

      --
      https://signup.leagueoflegends.com/?ref=4c3ed6600b6ea
    191. Re:Hey, whose side are they on? by dekeji · · Score: 1

      The real problem is the size of the non-discretionary programs. Since they're entitlements, they're much harder to cut, and the cost of those programs will soon consume 60-70% of the _total_ budget.

      They are entitlements because you paid for them, dollar for dollar. You are entitled to them. They are like your car insurance, your home owners insurance, or your 401k. The only difference is that the federal government happens to administer and run them in order to ensure that (1) everybody participates, and (2) they are going to be there when they are needed.

      Why do we need that? Because if not everybody participates, you get what we had before: large numbers of old people with nothing. You could just let them starve, of course, and for centuries, we did. But, eventually, people decided that that wasn't a good way of treating the elderly, so a minimal safety net was created.

      The only problem with the non-discretionary programs is that politicians like to dip their hands into them. Social security can be run perfectly, but if politicians siphon off huge amounts of money to (effectively) pay for wars, you aren't getting what you paid for, and that is not a problem with the entitlement programs, it's a problem with what the federal government is primarily wasting money on: the military.

    192. Re:Hey, whose side are they on? by Mycroft_VIII · · Score: 1

      Saddly enough, if it's imposed slowly enough and a few things are not overdone (starvation mostly), People will gladly accept slavery or even meer opression.
      And it's not that an oppressive government is caused primarily by evil maelfactors out to opress, thoug a few along the way usually help, but by the well meaning crying out about security or the children, or imposing thier narrow prejudices of right and wrong on thier nieghbors for thier own good.
      Even the founding fathers understood that if we didn't stay informed, and didn't constantly strive to remain free, that any constitution would be just words on paper.

      Mycroft

      --
      https://signup.leagueoflegends.com/?ref=4c3ed6600b6ea
    193. Re:Hey, whose side are they on? by rossifer · · Score: 1

      Maybe, however as a politician I would be hard pressed to explain to a family or nation why their sons/daughters and 3000+ people died because of a razor blade. Hence the PA crash I imagine.

      Exactly.

      We had been told by our leaders that you should let an attacker take what they want and don't give them any fight or other excuse to hurt you. That goes double for a highjacking. The concept that the highjackers might not want to use you as hostages in a negotiation never occured to anyone.

      By the time the passengers in the fourth plane heard the story, that whole plan went right out the window. There is a zero fucking chance that another plane will be hijacked in the US in the next twenty years (or at least, until people forget about 9/11).

      But the government would have you believe that it was the box-cutter that allowed them to succeed in taking over the planes. What utter twaddle. You could take a pistol onto a plane today and have zero chance of taking it over. I'd have to get in line to stomp your face about two seconds after you started making threats and waving it around.

      Taking responsibility for our own actions along with the actions our government does in our names (Afghanistan, Iraq II, Abu Grahib, The Shah, Pinochet, Saddam, etc.) would be a good start.

      Regards,
      Ross

    194. Re:Hey, whose side are they on? by Conor+Turton · · Score: 1

      Err...I belive you could buy explosives in some states using a driving licence not that long ago?

      --
      Conor "You're not married,you haven't got a girlfriend and you've never seen Star Trek? Good Lord!" - Patrick Stewart
    195. Re:Hey, whose side are they on? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes. And the rockets fired into Palestine have "made in the USA" stamped on them.

    196. Re:Hey, whose side are they on? by shayera · · Score: 1

      Enough can be hard to define..
      I'm a member of a group that has with some regularity launched home made rockets to 2000-3000 meters (6-9000 feet), using home made solid fuel, about 2.5Kilos of it (5 pounds or so)
      We have several designs, nicely scalable, but are currently troubled by the problems inherent in going supersonic.. The transition phase between sub and supersonic can be harsh to the poor rockets fuselage..think breakup.. think pretty boom..
      we're also testing liquid fueled engines, which ofcourse enables us to fly *really* high..

      Then again, we've never claimed to be model rocket hobbyinst, more like highpower amateurs really..

      --
      Venlig Hilsen / Regards
      John Hinge - shayera / .sPOOn.
      "Buffy I love you... Please God No!" S
    197. Re:Hey, whose side are they on? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i don't know whether this is +5 funny or +5 insightful

    198. Re:Hey, whose side are they on? by the+morgawr · · Score: 1
      > Did I just hear a mention of "Barak's Generous Offer"?

      *sigh* How gernerous it is depends on whose point of view you hold. It's more then conservative Israeli's wanted to give, and less then what Arafat wanted to get. It is, however, the offer Clinton and Bandar asked the Israeli's to make, so from their point of view it was probably just being co-operative. I didn't condem Arafat for refusing the offer, I condemned him for not making a counter offer. In this conflict, people on both sides have suffered and died; you won't get a lasting, mutually beneficial agreement by standing around yelling back and forth about "demands". You will get an agreement by realizing that both sides are going to have to make hard choices, and then actually negotiating what those choices will be. Arafat is unwilling to do that, to the detriment of the Palistinian people.

      > The West Bank and Gaza Strip comprise 22% of historic Palestine

      This is the fundamental problem with this situation; who "owns" the land depends on how far back you go. The whole argument is quite rediculous; taken to it's logical conclusion, we all end up crammed in a tiny country somewhere in Africa. To get a realistic agreement, you can't start with how things were at some arbitrary point in the past, you have to start with where you are now. Furthermore the people currently there have an equally legitimate claim to the land that goes something like this:

      According to Mark Twain, the land was barren and desolate when he visited (mid 1800s). Over the next 20 years an Orthodox Jewish majority developed by buying the land from absentee landlords and developing it. Like all wars the Israeli War of Independance created a refugee situation; many Jews were driven from their historic homes in Arab nations and forced to settle in modern Israel. The Palistinians whose land was turned into a war zone by the unprovoked attack from the Arab nations should have been treated the same as any other group of refugees caused by a war; The UN High Commisioner on Human Rights should have been allowed to deal with the problem in the same way other refugee issues are dealt with.

      > have you ever actually talked to anyone who lives in the West Bank or Gaza Strip?

      Yes.

      > had major, if not universal support in the UN Who cares who sponsored it? Everyone except Israel, the US, and a small handful of other countries *agreed*.

      The UN isn't some happy place, where people sit around and try to solve all of the world's problems in a fair, unbiased, and impartial way. It is a real political body and the people and countries that sponsor and support resultions, do so to promote and adjenda; the fact that a large number of people have the same adjenda does not in and of itself make them correct, well intentioned, or unbaised. It is however important that when such resolutions are cited as impartial fact, that the well known adjendas of major supporters be made clear.

      > Next, I'll ignore your ability to read the minds of what the people of Egypt, Jordan, and Syria all want.

      I said nothing about the people of those nations, only their leadership (which is not duly chosen or in anyway representative of the population of those countries); I don't have to be a mind reader, there were and in some cases still are stated policies to refer to.

      > the general assembly never condemned

      As I stated, general assembly resolutions are meaningless; I was refering to Security Council resolutions, my reference to the comdemnation of the US death penalty mush have thrown you off.

      While we are on the topic, I'll remind you that the sumit on Women's Rights managed to comdem Israel's record while omitting the records most Arab nations, China, and a host of Western nations. A council on torture managed to comdemn Israel (one of the only contries in the world that has banned all torture, including such things as using gaurd dogs, loud music, and uncomfortable possitions) but not the US, UK, France, Germany, Jordan, Syria, Egypt, the Palistinian Authority, or anyone else for that matter. In short, the UN has no credibility what so ever on this issue.

      --
      The policy of the United States is worse than bad---it is insane. -- Ludwig von Mises, Economic Policy(1959)
    199. Re:Hey, whose side are they on? by admiralh · · Score: 1

      I listed three companies, since they're the ones that I could quickly list off the top of my head. There are thousands of defense contractors with employment in the millions. Not to mention the secondary effects (e.g. civilian jobs that support Army bases). The thing that separates us from the rest of the world is the massive amount of money we spend on the military. No other country even comes close.

      And Mr. A.C., exactly where is my weasel-wording?

      --
      Hopelessly pedantic since 1963.
    200. Re:Hey, whose side are they on? by Rei · · Score: 1

      > I didn't condem Arafat for refusing the offer, I condemned him for not making a counter offer.

      The only two things that are viewed as non-negotiable from the Palestinian side are the right of return of refugees and control of East Jerusalem. They had already made huge concessions with Oslo - officially handing over what they did was the equivalent to, if the USSR had invaded the US after World War II and conquered most of it, *officially* giving everything west of the Mississippi to them in exchange for a promise of peace - and then watching as the Soviets kept taking land *east* of the Mississippi and insisting that this land was now theirs too.

      According to reports of the meeting, Arafat made several offers which included the right of return and control of East Jerusalem, but conceded many other issues (including Israeli control of settlements on the 22%); they were turned down. Israel continues to refuse to accept the right of return.

      And you know why? It's continually referred to in terms such as the "population problem". If Palestinians return to their homes, even Israel proper would have a 40% Palestinian population. With their higher birth rate, they soon would exceed 50% (even without right of return, this has proven a significant source of worry to Israelis). Why is this a worry? Israel prides itself on being both a democracy and a Jewish state. However, these two concepts can only exist together with population control. The Right of Return is the antithesis of this. Even if Israel were to simply let the refugees into Israel and make them *buy* their old homes (which most of them still have the key for - it's a tradition among the diaspora to pass your family's house key down from generation to generation) back, Palestinians would in general view this as an acceptable situation. Israelis, especially Likudniks, would not.

      > ... depends on how far back you go.

      Actually, that is a patently dumb concept. We're talking 60 years versus *2000 years*. How can you possibly make such a comparison with a straight face?

      Besides, the Palestinians *did* cede the 78% in Oslo. They want their 22% - and they've even offered several times to give up some of that (in exchange for the Right of Return). And you portray *them* as the ones being unreasonable? Refer back to the USSR analogy.

      > ... the land was barren and desolate.

      If you visited the Negev desert. I can show you video of 200 year old olive groves scattered around - which the Israelis have destroyed. Most family's olive trees are ancient, as are their family homes (outside of the major cities, and even some in the major cities). So what you see in the West Bank, outside of the major cities and the settlements, is what it looked like in Mark Twain's time. And it's not even remotely "barren". Perhaps if he visited the Negev or the Sinai... BTW, have a reference for that quote?

      On the contrast, the settlements look like southern Californa (and use equivalent resources....)

      > Many Jews were driven from their historic homes.

      True. And next, you'll show that two wrongs make a right?

      And since when have they even offered to allow Palestinians back to their homes if the surrounding Arab nations would allow them back (answer: Never. Reason? Few want to return, unlike the exactly opposite situation with the Palestinians).

      > The UN isn't some happy place ...

      So, your attempt with this paragraph is to show that the vast majority of the world is anti-Semitic? If not, please explain.

      > ... one of the only countries in the world that has banned all torture ...

      Ok, you've apparently never read a *single* Amnesty International or Human Rights Watch article on Israel and torture. Or read any of the statements by people who used to work in the security services, or anything of the sort. Israel not only uses torture, but they use

      --
      I'm an owl exterminator!
    201. Re:Hey, whose side are they on? by Abjifyicious · · Score: 1
      Think of the complaints people made for sport shooting and hunting when gun restrictions (something most slashdotters seem to embrace) were enacted. Same basic premise, completely different reaction from the slashdot crowd.

      People aren't upset because of the rocketry restrictions themselves, it's the reason for them that's drawing a negative reaction. If there were some kind of horrible accident involving model rockets, and a law were created that required you to have a license for launching them, it wouldn't create much of a stir. It's the absurd claim that model rockets could be used for terrorism that is causing an uproar.

    202. Re:Hey, whose side are they on? by Thundersnatch · · Score: 1

      How about this amatuerish effort.

    203. Re:Hey, whose side are they on? by the+morgawr · · Score: 1
      > The only two things that are viewed as non-negotiable from the Palestinian side are the right of return of refugees and control of East Jerusalem.

      My point exactly. The right of return is non-negotiable from the Israeli point of view as well. As long as both sides stand around yelling about their demands, nothing is going to happen.

      > We're talking 60 years versus *2000 years*.

      Jewish majorities existed in parts of modern Israel since at least 1880. Under that logic, the US should return large portions of it's land to the American Indians (who were no doubtably wronged). I don't see you proposing that. China should be forced to un-invade Tibet. We can go on like this for a long time. If everyone focuses on keeping a victim mentality instead of getting a workable solution, this problem is never going to go away.

      > They had already made huge concessions with Oslo

      Again it depends on your point of view. The Israeli's see the Palistinians agreeing that areas of Jewish majority can be part of a Jewish state as a minor concession.

      > Israel prides itself on being both a democracy and a Jewish state. However, these two concepts can only exist together with population control. The Right of Return is the antithesis of this.

      At least try to look at things from the Israeli view point before you parot Arafat's tripe. Everyone here knows what the official Palistinian opinion of the situation is; continuing to repeat it over and over again with no reguard for reason, logic, or the point's of view held by others, reguardless of why you are doing it, is flat out trollish. Furthermore it undoes the hard work a lot of very good people are doing to try to bring these two sides to a workable solution. However, yes, you are correct: if the Palistinians could all vote in Israel and managed to breed like rabbits, they could take over the country. Now that we have acknoledged the problem, let's hear your brilliant idea of how to fix it while protecting the rights, ideals, and freedoms of all involved.

      While we are on the topic of the "Right of Return", let's try to have a reasonable discussion here. The Palistinians claim their situation is different from and more exceptional then any other refugee situation, therefore, the argment goes, they are entitled to special treatment and rights that are not normally granted to refugees. Among those special treatments is the entitlement to a right of return. However, I see nothing particularly special about their case that warrents such special treatment. The UN policies that have worked in every other major refugee situation could have worked here had the politicians not gotten involved and tied the hands of those who could have been helping. While it's probably too late now to use them in total because those policies are designed to deal with a situation quickly before it festers, the ideas upon which they are based should still be perfectly valid, even in this case.

      > True. And next, you'll show that two wrongs make a right?

      No I'm going to claim that life sometimes deals people the short end of the stick; what happens to you is not what matters, it's how you react. Everyone is a victim in some way, but in almost every case, there will be someone who is more of a victim. You can't cry about it and ask the rest of the world to fix it for you; there are simply too many victims for them to all get the attention they deserve. The Jews who shrugged off getting kicked out of their homes, and loosing all of their property are doing pretty well now when compared to the Palistinians who have remained bitter about what happened to this day. Many of the Palistinians should take note, stop worrying about revenge, and try to get on with their lives.

      > So, your attempt with this paragraph is to show that the vast majority of the world is anti-Semitic? If not, please explain.

      Well since you bring it up, polls do show that the vast majority of Europeans and Mid

      --
      The policy of the United States is worse than bad---it is insane. -- Ludwig von Mises, Economic Policy(1959)
    204. Re:Hey, whose side are they on? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Everyone is anti-semetic when the poll questions are biased. According to the ADL being just Muslim is anti-semetic.

    205. Re:Hey, whose side are they on? by Rei · · Score: 1

      > The right of return is non-negotiable from the Israeli point of view as well.

      Ah, then, now wouldn't you say that would put them *both* equally at fault? Instead of your "just blame the Palestinians" approach?

      > ... parot Arafat's tripe ... undoes the hard work ... However, yes, you are correct

      Wait a minute... first you accuse me of parrotting tripe, and then accuse me of being trollish, and then acknowlege what I said was *true*? I'm sorry if you view the truth as being tripe or trollish, but it's the truth: The concept of a democracy and a Jewish state are incompatable in the long term without population control. You want a brilliant solution? Tough. There isn't one. If you want democracy, you have to be willing to sacrifice a "religious state" concept or take part in population control. If you want a religious state, you either have to sacrifice democracy or take part in population control. If you don't want population control, you need to accept that one of the two ideals will break down.

      > Among these special treatments is the right of return

      The right of return is standard among refugees; there are almost no situations in the world where such a right has been refused. Israel is one of those few. For example, I've been to several Nicaraguan refugee camps in central America still around from the turmoil in the 80s. Every one of the people in those camps has the right to return to Nicaragua (they just choose not to, because the situation in Nicaragua is pretty lousy right now, too).

      > ... compared to the Palistinians who have remained bitter about what happened to this day.

      Seing as it's *still going on* to more of their countrymen, gee, why would they have reason to remain bitter? How quickly would you, for example, accept being driven off your home by the USSR, as the USSR continued to take more American territory and drive them into camps (the earlier example)?

      > poll do show that the vast majority of Europeans and Middle Easterners are anti-semitic...

      1) Cite.

      2) We're not talking Europe and the Middle East. We're talking North America, South America, Central America, Africa, Oceana, Asia, Europe, and the Middle East, minus the US, Israel, and a tiny random smattering of other countries which change from time to time.

      > I didn't claim that torture didn't occur, only that it was illegal and that soldiers caught were prosecuted and punished.

      Like I said, you've apparently never read an Amnesty International or Human Rights Watch article on the subject. First, Amnesty. I'll read in order if titles are applicable; if the title isn't applicable, I'll give the quote:

      http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=ISO-88 59 -1&q=site%3Aamnesty.org+israel+torture&btnG=Search

      "Israel: Torture still used systematically as Israel presents its report to the Committee Against Torture"
      "Israel/Occupied Territories: Torture and ill-treatment under scrutiny at UN in Geneva"
      "Israel: Fear of torture and ill-treatment/detention without charge"
      (quote): "There were widespread reports of police brutality. Palestinian detainees frequently reported that they were tortured or ill-treated during interrogation. At the end of the year at least 40 people were under administrative detention. At least 33 conscientious objectors were imprisoned during 2001. Hundreds of Palestinians from the Occupied Territories were tried before military courts in trials whose procedures fell short of international standards."
      (quote) " "Israel is the only country in the world to have effectively legalized torture by authorizing interrogators to use these methods," the organization added." (they go on to describe the official legalization of a number of forms of torture, and cite the United Nations Committee against Torture)

      (quote) "There is no evidence that Israel has any in

      --
      I'm an owl exterminator!
    206. Re:Hey, whose side are they on? by the+morgawr · · Score: 1
      > Ah, then, now wouldn't you say that would put them *both* equally at fault? Instead of your "just blame the Palestinians" approach?

      I do not blame the Palistinian PEOLE, they are repeatedly and without fail used as political pawns. It is not their fault. I do blame Arafat for showing up at Camp David, osstensibly to get a final agreement, and then walking away from the initial offer without making a counter offer or even trying to negotiate. I further blame him for ENCOURAGING the KILLING of innocent civilians as a "solution" to the Israeli refusal to capitulate unconditionally to his demands. I also blame him for siphoning millions of UN dollars that should have been going to help his people into his personal finances and those of his friends. Arafat is no Ghandi, and despite what you seem to think the Palistinians are worse for having him.

      > Wait a minute... first you accuse me of parrotting tripe, and then accuse me of being trollish,

      Yes, you quoted almost word for word Arafat's polictical posturing and pretend it is as your own opinion, ergo, parrot and trollish.

      > then acknowlege what I said was *true*

      No. I acknowledged that, like all good myths, yours was based on a kernel of truth: In theory if all the Palistinians currently living in what amounts to UN run concentration camps and all of their future children were allowed to vote in Israel and they then breed like rabbits they could overrun Israel and make it a Jewish state in name only.

      > The right of return is standard among refugees;

      No, the mandate of the UN High Commissioner of Refugees is to help refugees seek asylum and find safe refuge and to ensure their protection in the mean time. Furthermore most Palistinian refugees today do not meet the basic definition of a refugee. In fact because of the situation under which they were displaced, many would have been excluded from refugee status even at the time. The UNHCR has had policies for resolving situations quickly and effectivly since it was organized and has historically been one of the more successful UN endevors; unlike the UNRWA, an organization which many journalists have accused of supporting terrorist groups.

      > Seing as it's *still going on*

      The war that created the initial refugee problem has been over for over 50 years and the Six Day War has been over for more then 30 years. In fact, some parts of modern Israel were controlled, policed, and governed by the local Jewish majority over 120 years ago; these defense forces even came to the Aid of the Alies in both World Wars. All of those wars have long been settled and the disputes resolved. As part of the resolution of the Six Day War, Egypt gave Israel the Gaza Strip, and Jordan gave Israel the West Bank. By all logical and reasonable methods, that land is now part of Israel and has been for more then 30 years. Let me repeat that: THE WAR IS OVER, and the Arabs lost. Dispite what you may believe or may have been told, the side that looses a war is not entitled to have it's demands met.

      Israel has adopted a policy that the inhabitants of that land can get most of it as an independant country under the same conditions Egypt and Jordan would have had to meet to get that same land. In other words, Israel has agreed to return to the Palistinians land that Egypt and Jordan took from them by force and has not placed any additional demands or restrictions upon that offer. In any other situation this would have been considered more the generous; after all, in a war land changes hands, but in this situation, where emotions, egos, an vendetas all run wild, Israel's attempt at peace is scoffed at.

      > Like I said, you've apparently never read an Amnesty International or Human Rights Watch article on the subject

      Obviously you arn't hearing me. A free country cannot prosecute someone without evidence that shows they committed the crime. Claims, accusations, an he-said-she-said no matter how valid they may or may not

      --
      The policy of the United States is worse than bad---it is insane. -- Ludwig von Mises, Economic Policy(1959)
    207. Re:Hey, whose side are they on? by Rei · · Score: 1

      > I do not blame the Palistinian PEOLE, they are repeatedly and without fail used as political pawns.

      You just acknowledged that the right of return is viewed as non-negotiable by both sides. That puts them on an equal footing instead of a "blame one side" footing.

      > .. then walking away ...

      He did attempt to negotiate. The plan was presented as non-negotiable. What do you expect?

      > I further blame him for ENCOURAGING the KILLING ...

      Cite.

      > Despite what you think ... When did you read my mind? I must not have been paying attention.

      > You quoted almost word for word

      1) Cite.
      2) You *still* haven't presented counterevidence to my stance, and essentially admitted that it was true (if it's not true, *argue that point*. Go on: my claim was that the three concepts of a democracy, a jewish state, and no population control are incompatable. If it's not true, demonstrate that. If it is true, *shut up*.).

      > No, the mandate of the UN High Commissioner on Refugees ...

      The UNHCR mandate was adopted by the GA in 1950. IN the broadest terms, it has the responsibility of providing protection to refugees and seeking permanent solutions for their problems. The UNHCR routinely describes "voluntary repatriation" as the most desirable solution to refugee crises. Almost always, this is the case.. Cases outside of the Palestinian conflict with protracted denial of right of return are almost unheard of. Please present a counter instead of just asserting next time.

      > ... meet the basic definition of a refugee.

      The UNHCR defines refugee as "a person who finds himself out of the country of his residence and is unable or unwilling to return to it because he has a well grounded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion". Again, you just made up a completely BS claim. Stop it.

      > The war that created the initial refugee problem...

      I'm *NOT* talking about the war that created the initial refugee problem. I'm talking about the continual land seizures in the West Bank and Gaza for settlements. The taking of the *remaining* 22%.

      > governed by a local Jewish majority over 120 years ago

      What a gross distortion. The areas controlled by a Jewish majority were *TINY*. In 1850, the population of Palestine had 400,000 Muslims, 75,000 Christians, and 25,000 Jews - 80% Muslim, 15% Christian, and 5% Jewish.

      > THE WAR IS OVER, and the Arabs lost

      Good. Then give the land back, because siezure of land in a war is illegal.

      > the side that looses a war is not entitled to have it's demands met.

      Whoops - we should give Kuwait back to Iraq then.

      > Israel has agreed to return to the Palestinians land that Egypt and Jordan took from them by force

      What on Earth are you talking about?

      > an he-said-she-said no matter how valid they may or may not be are not evidence in a court of law

      Especially a court of a country which has *legalized techniques defined by the UN as torture*. And don't be dumb enough to act like its a "he-said-she-said" with no evidence, bodily scarring, pictures, outside investigations, public confessions of Israelis involved, etc.

      > Almost nothing these organizations report is backed by that stuff

      Yes, they have dozens of witnesses for each event and launch independent investigations, and in some cases even have pictures and confessions from Israelis who used to take part in the stuff, but to you, that's worthless. Bloody hell. What more do you want?

      > Furthermore, these two organizations have been repeatedly accused of aiding and abaiding terrorist organizations

      That's their answer to everything! Anyone who disagrees with Israel's policies is abetting and aiding terrorists.

      --
      I'm an owl exterminator!
    208. Re:Hey, whose side are they on? by the+morgawr · · Score: 1
      This is getting rediculous, as I said before, in your mind this whole thing is black and white instead of shades of gray.

      Before we go any further I want you to state a few things:

      1. The Israeli People are entitled to their fundamental human rights, among them freedom from pursecution and the right of self-determination.
      2. Violence is not an acceptable solution; terroist groups that purposefully target and attempt to kill innocent civilians are amoral. Their approach to a solution is unacceptable. Terrorist Organizations like Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and Al-aqsa must stop their actions.
      --
      The policy of the United States is worse than bad---it is insane. -- Ludwig von Mises, Economic Policy(1959)
    209. Re:Hey, whose side are they on? by WhiteDragon · · Score: 1

      D.) Pandas aren't bears
      E.) the plural of leaf is leaves

      </pedantic>

      --
      Did you mount a military-grade, variable-focus MASER on an unlicensed artificial intelligence?
  2. VOTE! VOTE! VOTE! by dnahelix · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The only way we are going to change things is to VOTE and get those ass-heads out of office!

    --
    Slashdot Eds Link Anonymous Posts With Logged Posts
    They Are Vermin Feeding On Each Other's Feces.
    I Hate \.
    1. Re:VOTE! VOTE! VOTE! by marnargulus · · Score: 2, Informative

      From the ATF site:
      Carl J. Truscott was appointed by Attorney General John Ashcroft to be the 6th Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, in the Department of Justice, on April 18, 2004
      These guys get appointed, and the ones that aren't appointed get hired. It isn't really a voting issue, more of an issue with appointees.

    2. Re:VOTE! VOTE! VOTE! by JojoLinkyBob · · Score: 2, Funny

      I believe the appropriate term is asshat...and I certainly hope I don't come across as one in bringing this up :)

      --
      -jc
    3. Re:VOTE! VOTE! VOTE! by dirvish · · Score: 1

      For that matter I don't remember ever voting for Ashcroft. Although, Gore (or Nader) wouldn't have appointed him.

    4. Re:VOTE! VOTE! VOTE! by pclminion · · Score: 1
      The only way we are going to change things is to VOTE and get those ass-heads out of office!

      I think you misspelled "rebel." The asshats will just be replaced by other asshats.

    5. Re:VOTE! VOTE! VOTE! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Truscott was appointed by Ascroft, who was appointed by Bush, who was ELECTED by... err.. no one....

      I guess you're right... voting won't fix it.

    6. Re:VOTE! VOTE! VOTE! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      According to the article (admitedly it is a WIRED article...) most local ATF agents are against these new restrictions and don't really want to enforce them. So if the leadership changes all this will probably go away.

    7. Re:VOTE! VOTE! VOTE! by ManoMarks · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      This is an interesting point, especially since the Republicans in particular seem to think that anyone Bush appoints has a right to the office, and if Democrats question the nominee and exert their constitutional duty to approve or deny, they are being "political", which some how became a bad word.

      --

      That's gotta fit into your schema somewhere

    8. Re:VOTE! VOTE! VOTE! by Brandybuck · · Score: 3, Insightful

      While I can understand your anger, it still puzzles me as to where you were when other ass-heads started fingerprinting other people. This stuff didn't get invented under the Bush administration, but has been around for decades. I've been fingerprinted twice by the FBI under two prior administrations, and neither was related to rocketry.

      I have no problems with people protesting bad laws and corrupt administrations. But where the fsck were you during the Clinton, Bush, Reagan, Carter, and Ford years? This selective protesting reeks of hypocracy.

      --
      Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
    9. Re:VOTE! VOTE! VOTE! by TyrranzzX · · Score: 1

      And put another set in office! Rah Rah Rah kerry!

      Oh, wait...we don't have that right anymore. The goverment is installing electronic voting machines and people are stupid enough to use them.

    10. Re:VOTE! VOTE! VOTE! by Hatta · · Score: 1

      Kodos ain't any better than kang my friend. The door open is revolution.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    11. Re:VOTE! VOTE! VOTE! by jfengel · · Score: 5, Insightful

      As a bit of political gamesmanship, it's just brilliant. Declare your "bipartisanship", then nominate the most extreme candidates you can think of. When the other side objects, accuse them of being partisan.

      For extra flavor, keep the country in a state of continual national emergency, then accuse the other side of treason when they object to anything you do.

      Seriously, I despise the game, but, they've done an exceptional job of slapping their opponents both ways. I don't hold the Democrats in any higher regard; if they refrain from this behavior it's because they're not as good at it, not because of some higher moral ground they stand on.

      This is coming from a registered Democrat. I'm used to voting for the lesser of two evils.

    12. Re:VOTE! VOTE! VOTE! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The irony of that statement is this: John Ashcroft ran for re-election as Senator of Missouri in 2000 against Mel Carnahan. Two weeks before the election, Carnahan was killed in a plane crash. The late Mel Carnahan was elected anyway.

    13. Re:VOTE! VOTE! VOTE! by Hatta · · Score: 1

      What I meant to say was that the only door left open to us is revolution. They keep piling straw on the camel, eventually its back will break.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    14. Re:VOTE! VOTE! VOTE! by Warlok · · Score: 1
      If voting made a difference, it would already be illegal.


      What we need isn't to get people to vote, we need a way to differentiate between people who don't vote because they're lazy, and people who don't vote because they don't like the choices. Add a "None of the above are acceptable" choice to every office up for grabs, and I'll bet you'll see the 75% voter apathy drop to 25%, and twice as many votes for "None of the above" as for the other candidates combined.

      --
      ...and you run and you run and you can't stop what's been done...
    15. Re:VOTE! VOTE! VOTE! by Jason+Hood · · Score: 1

      You are an idiot. So is the submitter. This is just typical slashdot liberal propoganda. Get the facts from the source rather than the interpreter. I believe the term for this is crap is "disinformation".

      If you actually read the new regulations the issue is that they are now going to limit the amount of explosives that can be shipped and that they be clearly marked. This will allow bomb sniffers to filter out valid packages from the rest. Two years ago it was possible to purchase 2 lbs of propellent alont with 30 pounds worth of other junk and put it in the same box. When a sniffer finds the box, They have no way of knowing if it was 30 pounds of propellent or 2 wasting time and money. So instead of ripping apart your shipment and going through it they just pass it along. (And yes probably put you in a DB so they can see how much you are ordering.) If anything this should please the privacy nuts.

      Mark me as a troll I dont give a poop. Even if your buddy gets elected this will still be inforced for years to come.

      --
      Are you intolerant of intolerant people?
    16. Re:VOTE! VOTE! VOTE! by asdfghjklqwertyuiop · · Score: 1

      What was the stated justification for them having fingerprinted you?

    17. Re:VOTE! VOTE! VOTE! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can't speak for the parent poster, but some of us are pretty young, and only got the right to vote recently. I personally only remember Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and the most recent Bush, and was only able to vote starting 2 presidential elections ago.

    18. Re:VOTE! VOTE! VOTE! by ManoMarks · · Score: 1

      Oh yes, I didn't mean to imply that the Democrats were moral, just that they aren't good at this kind of blatent backstabbing and hypocritical behavior. Also, the Republicans are pretty lock-step these days, with very little meaningful deviation from the party line. Democrats are disorganized and self-hating. Clinton taught them that. If I think a Republican will lose anyway, I'll vote Green, even though I'm not thrilled at all with some of them.

      --

      That's gotta fit into your schema somewhere

    19. Re:VOTE! VOTE! VOTE! by glenrm · · Score: 1

      Because the ATF never went overboard when Clinton was President, of course the dead in Waco may think different, some agencies just aren't that useful, knee-jerk Anit-Ashcroftness is silly, maybe just maybe an agencies that enforces policy on three legal items should be deleted....

    20. Re:VOTE! VOTE! VOTE! by Sloppy · · Score: 1
      Yes, it is a voting issue. If you vote for candidates that run on principles, and if they win, then asshats won't get appointed to these positions. Or they'll get fired as soon as they show their colors.

      Responsibility for appointed officials, falls upon whoever appointed them. Voter is responsible for Bush. Bush is responsible for Ashcroft. Ashcroft is responsible for Truscrott. Ergo, Voter is responsible for Truscott.

      --
      As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
    21. Re:VOTE! VOTE! VOTE! by bizard · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I would imagine that many of the people you are ranting at weren't alive in the Ford and Carter years, were a tad to young to vote in the Reagan and Bush years, and hadn't yet had their own rights trampled upon in the Clinton years.

      Why is it hypocrytical to wake up and want to affect political change? Selective protesting is exactly what people should do...focus all of their effort on something that matters to them rather than generally complaining about all injustices.

    22. Re:VOTE! VOTE! VOTE! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Ah yes. The Green Party. The party that said there was no difference between Gore and Bush at the last election.

      I think anyone with any common-sense has realized those two couldn't have been more different. Except the Greens.

    23. Re:VOTE! VOTE! VOTE! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i was growing up, not being involved in politics as a teenager, and i'm gonna vote this time. a lot of younger people were'nt around to protest then, but i'm happy to see so many young people involved now. i just hope they hold the democrats to the same standard they are trying to hold the republicans to.

    24. Re:VOTE! VOTE! VOTE! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Vote who out of office?

      Al Gore and the anti-gun crowd certainly would make sure a rocket never fell into the hands of an American Citizen.

      Of course we don't know what JFK would do because he stands on both/no sides of an issue...:-)

    25. Re:VOTE! VOTE! VOTE! by Brandybuck · · Score: 1

      You're probably right about their ages. In the sixties one say a bunch of teenagers protesting Johnson and Nixon but who where much to young to have been protesting Truman and Eisenhower. It's probably the same thing here, but you just can't tell ages in an online community.

      But I will have to disagree wiht selective protesting. You can certainly choose to protest a particular issue, but you must be consistant about it. Bush has only been in office less than four years. You can't tell me that everyone protesting Bush was too young to know about Clinton's military activities.

      --
      Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
    26. Re:VOTE! VOTE! VOTE! by Brandybuck · · Score: 1

      Nothing criminal, I assure you. Both were pursuant to aquiring employment. One for government employment, and the other for private employment. I won't say what those jobs were, but I can assure you that most people on Slashdot will say "well of course we need people in that occupation to be fingerprinted!"

      --
      Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
    27. Re:VOTE! VOTE! VOTE! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Total agreement. I'm a Republican, but right now, neither candidate impresses me. I don't expect them to in the future either. I'm not sure how I'll vote in November; Kerry hasn't made an impression, while Bush sickens me, but while his antics and ridiculous arguments somehow get him to the action I somewhat prefer to be taken (yes, I think Iraq should have been invaded, but not for those reasons, either the original or the 7th revision of them they are telling us today).

      My first "realization" of how nitty and crappy this back and forth is-- Just before Clinton went out of office, he approved a slew of regulations, mainly environment, that were ridiculous and likely to be rolled back. Bush comes in, rolls them back, whammo, it hits the news. The main one was about the level of arsenic in the drinking water.

      What freakin waste of time, effort, probably money, and news space. It's a stupid, wasteful game.

    28. Re:VOTE! VOTE! VOTE! by TyrranzzX · · Score: 1

      Both were politicians. Politicians are bad because they try to please the public with new programs that inevitably fail because they are bad. Why? They can't leave the current ones damn well enough alone, like the constitution. If you really want to know, we haven't had our constitutional rights since after the 1890's, when manditory public schooling became the norm.

      Nader's and the greens are conserned crazies; very different from a politican since he works on what's good for everyone, such as removing flouride from the water supply, nuerotoxins from food, and rewriting the law to allow everyone to work together, rather than slave away for a big ubercorp. Most people call him far left, I call him right where our "leaders" need to be. I'm far more conserned with my food supply not being tampered with by drugs that make me want to go on a killing spree than I am about the national deficit, and I'm far more pissed off about the bankruptsy of our social security system, taxing fraud, and taxation without representation via currency fraud than I am about tax cuts.

      The far left is filled with hippies, pacifists, and general illogical morons, while the far right is filled with war mongering plutocrats, "businessmen" and people who don't like individuality or freedom, but rather conformity.

      Somewhere, right in the middle, where freedoms are garounteed and the ability to protect them and the sense not to kill ourselves, is where our leaders need to be. The greens are there, both the democrats and republicans are on the other side. If you read their platform, you might get an idea of where we need to be.

    29. Re:VOTE! VOTE! VOTE! by Thomas+Shaddack · · Score: 1
      WHOM? WHOM? WHOM?

      Repucrats, or Demoblicans? Republican'ts, or Demagocrats? Or some small party with no chance of election? Shouldn't the elections offer some real choice? If so, why all the major candidates base their promises on what the public wants to hear more than on their own ideology? Why they are allowed to use the campaign to convince people to vote for them instead of just laying out who they are and let the people choose? Not only it would be more fair, but it's also likely to be cheaper.

    30. Re:VOTE! VOTE! VOTE! by Zebbers · · Score: 1

      Then vote for the lesser...as I do...but do not register.

      The two party system is a sham, please don't support it.

    31. Re:VOTE! VOTE! VOTE! by f0rt0r · · Score: 1

      >But where the fsck were you during the Clinton, >Bush, Reagan, Carter, and Ford years?

      How do you know where they were during that time period? How do you know they weren't protesting then , too? Or if they were even alive? I am confused.

      --
      I can't afford a sig!
    32. Re:VOTE! VOTE! VOTE! by Captain+DaFt · · Score: 1

      "This is coming from a registered Democrat. I'm used to voting for the lesser of two evils."

      Geez! Enough of the myth of TWO evils already! Stop voting either democrat OR republican. Vote for _ANY_thing else on the ballot, Green party, libertarian, independent, communist, nazi party, anything or anyone that's NOT republican or democrat! (And get your friends, relatives, workmates, drinking buddies, whatever, to do the same!)

      Yes, I'm dead serious! The only way for the current (Past 60 years or so) status quo to change is to start eroding the entrenched powerbase.

      Sound too Irresponsible? Then at least look at _ALL_ the candidates, fringe, mainstream, or otherwise BEFORE you get near the voting booth, compare their actions (NOT THEIR REHTORIC!)with what _YOU_ personally believe, then vote accordingly.

      REMEMBER: There are way more than two parties in America, and more than two candidates on most ballots! YOU _DON'T_ have to keep making the same two mistakes over and over!!

      (Ok, I'm done. I'll go take my medication now...)

      --
      The U.S. really needs an English to Wisdom dictionary.
    33. Re:VOTE! VOTE! VOTE! by jfengel · · Score: 1

      There's a reason there are only two parties. Two parties are a stable state. Any third party, until it becomes very large, acts more like a spoiler than as a serious candidate. So whenever one arises, the party to which it is closest ideologically tends to look at it as a takeover candidate, giving basically the line that Democrats give to Greens: "If we split our vote, the other guys will win, and we'll have the worst of both worlds."

      So both parties end up as an unwieldy agglomeration of special interests. (I use that not in the usual derogatory sense. Every party represents some special interest; that's what makes them a party rather than a group of random people.) The Democrats oddly join Catholics, pro-choicers, enivornmentalists, welfare activists, and labor, groups who often find themselves at odds, but who have various common agendas. The Republicans are equal-but-opposite.

      So one has a choice: join the group, and submerge your agenda in the hopes of winning some authority, or remain ideologically pure but risk being stomped by a large machine.

      We've always had two parties in this country, though not always the same two. Occasionally one manages to wipe itself out so thoroughly that the other party either splits into two (as the Democratic-Republicans did) or is simply replaced (as the Whigs did).

      Would I love to see an alternative? Hell yeah. There is always the chance that a truly strong leader will arise and disdain both major parties, as Teddy Roosevelt did, and it nearly worked. But right now every third party I'm aware of is beating some ideological drum so loudly that they refuse to merge in with either of the two major ones. That in itself is a strike against them: how can I trust them to play the political game, which is always-always-always a matter of compromise, if they can't compromise with a party closer to their ideology?

      It may be that the existing parties are simply so corrupt, so attached to power, that defeating them is more important than any other particular issue. If I see a third party who plays that point well, I'll vote for it happily. But I won't vote for the Greens, the Communists, or the People for the American Way, because I don't think they can do it. Maybe the Libertarians could, if they ever sat down and rationalized their agenda. /end my own personal off-topic rant

    34. Re:VOTE! VOTE! VOTE! by Brandybuck · · Score: 1

      How do you know they weren't protesting then, too?

      Because I was there! I do not recall any traffic blocking protests in downtown San Fransisco over Clinton's bombing of an aspirin factory or his military involvement in Kosovo.

      According to the reports from the left, it is the Bush administration that is restricting free speech. Yet why am I seeing so much free speech protesting Iraq now, but didn't see any of it for the eight years of Clinton?

      I am not saying Clinton was wrong and Bush is right, I'm only pointing out the glaring differences between then and now. These protests are not against the war in Iraq, they're against a specific presidential administration.

      --
      Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
    35. Re:VOTE! VOTE! VOTE! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cause you are a blind, ignorant git?

  3. Some good, some FUD by DynaSoar · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Some decent informational content, but some traditional WIRED/media FUD.

    The latest explanation about the case progress from Mr. Bundick is at: http://nar.org/NARfrompres.html

    Full archive of all NAR articles regarding this and related issues:
    http://nar.org/legislative.html

    As for "losing" members, last I heard both NAR and Tripoli were maintaining even membership numbers.

    Using CP Technologies as a measure is misleading. Their products are for building your own engines. Very few people are interested in that to begin with. Most use either single use motors, or more commonly reloadable motors.

    Aerotech, manufacturer of mid-power rocket kits as well as reloadable motors and the reloads for them, is doing fine despite having suffered a fire. They filed bankruptcy, were purchsed by another company to keep them going, and are back in business full tilt, supplying thousands of rocketeers with motors and fuel.

    We're supposed to take the word of ATFE that rockets are dangerous? Well, I guess they are in the wrong hands. ATFE burned down a rented van by being stupid while trying to test rockets to prove they were dangerous. See: http://www.maxthrust.net/displayarticle749.html

    NAR #28965, 40 years without a rocket related accident or damage.

    --
    "I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid." -- Bishop 341-B
    1. Re:Some good, some FUD by shotfeel · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I'm still trying to separate the fact fromt the FUD. At first I thought this was covering things like the little Estes model rockets my sons' Cub Scouts Pack built and fired, but these rockets are a whole different class.

      "While the vast majority of model rocketeers are not subject to regulation, high-powered rockets, which can be 30 feet long and weigh hundreds of pounds -- with some flying more than 60 miles or reaching speeds over 1,000 miles per hour -- do need to comply with the requirements of federal explosives law."

      We're talking real rockets here! And even if you ignore potential terrorist use, it does seem reasonable to have limitations on how much rocket fuel can be stored by a hobbiest (or anyone) in a residential neighborhood.

      So it does seem like the regulations are over the top (story hype doesn't help), but I'm still trying to figure out it they are really all that unreasonable.

    2. Re:Some good, some FUD by JKarp · · Score: 3, Interesting

      This article was head and shoulders above ANY other that's been done on high power rocketry as of late, and the FUD is nearly nil IMO. NAR is holding membership because it's focus is model rocketry and competition, not HPR. Tripoli is withering away. The local Tripoli prefecture is down from a high of 120 members to less than a dozen, and I'm one of the ones who's out of the hobby. I used to spend $200 - $400 / month on motors & supplies, and had a storage LEUP. But when the Homeland Security Act was signed and the ATF showed up at my house with pictures of Osama and his cronies and asked if I'd seen any of them (I'm NOT kidding about this), I knew it was time to get out. CP Technologies IS an interesting data point in that their sales are down 50% and their PSAN motor technology isn't even ATF regulated! People are fed up. It shouldn't be this hard to have a hobby throwing cardboard rockets into the air. JKarp. NAR #80737 TRA #5515 L2

    3. Re:Some good, some FUD by DynaSoar · · Score: 1

      "I'm still trying to separate the fact fromt the FUD. At first I thought this was covering things like the little Estes model rockets my sons' Cub Scouts Pack built and fired, but these rockets are a whole different class."

      The low power items you mention are presently very lightly regulated. The "law" that ATFE tried to pass all by themselves, without input or approval from anyone, wanted to change that. They're still trying, and using terroism as an excuse, despite the fact you can buy the same stuff (black powder) at Wally World, already in powder form and not mixed with stuff to SLOW the burning to a stable rate.

      "While the vast majority of model rocketeers are not subject to regulation, high-powered rockets, which can be 30 feet long and weigh hundreds of pounds -- with some flying more than 60 miles or reaching speeds over 1,000 miles per hour -- do need to comply with the requirements of federal explosives law."

      These aren't high power rockets, these are experimental rockets, like the CSXT GoFast. High power rocketry is defined as using engines approved by one or both of the two rocketry organizations (NAR and TRA). The go up to class M (your Estes rockets are usually A through C, possible up to E power).

      One of ATFE's excuses was that a high powered rocket could be used to shoot down an airplane. Anyone who's ever built more than a couple understands quite well that these things are ballistic -- they have fins to keep them straight, but they are unguided. Imagine taking pot shots at something moving over 100 miles an hour with something a 1.5 to 3 inches in diameter (there's larger rockets, but the bigger they are the slower and even less accurate). Trying to prove this is what was going on when ATFE burned down the rented van.

      They've since quit claiming this, and instead are saying they could be used to deliver a payload, such as biological or chemical, with "reasonable" accuracy. Sure they can. Far more accurate and easier would be dumping it out a car window as you drive by.

      "We're talking real rockets here! And even if you ignore potential terrorist use, it does seem reasonable to have limitations on how much rocket fuel can be stored by a hobbiest (or anyone) in a residential neighborhood. So it does seem like the regulations are over the top (story hype doesn't help), but I'm still trying to figure out it they are really all that unreasonable."

      People who sell big engines must have a government license. People who store them at home must also. People who fly them must get certified to do so by one of the groups. When we fly things over 1.5 pounds, we get FAA clearance. This is all perfectly good and reasonable regulation, and we approve of it (or at minumum accept and comply). People who fly the really heavy aluminum (like "heavy iron", but for rockets) like CSXT comply with even stricter regulations.

      The points here are (1) ATFE is trying to regulate the hell out of the hobby, including little Estes engines if they can, despite the fact there is already adequate regulation in place for even their "anti-terror" needs, and (2) they're doing it in a rogue fashion, without following the proper legal procedures themselves. This last is not supposition. Part of the judge's latest statement was a request to the presidents of TRA and NAR to report to the judge any instance of an ATFE agent trying to tell a user, retailer or manufacturer that things were other than the judge decreed. Obviously the judge thought such actions by ATFE were possible. Rocketry will survive, but we're faced with the fact that ATFE, like much of the Bushland Security Forces, are running out of control and hoping we'll let them, based on vague mention of terrorism.

      --
      "I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid." -- Bishop 341-B
    4. Re:Some good, some FUD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why don't you forget the fact and the fud and figure what you think is acceptable on your own, then take your stand. I'm not saying make up your mind in a vacuum of knowledge and information, but it seems odd when people want to know every little fact.

      Yes, I'm arguing, maybe strangely, that you don't have to be of high intelligence or know everything to still have a good idea of what the proper outcome is.

      Look, model rockets, even the large ones, are very very very very unlikely to be used abusively by domestics or terrorists.

      btw, why do people make the argument that if something is reasonable, it's acceptable to make it into a full blown law that impinges on every person and every acceptable use?

      I have something that can travel 250 miles at over 200 mph and contains a large stock of explsives. It's called a car. An auto of some sort was used in 9/11. They probably drove to the airport. Shall we add it to the list of terrorist devices too? No. Should we outlaw flying? No.

      This applies to rocketry. Outlaw the end result--killing people, using it for inappropriate purposes, "fault laws" where if you screw up, you pay for it civilly and criminally. But don't outlaw every damn freakin little thing.

    5. Re:Some good, some FUD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe I'm nuts, but... rockets that are 30 foot long and weigh hundreds of pounds are fiercely regulated?

      Thank
      Fucking
      God.

  4. Hobby Lobby Fingerprint? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So, will they fingerprint us when we buy one of those cheap model rockets from Hobby Lobby? I used to love those - I would just fire off the engine without the rocket.

    paul.guerette@effem.com

    1. Re:Hobby Lobby Fingerprint? by JTMON · · Score: 0

      Are you THAT dumb...oh wait you are...you're the one that said the gov't is just trying to help....READ THE FUCKING SLASHDOT BLURB even and you'll have your answer

    2. Re:Hobby Lobby Fingerprint? by razmaspaz · · Score: 1

      Oh God I hope they fingerprint you. Then put you in the database of dumb people. Model Rocketry and the NAR have been wonderful and responsible amateur rocketeers for a long time. then we have you idiots. "Hehe, I blowed it up!"

      --
      I tried for 5 years to come up with a clever sig...only to realize that I am not clever.
    3. Re:Hobby Lobby Fingerprint? by Goldfinger7400 · · Score: 1

      The law only governs engines with no more than 0.9 lbs of propellant, that's an awful lot. If I remember correctly most toy rocket engines contain about 70 grams of fuel. The issue I see only affects those who want to build the big rockets, and I could understand some regulation on who wants to buy the big engines.

  5. It's people like this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... that will be the first to be reprogrammed.

  6. Don't understand by Sean80 · · Score: 0, Redundant
    What does the government think will be the terrorist threat here? That Osama will make little nuclear rockets and launch them from a college rocketry club?

    I absolutely loved October Sky when I finally saw it the other day. Pity this has left a bad taste in my mouth now.

  7. This has been a huge problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    for my V-2 reenactment society. Bloody red tape.

    1. Re:This has been a huge problem by Rei · · Score: 1

      Great, thanks for making me laugh out loud at work :P

      --
      I'm an owl exterminator!
    2. Re:This has been a huge problem by PD · · Score: 1

      I would have thought that getting people to live in your reproduction of London as you fired the V-2 at them would have been more difficult.

    3. Re:This has been a huge problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no that's not a challnge, actually. We figured that using the actual London would be more historically accurate. The real trouble is my poor grandmother. Her fingers are red-raw from knitting all the reproduction german lab coats.

    4. Re:This has been a huge problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      V-2 reenactment society
      Or the Saturn V reenactment society, err, wait, built by the same guy, almost the same design... hmmm...
    5. Re:This has been a huge problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Using the actual London of today would't be historically accurate in the slightest since it's so damn different than 60 years ago.

    6. Re:This has been a huge problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Use Detroit... Nobody will miss it.

  8. pf by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    yea

  9. Launch the rockets anyway by rwrife · · Score: 4, Funny

    Just launch the rockets anyway and run (so you don't get a fine or jail time).....seriously, what are they going to do? Catch the rocket in mid air?

    1. Re:Launch the rockets anyway by irokitt · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Believe it or not, I've seen people do precisely that all the time. People have to really hunt to find launch sites around here (San Diego), and it's gotten worse since the fires (which is completely understandable). So every once in a while, you see somebody shoot a rocket up and then leave. They don't even collect the things

      What I've always done is launch my rockets out in the desert (BLM property, which is state-owned and open to everyone for anything). I have a handy dry-lake launch site where there isn't anything flammable, or any people either for that matter.

      --
      If my answers frighten you, stop asking scary questions.
    2. Re:Launch the rockets anyway by zoloto · · Score: 1

      In utah and NY where I frequently visit, finding a place is not very hard. Actually, I can still go to the hardware store and pick up some a/b/c/d solid fuel rockets and accessories.

      mucho fun, not sure how this law effects people really. b/c as far as I know, it's not being enforeced (if at all), under a certian rocket size

    3. Re:Launch the rockets anyway by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      STATE OWNED BLM LAND???? Sheesh... damned illegals can't even tell state agencies from FEDERAL! Go back to Kalifornia where ya belong ya damned foreigner.

    4. Re:Launch the rockets anyway by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, you idiot, he meant the State in the formal meaning of the word...
      Ok, probably not

    5. Re:Launch the rockets anyway by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ever notice how some people manage to come across as complete tools?

  10. This may sound crazy... by ncurses · · Score: 1

    I am totally serious when I say: If a few people may get killed because of this rocketry program which is helping to advance science and understanding, then that's a risk I'm willing to take. If you can't advance knowledge, there's no point in living.

    --
    Help! I'm being repressed!
    1. Re:This may sound crazy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      errrrr... a risk you're willing to take? More likely a risk you are willing to let others take, no?

    2. Re:This may sound crazy... by ncurses · · Score: 1

      The risk that I die in an attack is the same as the risk that you would die in an attack.

      --
      Help! I'm being repressed!
    3. Re:This may sound crazy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In what way is that a rebuttal to what I just posted?

    4. Re:This may sound crazy... by proj_2501 · · Score: 1

      hey, asking other people to die is easy, especially if you ask them in a forum they don't read, and never get a response. killing yourself off for science is a bit more daring.

    5. Re:This may sound crazy... by Mick+Ohrberg · · Score: 1
      ...that's a risk I'm willing to take.

      While that may be a controversial statement, it's basically what the early space (and pre space) program partakers had to face - possibility of death. As it has been said - Gus Grissom, Ed White and Roger Chaffee were sorely missed after the Apollo I catostrophe, but their deaths were not in vain, since advancements were made in the aftermath - and while their comrades mourned, it was a risk they were willing to take to further mankind.

      Considering, I think it would me more appropriate for the actual people taking the risk to say that they are willing to.

      --

      Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur.

    6. Re:This may sound crazy... by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      You're willing to risk other people's lives? Interesting. That means you shouldn't mind someone else risking YOUR life...or is the risk of death only appliacable to !you?

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    7. Re:This may sound crazy... by ravenspear · · Score: 2, Informative

      If a few people may get killed because of this rocketry program

      That argument is moot. As others have pointed out, since the amateur rocketry industry was properly regulated by Tripoli and NAR decades ago there has not been a single accident where anyone has died.

  11. These aren't the rocket's I used to play with by l810c · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Estes

    There's a link on the bottom of the page "Homeland Security & Model Rocketry". Basically anything they sell is still legal.

    It's just motors with greater than .9 lbs of fuel. That's Huge and could very well be used as a weapon.

    1. Re:These aren't the rocket's I used to play with by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ATTENTION CITIZEN!

      Your arm can be used as a weapon, please detach it and turn it into the nearest Protector of Freedom AT ONCE!

    2. Re:These aren't the rocket's I used to play with by Rivak · · Score: 1

      because terrorist don't have the time or energy to slice up 50 E engines and dump the contents into a pringles can..

    3. Re:These aren't the rocket's I used to play with by Like2Byte · · Score: 1

      I used to fly model rockets as a kid and I loved it - especially when my 'Wizard' rocket disintigrated on its 8th (or so) flight at about 1000' using a C6-7 rocket engine.

      Truthfully, I think that that was my last launch. I built a rocket a few years ago but never launched it and I bought another one a few months ago but still haven't put it together.

      Anyway, Estes (online) has the worst interface of any webpage I've ever used. It's probably geared toward kids as old as 15; but, still. Give me those old Estes Catalogs any day of the week.

    4. Re:These aren't the rocket's I used to play with by gr8_phk · · Score: 4, Insightful
      "It's just motors with greater than .9 lbs of fuel. That's Huge and could very well be used as a weapon"

      It's people with that attitude that are causing the problem with the ATF. If you've ever been to a launch you'd know the ability to aim these things at a target is nonexistant. They basically go up, but you couldn't deliberately hit something if you tried without a miracle. The fuel itself is not actually explosive - outside the motor tube it burns really slow. You could attach some other explosive, but you still couldn't deliver it accurately and that would be a different substance so no need to regulate the fuel.

      Rocket fuel is no more dangerous than gasoline which is available on every corner in America. Probably less dangerous, as it's not a liquid.

    5. Re:These aren't the rocket's I used to play with by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Explosives aren't the only kind of payload that can be deployed with a rocket.

    6. Re:These aren't the rocket's I used to play with by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 1

      What they don't tell you is that it takes considerable guidance to hit a target, regardless of the amount of fuel.

      Even large model rocketry has been around for decades and I don't think there is a recorded instance of it being used to attack people or things. What terrorist organizations are more likely to use are Russian built shoulder-launched weapons, while inaccurate, are much better guided than any model rocket I've heard about.

    7. Re:These aren't the rocket's I used to play with by Citizen+of+Earth · · Score: 4, Informative

      Estes [estesrockets.com]

      I think we're safe from these guys -- their web site is unusable!

    8. Re:These aren't the rocket's I used to play with by kfg · · Score: 1

      The solution, of course, is to develop gasoline powered amatuer rockets. Screw one pound motors. A gallon of gas is about 6 pounds of raw energy.

      And there will always be plenty of gasoline. We're regulating rocket engines to fight terrorism to preserve our way of life, to wit, the availability of cheap gasoline in arbitrarily large quantities over the counter to anybody.

      Nothing can go wrong. . . go wrong. . . go wrong. . .

      I wonder what they're going to do when the first terrorist uses a gasoline powered machine gun or cannon. The principles are simple and the technology exists.

      Well, it'll bring back the full service filling station I suppose as only licensed federal agents will be allowed to pump the stuff and someone will have to take your prints, retinal scan and check your papers, citizen.

      Maybe they'll just ban exothermic chemical reactions, then only criminals will react.

      Morons.

      KFG

    9. Re:These aren't the rocket's I used to play with by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, and Ahmed can fling a glass jar full of goodies as well.

      Or better yet, buy someting on the black market that dosnt take a phd to build/use :)

    10. Re:These aren't the rocket's I used to play with by chadjg · · Score: 2, Funny

      "That's Huge and could very well be used as a weapon"

      Sure, I see two possibilities. First, you could bludgeon someone to death with the motor. Put it in a sock for extra leverage. Second. some knucklehead might want to rig up a remote fired "Katyusha" type of assembly. Guess which one I think is more likely?

      I did the small model rockets as a kid and always thought it would be fun to get into the big ones if I ever got into a big enough paycheck. Now, it seems like a colossal pain. Oh well. Now I'll have to get a safe hobby like motorcycles, skydiving or street racing.

      It really is too bad.

      --
      Why do I have this? I don't smoke.
    11. Re:These aren't the rocket's I used to play with by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      1. What makes you think that it is impossible to add a guadance system to an amature rocket?
      I have seen some that carry TV cameras, and telemetry. GPS systems are getting smaller all the time.
      2. I will not go into details but can you say AIR BURST. It could be used as a disperal method.

      A .9 lbs motor is a pretty big motor.

      I am not saying I support these rules at all. I think they are huge waste of time because you can still buy black power and make your own motors. These new rules really would not stop some one from using a homemade rocket for a terrorist attack.
      And if they ever try to stop the sale of black powder! Then they will have the NRA up in arms.

      It is silly to think that you could outlaw everything that could be used for an act of terror. There was one guy that made bombs our of sugar and solidOx from a welding supply store.
      But to say that you could not use a rocket as a weapon is also silly. Of course you could. You could also use a car, truck, and even a brick.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    12. Re:These aren't the rocket's I used to play with by Fear+the+Clam · · Score: 1

      There's a link on the bottom of the page "Homeland Security & Model Rocketry"

      Which frickin' "level" is it on?

      I used to make Estes rockets every summer, and wanted to know how the prices have changed in the last 20 years or so. I actually found a model close to one I built back then, and clicked for more info. The price isn't in the specs, though, so you have to go to the online store. Only then does the site spew the message "Estes E-commerce requires Internet Explorer 5.0 or above, or Netscape 4.5 or above to function. Please use another browser, or upgrade accordingly."

      Some webmonkey needs a slap in the head.

    13. Re:These aren't the rocket's I used to play with by l810c · · Score: 2, Insightful
      These things are not going to kill a lot of people, but given their size and range there are numerous ways they could be used to terrorize people and allow the attackers to quickly get away.

      Fire one of these from a mile away over a packed stadium or large crowd and have it explode with a cloud of chemical agent.

      You wouldn't even need a chemical, flour would probably cause such a panic that several people would die in the ensuing stampede.

      I live in the flight pattern of Atlanta's aiport. If I fired one of these at a plane(even if I didn't hit it), it would shut down the whole airport and maybe the entire US.

    14. Re:These aren't the rocket's I used to play with by ChuckleBug · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If you've ever been to a launch you'd know the ability to aim these things at a target is nonexistant. They basically go up, but you couldn't deliberately hit something if you tried without a miracle.

      Just to play devil's advocate here - I don't think this matters. A terrorist's goal could just be indiscriminate mayhem, so it wouldn't matter where it ended up. Also, I don't think you're quite right. If you put some effort into it, you could hit a large target, like a building. It's also possible for someone to design some sort of guidance system. Of course, I don't see terrorists doing this - it's a big production and there are much easier ways of being destructive.

      I'm a rocket enthusiast myself, and I don't like seeing unwarranted restrictions on the hobby, but I don't have a problem with a certain amount of regulation, especially for the big ones. Rockets are ballistic projectiles, and can be damned dangerous, even if they aren't explosive. Even a small rocket, which can be simply demonstrated: Set up a rocket with a C or D motor, stand with your chin resting atop the launch rod, and push the button. :) However, making it into a Homeland Security (I hate that term) issue is over the top.

    15. Re:These aren't the rocket's I used to play with by _14k4 · · Score: 1

      When a city has a population of 2 people per square foot, "accuracy" doesn't really matter...

    16. Re:These aren't the rocket's I used to play with by mlush · · Score: 1
      Sure, I see two possibilities. First, you could bludgeon someone to death with the motor. Put it in a sock for extra leverage. Second. some knucklehead might want to rig up a remote fired "Katyusha" type of assembly. Guess which one I think is more likely?

      If I was spook, I would be thinking about option 3, radioactive payload Cobalt-60 or cesium-137 are 'quite easy' to get hold of. and a bursting charge is easy enough to rig up..... OTHO If I was a terrorist I'd be inclined to use fireworks to scatter the radioactives around town (probably use a lead lined Katyusha on a truck) the amounts of radioactives released would be pretty trivial but the cleanup operation would take weeks, cost quite a lot and the civic disruption would be huge.

    17. Re:These aren't the rocket's I used to play with by Bri3D · · Score: 1

      They basically go up, but you couldn't deliberately hit something if you tried without a miracle.

      Terrorists dont need to hit something. Go somewhere 5-6 miles from the edge of the heavily populated area and fire. It WILL hit someone or something, causing fear. The point of terrorism doesn't have to be to cause horrific amounts of damage or deaths. A small-scale attack on no specific target can still cause mass fear, and start political flamewars too! Imagine the results of one of these attacks politically: Why didn't Bush protect us? See! He's the root of all evil! Now more of our civil liberties will be infringed on!

    18. Re:These aren't the rocket's I used to play with by sethlong · · Score: 2, Informative

      There's been a lot of people saying how motors larger then 62.5 grams are huge, used to launch 30 foot high rockets, unneeded, etc. This isn't the case.

      For example, I have a rocket which carries a radio controlled digital camera. Here's what it needs to get to various altitudes:

      To get off the launch pad and slowly lumber up 400 feet: G64 reload (62.4 grams propellant)
      To leave the launch pad at a safe speed and obtain a resonable altitude(1000 feet): H128 reload (95 grams)
      To get somewhere that would yield really cool pictures (3000 feet): I211 reload (251 grams)

      Note the much higher altitude from the H128 verses the G64. The rocket is so underpowered with the G64 that most of the fuel is spent just keeping the rocket from falling back down. The H128 gets it moving at a much more efficiant speed. Thus the huge altitude difference with a motor only 50% larger. (I've used both motors, with an altimeter in the rocket to verify altitude and deploy the parachutes).

      Most of the really neat payloads need a bunch of power. Such as a tiny computer, wireless lan card, and batteries. Or a video camera.

      It used to be legal to purchase and fly any of these motors without a low explosive user permit (LEUP). The largest motor you used to be able to get sans LEUP was the AeroTech J570, which would have put my camera rocket up around 6000 feet. Now, the most powerful easily avaliable motor will be the AT G125, which puts my camera rocket up around 450 feet, although it does leave the launch pad at a safe speed.

      The guys launching 30 foot rockets are using motors like the AeroTech N2000, which has 7,770 grams of propellent. These have always required a LEUP.

      Seth

    19. Re:These aren't the rocket's I used to play with by radish · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I live in the flight pattern of Atlanta's aiport. If I fired one of these at a plane(even if I didn't hit it), it would shut down the whole airport and maybe the entire US.



      You could get the same effect by calling in a well timed and worded series of bomb threats. Which is a lot easier than messing around with rockets.

      Look, pretty much anything you can think of could be used by a terrorist. Poison the water supply, or some food factory, throw green dye into a river and call into the local tv news with a middle-east accent, let off a smoke grenade on the subway. If you want to cause chaos it's easy and always will be.

      --

      ---- Den ene knappen er powerknapp, den andre er Bender voice knapp "Bite My Shiny Metal Ass"

    20. Re:These aren't the rocket's I used to play with by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "but you couldn't deliberately hit something if you tried without a miracle."

      That is not true, I have fired homemade rockets, from discarded LAW and Scorpion tubes, with reasonable accuracy. About one in four firings, however, was unpredictable, often impacting within a few meters of our firing position. I even had some national guard artillery men offer to put a warhead on for me, but I'm not that crazy.

      The whole regulation, however, is stupid. You can make bombs out of fertilizer and piss, and bioweapons out of rotting meat. The way to keep our country secure is to empower the citizenry, not to make them rely upon the government for protection. Question: How many terrorists does it take to take over a plane when everyone on board is carrying a gun? Answer: Alot more than it does now.

    21. Re:These aren't the rocket's I used to play with by gr8_phk · · Score: 1

      And none of them will see you carry that thing around and launch it either...

    22. Re:These aren't the rocket's I used to play with by mark-t · · Score: 1
      Interesting solution to the problem

      However, gasoline powered rockets would be much more dangerous for amateurs to work with than the hobby rockets they use now. This would effectively lock out the inexperienced from participating due to an increased danger level and create too high a barrier of entry for anyone else.

    23. Re:These aren't the rocket's I used to play with by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > A .9 lbs motor is a pretty big motor.

      Ok what about 9 .1 lbs motors taped together? Is it still big?

    24. Re:These aren't the rocket's I used to play with by kfg · · Score: 1

      However, gasoline powered rockets would be much more dangerous for amateurs to work with than the hobby rockets they use now.

      Exactly, the suggestion was ironic. The fact that it could be done practically is necessary to the irony.

      Just as for the gasoline powered machine gun. I have "constructed" one as a thought model. Not because I have any innate interest in such, I consider firearms nasty, smelly, crude things, but I do have an innate interest in constructing models showing the innate silliness of certain laws and other social constructions/biases.

      I dare anyone to put onerous restrictions on the purchase and posession of gasoline, there would be rioting in the streets, and yet, without those, many of our other restrictive laws are just so much pointless, hypocritical bunk.

      I've got 10 gallons of highly volatile explosives sitting in my car right now, and no one gives it a thought. I've got 250 gallons of "jet fuel" in a tank in my basement to go along with it. I've got a nozzle that spits out out natural gas on demand.

      I could also have a thirty ought six sitting my closet if I wanted.

      A firecracker or a wrist braced slingshot could get me arrested on a felony charge.

      It's silly.

      KFG

    25. Re:These aren't the rocket's I used to play with by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So what you're saying is
      a.) you can't really aim these.
      b.) of you could aim these, they could hurt somebody.

    26. Re:These aren't the rocket's I used to play with by mlush · · Score: 1
      Ok what about 9 .1 lbs motors taped together? Is it still big?

      big, but more or less useless as a rocket motor getting all ten motors to fire at the same time and give exactly the same thrust (ie stopping the rocket doing the mad spirals thing) is rather hard

  12. Why Rocketry? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My question is simply this: Are there any known cases of home-built or amateur rockets being used for terrorist purposes in the USA (or anywhere else, for that matter)? Or, is this simply a case of another paranoid preventative measure from beurocrats with little or no grasp on reality?

  13. Perspective... by Chagatai · · Score: 2, Interesting
    From the government's perspective, anyone who engages in model rocketry could be capable of doing something more dangerous. Then again, this logic is so logically flawed, it's kind of like saying, "Citizens should not have water, as it could lead to drowning deaths".

    --
    --Chag
    1. Re:Perspective... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Recreational sports shooters have been fighting this mentality for decades.

    2. Re:Perspective... by DustinB · · Score: 1

      All water purchased should come labeled with a warning that breathing only water for extended periods of time is hazardous. Without that label, I'm sure thousands are dying needlessly.

    3. Re:Perspective... by hackstraw · · Score: 1

      From the government's perspective, anyone who engages in model rocketry could be capable of doing something more dangerous.

      I feel soooo much safer knowing that all of the rocket using terrorists spend 3 to 4 months get fingerprinted and background checked.

    4. Re:Perspective... by orthogonal · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Then again, this logic is so logically flawed, it's kind of like saying, "Citizens should not have water, as it could lead to drowning deaths".

      Citizens should not have water, as they can use it to waterboard Iraqi and Afghani prisoners.

      Oh, sorry, that was done by the U.S. government on CIA orders, so it's ok.

      Nevermind.

    5. Re:Perspective... by runlvl0 · · Score: 1

      I feel soooo much safer knowing that all of the rocket using terrorists spend 3 to 4 months get fingerprinted and background checked.

      So true. And yet, I wonder what the prevailing attitude around Slashdot is concerning gun control and firearms laws?

      --

      Carthago delenda est!
    6. Re:Perspective... by Mysticalfruit · · Score: 1

      What you've touched on is the state of this leaders in this country.

      Instead of our government being made up of people from our own ranks, it's full of the upper 1% of people whom if they weren't in government would treat 90% of the population without outright content.

      Hence when you see a law that's completely egress, just remember that all of those people "Don't give a fuck about you or your rights..."

      They've got their lips securely attached to the special interest tit and are vigrously sucking with all their might...

      --
      Yes Francis, the world has gone crazy.
    7. Re:Perspective... by cens0r · · Score: 1

      There is a difference. I'm not opposed to people owning hunting rifles (although I'm opposed to hunting for different reasons), collecting guns, or target shooting. All of those are legitimate hobbies comparable to rocketry. However, I am opposed to people being able to keep AK-47's, SKS's, Uzi's, and other weapons that are not designed for any hobby; but only have a use to kill other people.

      --
      Jack Valenti and Orrin Hatch will be first up against the wall when the revolution comes.
    8. Re:Perspective... by k31bang · · Score: 1

      BAN Hydric acid NOW!!!! ;-)

      --
      -+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+ *** http://www.mountainfort.com *** +-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-
    9. Re:Perspective... by runlvl0 · · Score: 1

      There is a difference. I'm not opposed to people owning hunting rifles (although I'm opposed to hunting for different reasons), collecting guns, or target shooting. All of those are legitimate hobbies comparable to rocketry. However, I am opposed to people being able to keep AK-47's, SKS's, Uzi's, and other weapons that are not designed for any hobby; but only have a use to kill other people.

      Okay, I'm still not sure of the distinction. According to the article, only rockets with more than 0.9 pounds of fuel are subject to these types of controls. That's somewhat more power than the C6-5 motors that I remember using in my Estes model rockets as a kid.

      Their argument meshes well with the distinction that you'd make about firearms, and your opposition to my AK-47. Couldn't the same argument, that my gun is "not designed for any hobby", be applied to these "30 feet long and weigh hundreds of pounds" monsters?

      Both arguments rely on the idea of prior restraint. That is, you're not arguing that my gun or their rockets are inherently harmful to society (they aren't), you and the ATF are worried about what we might do with them, and therefore want to regulate - if not outlaw - them.

      --

      Carthago delenda est!
    10. Re:Perspective... by cens0r · · Score: 1

      Of course I've seen people shoot of these huge rockets to further their hobby. They are heavily regulated, but it still falls into a realm of a hobby. I still fail to see what hobby requires an AK-47. Of course, maybe we're taking the ban on weapons like that from the wrong side. Maybe we should just make the AK-47 bullets illegal.

      --
      Jack Valenti and Orrin Hatch will be first up against the wall when the revolution comes.
    11. Re:Perspective... by nyseal · · Score: 1

      Wow, that was really insightful.....I can see someone's been reading the writings of Karl Marx, or Mein Kampf............you lost me at the sucking tit thing...or maybe I was just distracted; probably just distracted.

      --
      [SIG] Remember Mattel handheld games?
  14. rocketry: dangerous? by will.murnane · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Although I admit that this is a stupid regulation and fairly dictatorial, it shouldn't be that big a deal. If people are interested in rocketry, they can go through the licensing stuff and then go for it. Even if model rockets weren't used on 9/11, that doesn't mean they can't be used for similar purposes. They're basically explosives. Regulations on explosives are generally good things.

    1. Re:rocketry: dangerous? by rwrife · · Score: 3, Funny

      They're not dangerous....I once built a shoulder mounted rocket launcher out of a small estes rocket and I'm sure it would have been cool to watch slam into my parent's house had my face and eyes not been burned by the exhaust.

    2. Re:rocketry: dangerous? by WarMonkey · · Score: 1

      Regulations on explosives are generally good things. Not at all. Common sense safety is a good thing -- both in terms of rocketry and government. Giving the government more power is most emphatically not a common sense safety precaution. The fact is, government fails miserably at regulating anything in "the public interest". Government is controlled by politics and things regulated by politics will inevitably be regulated solely to serve political interests.

      --
      -- I could tell right away that she was impressed with my HUGE Slashdot Karma.
  15. You sound like a charter member... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You sound like a charter member of the "Me am dum" club.

    Congrats.

  16. 0.9 pounds of fuel by dirvish · · Score: 1

    In any case, since the federal Safe Explosives Act -- which requires permits for rockets with more than 0.9 pounds of fuel -- went into effect in late 2002, the rocketry industry has been battered.

    How big of a rocket engine is that? I assume that is bigger than your typical hobby rocket engine. Not that it justifies the feds regulations, the hobby engines could certainly be next.

    1. Re:0.9 pounds of fuel by dj.delorie · · Score: 1

      My largest rocket, which is about a pound at launch and almost 8 feet tall, only has 0.25 lb of propellant in it - and that's with three black powder engines. With composite engines, about half the propellant mass is needed for the same thrust.
      0.9 lbs of composite propellant would be about a J engine, which requires level 2 certification to buy/launch anyway.

    2. Re:0.9 pounds of fuel by Roskolnikov · · Score: 1

      Federal Safe Explosives act........

      wait a second, *safe* explosives?

      huh?

      --
      Unix, an obscure operating system developed by bored researchers in an attempt to get a better game playing experience.
    3. Re:0.9 pounds of fuel by afidel · · Score: 1

      Well considering that you need FAA aproval for engines bigger than 4oz. I think it's REALLY freaking big! Also for people more familiar with model rocketry a large D class engine has less than an ounce of propellant (~25g).

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
  17. Dear God, you're dense! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    That is all.

    1. Re:Dear God, you're dense! by Rivak · · Score: 1

      i'm dense cause you didnt get my joke?

      i love the ass-backward /. mod way of thinking

    2. Re:Dear God, you're dense! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If it was a joke, it wasn't funny...

      ... but it obviously wasn't a joke. Nice try.

    3. Re:Dear God, you're dense! by Fizzog · · Score: 1

      Strange. I realised immediately that it was a joke, and also think that it was quite funny.

  18. Time to trade in by xmedar · · Score: 5, Funny

    Those American passports, Europe is nice, come over here, have some cheese and wine, and be free of your oppressors, huddled masses welcome!

    --
    Any sufficiently advanced man is indistinguishable from God
    1. Re:Time to trade in by MyNameIsFred · · Score: 4, Informative
      ...Those American passports, Europe is nice, come over here,...

      I did a quick google, and it is not like Europe is free of regulation for model rocketry. It seems that things are very similar:

      Engines can be shipped via postal services or for larger parcels via special postal services because you can only buy A,B,C and D. Shops can sell motors but only A,B,C and sometimes D.
      I assume the A, B, C, and D engines sizes are the same as easily bought in the U.S.
    2. Re:Time to trade in by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uh, which part of Europe would the safe part be? No offense, I think you guys are great, but I'm heading to Canada. At least their only form of terror is making you learn French.

    3. Re:Time to trade in by mcknation · · Score: 1


      Can I stay at your house?

    4. Re:Time to trade in by Santana · · Score: 1

      Or even better, come to Mexico. Nice weather, tequila, burritos. If the government doesn't do anything about the toxic wastes the USA drops in our territory or close to the border, who will care about the launches?

      Bienvenidos!

      --
      The best way to predict the future is to invent it
    5. Re:Time to trade in by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I visited a second-world country once (the Soviet Union, back before it collapsed).

      You would say that then, you dirty communist.

    6. Re:Time to trade in by KlomDark · · Score: 1

      Really? You can buy up to H-class engines at the Hobby Town here in Omaha. Severely expensive, but you can get them.

    7. Re:Time to trade in by MoneyT · · Score: 1

      Is this the same Europe who's countries feel the need to ban students from wearing religious symbols in school, ban it's citizens from owning firearms and charge a tax simply for owning a TV?

      No thanks, I'll stick around here.

      No matter where you go, you won't be able to do everything, it's just a matter of which rights you want to give up.

      --
      T Money
      World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
    8. Re:Time to trade in by wintermute740 · · Score: 1

      "Those American passports, Europe is nice, come over here, have some cheese and wine, and be free of your oppressors, huddled masses welcome!"

      I'd mod this insightful, not funny. We are living in very scary times here on this side of the pond, but it's not because of the terrorists. I live in fear of my goverenment! I fear posting this, as the SS may decide that it can somehow be interpretted as a threat against the dictator^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H president of the United States. Shrug... Screw it... Anyone know how hard it is to imigrate to Ireland?

    9. Re:Time to trade in by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      Yea I looked up the same page. Actually the rules are STRICTER than the US.
      In some countries it is just not legal at all. Not even for a little mini-brute!
      In others only A thru C are legal.
      Most countries require you to be 18 to buy any rocket motor.
      The UK seems the most liberal but still stricker than the US.
      And in none that I read was is legal to make your own motors.
      What it relly comes down to is we are worried about loosing rights that a lot of people in Europe have never had.

      If you think that you will have less Goverment regulation by moving to Europe please go right ahead.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    10. Re:Time to trade in by MrResistor · · Score: 1

      It's modded funny because rocketry is much more restricted in Europe than it is here, even with the new regulations. In fact, most of the freedoms we've been grummbling about losing the last few years nobody in Europe ever had.

      Oh, and it's difficult to imigrate to Europe in general, certainly much more so than imigrating to the US. The biggest problem, according to friends who've done it, is getting a job. Companies have to prove that there are no suitable natives available before they can even consider hiring a foreigner, and if you go too long with no job you get deported (this is in England, IIRC Ireland is more restrictive of foreign labor, as is Germany).

      --
      Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.
    11. Re:Time to trade in by Radon+Knight · · Score: 1
      Just out of curiosity, how is my previous post "Flamebait"? Has anyone who's modded this comment lived in either the UK (specifically, London) or Europe, or visited the Soviet Union before it collapsed? I've lived in the UK for almost three years now, and lived in the Soviet Union for a month before the cold war ended.

      Sheesh. What's up with the mods? I understand not being modded up, but modded down? How many people have had to contend with being on a wait list for relatively basic medical treatment, as is standard practice in the UK? Did you know that the University of Pittsburgh alone has within +/- 1 as many MRI's as all of the UK?

      Don't mod what you don't know.

    12. Re:Time to trade in by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not being able to owe a firearm is a good thing, less guns means less people shot. Check the statistics but I'm pretty sure the UK has a much lower amount of Gun crime(ie shotting) than the good old USA.

      But yeah the parent is wrong about rockets. I used to be really into estes rockets and definatly the US was(don't know about these new regulations) a lot easier going that the UK.

    13. Re:Time to trade in by thomastheo1 · · Score: 1

      Very true. I live in the netherlands and they have rules for EVERYTHING here. You have to apply for a permit if you feel the urge to fart for god's sake. But then again, I can blow clouds of happy smoke at a police officer without the slightest risk of prosecution.

    14. Re:Time to trade in by xmedar · · Score: 1

      It was half meant in jest hence the "huddled masses welcome!", and in theory in some parts of Europe restrictions are tighter, however in Europe rules are ignored a great deal of the time, the exception being Britain which has people to inforce every stupid little rule, on the Continent people are more relaxed about these things, I remember when I was avout 12 and in France, I walked into a shop and bought a bunch large bangers (American:firecrackers) no problem.

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced man is indistinguishable from God
    15. Re:Time to trade in by MoneyT · · Score: 1

      Not being able to owe a firearm is a good thing, less guns means less people shot. Check the statistics but I'm pretty sure the UK has a much lower amount of Gun crime(ie shotting) than the good old USA.


      Do a google for "The Failed Experiment".

      But yeah the parent is wrong about rockets. I used to be really into estes rockets and definatly the US was(don't know about these new regulations) a lot easier going that the UK

      The new regulations don't affect estes.

      --
      T Money
      World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
    16. Re:Time to trade in by Thomas+Shaddack · · Score: 1
      How many people have had to contend with being on a wait list for relatively basic medical treatment, as is standard practice in the UK?

      Better being on waiting list than not being able to afford it at all. How deep are your savings? When your job goes to Bangalore and you get fired, how long can you stay out of work and afford to pay your med insurance?

      If you have enough money, you can afford a private clinic, that's the same as in the US. The difference is that when you don't have enough money, you aren't screwed, at least not that hard.

    17. Re:Time to trade in by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      And acrording to the website model rockets are totaly illegal.
      I think people in other Europe do not really understand just how free and unregulated the US really is.
      Could you imagine trying to build a 10 meter tall rocket that could hit 30,000 meters in the neterlands. And just imagaine trying to find a launch site.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    18. Re:Time to trade in by siriuskase · · Score: 1

      This is exactly why those who make the laws need to respect the power that they wield. Americans tend to be in the habit of following the law because for many Americans "legal" is synonymous with "moral" and "right". Much as I hate this simplified thinking, having lived outside the US, I can see how this atmosphere of general trust contributes to the quality of life that does not exist in more sophisticated and cynical cultures.

      --
      If you must moderate, please moderate as irrelevent, not something bad, because I'm sure someone will find this interest
    19. Re:Time to trade in by siriuskase · · Score: 1
      Just about everywhere, including the UK has more people getting blown up than the US. Unfortunately, the 9/11 event may have evened the body count.

      Fortunately, when someone kills his intended victim with a firearm, he is less likely to have unintended victims. In the US, if you don't have enemies, you are less likely to become a victim.

      --
      If you must moderate, please moderate as irrelevent, not something bad, because I'm sure someone will find this interest
  19. My 2 cents by Osgyth · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Why is the gov't bothering to regulate a hobby the countless people have participated it, that unless my memory fails me, has never posed a threat to this so called "national security" myth. Their time and our money could be better spent in other ways. (I've got no clue where, which is why I'm not running for office.) Model rocketry has been one of my favorite hobbies for years, and i have never heard of it being misused in a way that warrants attraction from the federal government.

    1. Re:My 2 cents by Have+Blue · · Score: 1

      Yeah, and hijacked airplanes had never posed a threat to anyone outside the airplane itself before. I'm not saying I agree with the goverment's actions, but "safe and harmless now, safe and harmless forever" is no better.

    2. Re:My 2 cents by shotfeel · · Score: 1

      Just FYI, this isn't about the little model rockets that I believe you're referring to -the ones we used to fire from school playgrounds and parks and can stil be purchased from hobby stroes around the country with nothing more than a little cash.

      From the article, these are "high powered rockets, which can be 30 feet long and weight hundreds of pounds -- with some flying more than 60 miles...". This is a completely different class of rocket.

    3. Re:My 2 cents by nyseal · · Score: 1

      Since when has national security become a myth? Since 9/11?

      --
      [SIG] Remember Mattel handheld games?
  20. Blown away by dylan_- · · Score: 1


    They're not "blown away"...they're "ablated"...

    --
    Igor Presnyakov stole my hat
  21. Back in the Day... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    When I was a kid we used to save up our spare change and head to the local variety store to buy a few rockets. I can remember launching them in a playground and even from my backyard. Not the safest thing, but still fun.

    I remember one time we were about to launch from the playground and a cop drove up and just sat in his car. We knew we probably shouldn't be launching from the neighborhood so we just waited. About 5 minutes later the cop gets out and asks "When you gonna launch that thing? I want to see it"

    Today I suppose that would be a federal offense.

  22. Yeah Right by drgonzo59 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Becuase the terrorists would set up rocket clubs. These regulations are insane. If they (terrorist) wanted to blast rockets or do whatever they do with them, they'll just do it, wether there are regulations for background check of rocket club members or not. What is next, do background checks on LUGs because of cyberterrorism, or perhaps read people's email ... (oh, wait, they already do that...doh!)

    1. Re:Yeah Right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you are forgetting one important thing. the point of these regulations aren't necessarily about preventing disasters or attacks - rather, it's about accountability. people who are in charge of enforcing or coming up with these regulations are hardly interested in their effectiveness. they are interested in making sure their ass is covered and that they wouldn't be held responsible for not doing anything when something terrible happens.

    2. Re:Yeah Right by LostCluster · · Score: 0

      The fear isn't over the terrorists using hobby rockets so much as the fact that terrorists like to use explosives, and rockets need explosive compounds in order to get off the ground. The regulations around the use of explosives are are catching the rocket clubs in red tape.

      Take a model rocket engine, grind it up and repackage it, and it quickly converts to a general purpose bomb. That's what we're affraid of.

    3. Re:Yeah Right by Ann+Coulter · · Score: 0, Troll

      I don't want to sound like FUD but US aerospace regulations apply to other countries as well. The United States have jurisdiction in matters regarding anything that reaches a certain altitude. You can't do this ANYWHERE. You would have to get permission from the United States to be able to launch a rocket into space. Therefore, the United States is the gatekeeper to space. For example, what would pervent a terrorist in Mexico, which has very lax de facto terrorism screens, from launching a chemical weapon into the United States? This line of thinking is responsible for these regulations. Do not be suprised when regulations like these expand to communications. Transportation has already been taken care of in the form of aerospace regulations and the FAA. Communications will be next because of cyberterrorism. Just be aware of imperialism.

    4. Re:Yeah Right by terrymr · · Score: 2, Informative

      So ... you can buy 50lbs of black powder without any permits at all ... that makes a good general purpose bomb too.

  23. Doesnt affect most rocketeers by kevin_conaway · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The article states this doesnt affect most rocketeers, just those building the 30 foot ones carrying a pound of fuel. In my opinion, those SHOULD be regulated

    1. Re:Doesnt affect most rocketeers by v_1matst · · Score: 1

      exactly... this isn't for the model rockets that you launch in your back yard or some other local field. This is for the model rockets that you launch in a controlled setting with certified people making sure everything checks out OK before the rocket is launched and goes over mach 1 headed towards space.

      Stop being so damned reactionary...

    2. Re:Doesnt affect most rocketeers by DAldredge · · Score: 1

      Why?

    3. Re:Doesnt affect most rocketeers by k31bang · · Score: 3, Insightful

      First they came for the big ass rockets and I did not speak out because I don't use them Then they came for the bla bla bla, you know the rest.

      --
      -+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+ *** http://www.mountainfort.com *** +-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-
    4. Re:Doesnt affect most rocketeers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      First them came after home nukes, bla, bla, bla.

      Do you honestly think this is a slippery slope?

    5. Re:Doesnt affect most rocketeers by IshanCaspian · · Score: 1

      Funny, I can walk down to the gas station and buy a lot more fuel than that using only some cash and a plastic gas container.

      --

      But there is another kind of evil that we must fear most... and that is the indifference of good men.
    6. Re:Doesnt affect most rocketeers by Zordak · · Score: 1
      First they came for the big ass rockets and I did not speak out because I don't use them Then they came for the bla bla bla, you know the rest.
      First, they came for the big rockets, and I didn't speak out because, you know, I think maybe it's a good think that some of the morons who live in my neighborhood can't just go buy a 30-foot rocket with lots of fuel and launch it any time, any place and possibly land it on my 3-year-old while she's splashing in her kiddie pool or burn down my house or something. Then, some politicians did something that actually mattered, and that I actually felt was damaging to my rights as a citizen, and I decided to vote them out, and I used my free speech right to encourage my neighbors to vote them out, and realized that maybe there were much more important things to be worried about than the "right" of any idiot to randomly launch explosives at his leisure.
      --

      Today's Sesame Street was brought to you by the number e.
    7. Re:Doesnt affect most rocketeers by nyseal · · Score: 1

      Killing babies has NEVER been specific to this century, this administration or any war. Look it up....even for the last 5 presidencies.

      --
      [SIG] Remember Mattel handheld games?
    8. Re:Doesnt affect most rocketeers by k31bang · · Score: 1

      Do you honestly think this is a slippery slope?

      Ever made a rocket with a paper match? You know when you surround the head of the match with foil, and stick a pin up it, then heat it up, and launch it? How soon till they ban matches? For that matter, how soon till they ban hydrogen peroxide and silver, which when used correctly together can be used in rocketry. Speaking of foil, excuse me while I put my gold plated tin foil hat on.

      --
      -+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+ *** http://www.mountainfort.com *** +-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-
    9. Re:Doesnt affect most rocketeers by DAldredge · · Score: 1

      It is a reference to the USSC and abortion/having to give our names to the State. Perhaps you should not be so defensive of our current liberal administration.

    10. Re:Doesnt affect most rocketeers by nyseal · · Score: 1

      Actually, I wasn't even referring to abortion; just conflicts. But hey, you're right....about the abortions anyway.

      --
      [SIG] Remember Mattel handheld games?
  24. Nah. by www.sorehands.com · · Score: 5, Funny

    They think I will take out an airplane, distracting the secret service (the initials happen to be SS), with my 2 stage balsa wood rocket with an egg in the payload section. Then, the egg would drop from the payload compartment onto a speeding car and cause an accident blocking th presidential motorcade so that that Lee Harvey Oswald can shoot Bush from the Clinton Library.

    1. Re:Nah. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Man, what version of "Clue" are you playing, and how do I get one?

  25. Oooh, model rockets, scaaary.... by ronfar · · Score: 2, Interesting
    One of the many activities I was involved in as a child was a model rocketry class. I spent my summer vactaion painting and building my rocket and at the end we were supposed to go out and fire the rocket. Unfortunately, I had to miss the last class so I still have this *chortle* *snicker* deadly terrorist weapon hanging around, as yet unfired, I'll just wait and *giggle* sell this oh-so-*snort* deadly device to my local al-Quaida cell and live on easy street (well, until easy street gets blown up, I guess.)

    Seriously, though, the model rockets we used to build were cool and all, but they are much less dangerous than the average twelve-gauge shotgun that you can by at your local Walmart.

    Still, I have to remember that the government is currently run by people who think that you can be hexed by Harry Potter books, I guess this is sort of the start of the Interregnum (R. A. Heinlein, for those who don't know... he wasn't that far off, except for thinking the First Prophet would be named Nehemiah Scudder...)

    --
    All the creatures will die, And all the things will be broken. That's the law of samurai. (Jubai, 1605)
    1. Re:Oooh, model rockets, scaaary.... by harlows_monkeys · · Score: 1
      Seriously, though, the model rockets we used to build were cool and all, but they are much less dangerous than the average twelve-gauge shotgun that you can by at your local Walmart

      Those aren't the kind of rockets they are talking about. The kind of rockets they are talking about are huge and are very dangerous.

    2. Re:Oooh, model rockets, scaaary.... by shotfeel · · Score: 1

      So what kind of regulations do you think should be on a rocket that "can be 30 feet long and weigh hundreds of pounds" and travel "more than 60 miles"?

      We're not talking about the little model rockets that kids build in school and launch from the playground. Those you can stil buy in your local hobby store (or Wal-Mart) just like you always could.

    3. Re:Oooh, model rockets, scaaary.... by cr0sh · · Score: 1
      Ever been to a high-power rocket launch? I have, and I felt safer during these launches than I did during many of the nearly unsupervised Estes rocket launches I did as a kid.

      Nothing is dangerous if it is respected for what it is and what it is capable of. It is only when you mix ignorance, stupidity, or willful disregard do you get "danger"...

      --
      Reason is the Path to God - Anon
  26. This has been a problem with pyrotechnicians too by caffeineboy · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Ever since the Oklahoma City bombing there have been restrictions on pyrotechnicians. I don't know if it is a state law or a federal one but here in Ohio you are not allowed to have your shells for more than 3 days before a scheduled performance and there are a lot of permits to be filled out (this is all coming from a friend of mine).

    I don't know if I feel more annoyed by this kind of thing, or more safe. It seems that if someone actually has a permit to buy display scale fireworks, they wouldn't be using them for anything questionable. Plus, once they have that level of expertise it wouldn't be too difficult for them to brew up their own home grown bomb if they really wanted to blow something up.

    --
    +++ ATH0 +++
  27. Silly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    What will "licensing" do? Nothing.

    The 9/11 pilots went through flight training (in LICENSED classrooms). The government knew about it, but they did nothing about it.

    If the government can't be bothered following up on known terrorist taking flight training in the US, why are they trying to license model rocketry, which is incapable of being used for terrorism the way the governement is implying?

    People should use their brains. If you wanted to cause harm with a projectile, it would simpler and cheaper to bring in a shoulder fired missle that is readily available on the international arms black market than it is to engineer a rocket with a guidance system system capable of hitting a plane.

    Think for a change instead of assuming a bunch of assinine bureaucrats are actually helping.

  28. What you're forgetting... by Skyshadow · · Score: 5, Funny
    Despite the constant reminders from the Bush Administration, you've obviously forgotten: The sole reason that terrorists hate Americans because of our freedom and liberties.

    The best way to prevent terrorist acts, therefore, is to strip those puppies away as quickly and efficiantly as possible.

    --
    Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.
    1. Re:What you're forgetting... by to_kallon · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "The best way to prevent terrorist acts, therefore, is to strip those puppies away as quickly and efficiantly as possible." yes, maybe so, but isn't the point of terror to make people change by scaring them? and if we start losing rights from one attack, horrific as it may have been, do we really think they, terrorists, are going to be discouraged by their success?

      --


      The only way to get rid of a temptation is to yield to it.
      -Oscar Wilde
    2. Re:What you're forgetting... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank you Captain Obvious....

    3. Re:What you're forgetting... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      BULLSHIT you dumbass
      terrorists hate what we do around the world
      your a looser u dumbfuck
      dont you read

    4. Re:What you're forgetting... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LOL!! The reason that's so BLOODY FUNNY is because it's so true. The best jokes are usually just "truth that nobody sees, stated in a revealing way" so we suddenly realize how f--cked up we really are. It's very Doctor Strangelove-ian that our solution to terrorism** is to fight fire with fire, brutality with brutality, and to jump headlong right into another arms race. What's even funnier is that members of President's Bush's Inner Circle stand to make billions from this sort of thing, and the American people ignore even the POSSIBILITY of profiteering. The appearance of wrongdoing is there, even if there is none, and Bush's advisors should have tried to keep Halliburton and Harken Energy and Carlyle et al. out of the bidding process for fear that it would reflect badly on the Administration, which it does -- especially when Halliburton is awarded deals without having to bid for them openly. THAT is cronyism and is AT LEAST as immoral as President Clinton lying about cheating on his wife. I HIGHLY DOUBT that anyone here would tell the truth in that situation. I wouldn't. Bush wouldn't. You wouldn't. We unfairly hold Clinton to a standard we don't hold Bush to, and that betrays our prejudice and dishonesty.

      ** Terrorism for us is 9-11. "Terrorism" barely existed for the American people until one single incident which affected them woke them up to how the "other half" of the world lives every day.

    5. Re:What you're forgetting... by Kindaian · · Score: 1

      "The sole reason that terrorists hate Americans because of our freedom and liberties."

      Right... the f%&$&ing international policy of US and the way they handle international maters doesn't count a thing!!!

  29. Police State by tail.man · · Score: 1

    Wake up folks.

    Have you read the patriot acts?

    Every "crime" is "terrorism" now.

    http://www.infowars.com/police_state.html

    Vote Libertarian..

    www.lp.org

    --
    http://tinyurl.com/globalwarmingisascam
    1. Re:Police State by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude, you are one uber-paranoid fella. Seems like every post you've made is about how big brother is watching us.

    2. Re:Police State by tail.man · · Score: 1

      You think so?

      Have you read any of the links?

      Paranoia or awareness?

      Do some research, then get back to me.

      --
      http://tinyurl.com/globalwarmingisascam
  30. Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    " and could very well be used as a weapon."

    Really? Tell me how. Not just a theoretical example, but one that would have some basis in fact.

    1. Re:Really? by shepd · · Score: 2, Informative

      Ok.

      Here's a real life example. They can start major fires, and that wasn't even done on purpose.

      --
      If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
    2. Re:Really? by nickstance · · Score: 1

      or you could just take a couple of gallons of gasoline and your favorite Zippo and generate the same effect, but you don't see Zippos on the list of things you need a fingerprint to get

    3. Re:Really? by shepd · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Yeah you could do that. However, that fact doesn't make a model rocket any safer.

      --
      If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
    4. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ban cars, matches, propane as well.
      Fuck dangerous things.

  31. Rockets are dangerous by nuggz · · Score: 1, Redundant

    Sorry rockets and rocket engines are potentially dangerous.
    They like fertilizer and diesel fuel could be used in such a was as to have devastating effects.

    Think of a 30' rocket, replace some of that with an explosive, or hazardous chemical. You could have a pretty dangerous weapon. It isn't a scud, but the V2 rockets weren't happily received either.

    Again, like most potentially dangerous things this legislation will harrass the legitimate law abiding users, and the bad people will still have access to them.

    1. Re:Rockets are dangerous by fullmetal55 · · Score: 1

      true but you don't have to go through a background check to purchase fertilizer and diesel fuel. a lot of farmers would be really pissed off if that were the case.

    2. Re:Rockets are dangerous by gclef · · Score: 1

      Oh, fer crying out loud. I suspect you're trolling, but still.

      By your logic, RC cars should be regulated (replace some of their space with explosives and go), so should RC places (same). Heck, so should balloons (just tie explosives to the bottom & let go).

      Security (electronic, physical and otherwise) is not about eliminating risk. You can't eliminate risk. Ever. You *can* manage risk. Ie, limit potential damage, make recovery from damage easier, etc. To do that right, you have to decide if the costs associated with the control you're putting in place are appropriate to the risk. In this case, I think they're silly.

    3. Re:Rockets are dangerous by tail.man · · Score: 1

      Who are the "bad" people?

      Cars are dangerous.

      Knives are dangerous.

      Wake up GOVERNMENT is dangerous, they are not your friends.

      You think what happened in Germany, Cambodia, Brazil, Boznia can't happen here?

      Turn off the TV!

      --
      http://tinyurl.com/globalwarmingisascam
    4. Re:Rockets are dangerous by spaceyhackerlady · · Score: 1
      It isn't a scud, but the V2 rockets weren't happily received either.

      Funny you should mention scud and the V-2 - they actually are V-2 derivatives.

      Like all tools, they can be used for good (think of the pioneering space research that was done in New Mexico with captured V-2s) or evil. Sadly, this seems to have been forgotten in some circles.

      ...laura

    5. Re:Rockets are dangerous by jeorgen · · Score: 1
      It isn't a scud, but the V2 rockets weren't happily received either.

      Scuds are basically WWII technology, i.e. V2s.

      /jeorgen

    6. Re:Rockets are dangerous by driftingwalrus · · Score: 1

      Actually, the V2 carried 2,000 pounds of explosives. It had just a *little* more than .9lbs of fuel:)

      --
      Paul Anderson
      "I drank WHAT?!" -- Socrates
    7. Re:Rockets are dangerous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Potentially dangerous? Swimming pools are demonstrably dangerous. As are automobiles. Let's ban those instead. Don't think swimming deaths and automobile deaths are devastating effects? Ok, how about other bomb making materials? PVC Pipe? Check. All plumbers will now need to undergo the same background checks, and purchase of PVC pipe at your local Home Depot by non-licensed professionals will now come with a maditory 90 day waiting period. Electrical wiring? Check. All electricians will now undergo background checks and visits by governmental agents. Purchase by civilians will be limited to lengths of 3 inches or less without first submitting an application. Electronic timers? Available only through authorized dealers to those who have successfully passed a background audit and 3 day waiting period. Terrorists don't need to launch a weapon across a large boy of water to hit a target indisciminately. Comparing the V2 rocket to modern terrist techniques and activities is fallacious. Want to disseminate a bio-weapon... how about a coke can next to a ventilation duct? No need to build an elaborate delivery mechanism when simpler ones are available.... like some moron willing to strap an explosive to his back. Hell with that delivery mechanism, the need to regulate duct tape is stronger than the need to regulate model rocket builders.

  32. Re:This sounds reasonable. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Even more dangerous than guns... As much as I like the second ammendment and think people should be able to bear arms, the distructive potential of rockets sounds much scarier - at least with a gun you're likely to hit what you're pointing at.

    (and for those windows companies who think viruses are more dangerous, fix your damn firewalls so I quit getting your spam).

  33. Terrorist's converse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny
    Terrorist #1: Did you bring the stuff?

    Terrorist #2: Well I got the explosives, but the ATF syas that .9lbs of propellant is illegal.

    Terrorist #1: Shucks, we need 1.1 lbs of fuel.

    Terrorist #2: Well I guess we have to scrub the mission.

    Terrorist #1: Next time America! When you allow more than .9 lbs of propellant, next time!

    1. Re:Terrorist's converse by mangu · · Score: 1

      Terrorist #3: Ahmed! Buy two motors, one .9lbs, and another .2lbs!

  34. Amateur breeder reactors too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is very sad. We used to have a group of us that were working on an amateur breeder reactor. Got all sorts of great press for promoting nuclear science and showing how volunteers could produce all the Plutonium needed to defend our nation if we were in a pinch.

    Now the Feds want us all to be fingerprinted and undergo background checks. That will probably disqualify the guy who fabs the chambers for us. He did time for drug dealing for selling marajuana to people who said they were sick. But it will be tough to replace him.

    Heck, before the crackdown, Discovery Channel was going to do a feature show on us for Nuclear Week. No more...

  35. South Park by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Red Rocket's are already illegal...

  36. Regulations can force innovation by westendgirl · · Score: 1

    Although I think that the regulations are a shame, situations like this can sometimes spur innovation. Perhaps, given the constraints at hand, someone will think of a new way to build or use rockets -- or even teach and observe rocketry. In the real world, engineers need to be able to build real rockets that consider safety, the regulatory environment, and viability. Maybe, by making kids think about some of these concepts, we'll inspire them to avoid building space shuttles that blow up.

    --

    -- SYS 64738 --

  37. Re:Something Windows can do that Linux can't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    stop sniffing glue.

  38. Protecting themselves from rebels by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    They just want fewer people to learn how to make and use rockets. They say to prevent terrorism, but when they finnaly unvail their police state they don't want rebels to be able to construct missile-type weapons against their choppers and what not.

    Terrorist is to Freedom Fighter as Criminal is to Activist.

    Orwell was 20 years too early.

    1. Re:Protecting themselves from rebels by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      but when they finnaly unvail their police state...

      Which will probably come right after you learn to spell.

    2. Re:Protecting themselves from rebels by Moofie · · Score: 1

      That's patently absurd. Rockets are relatively simple. Targeting systems...now those are really, really hard.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    3. Re:Protecting themselves from rebels by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well - they better outlaw PVC pipe, fertilizer and sugar while they are at it...

    4. Re:Protecting themselves from rebels by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would increase production of my Tin Foil Hats, but the government won't renew my license to purchase the materials :(.

  39. Re: Informative Parent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wasn't quick enough on the draw to post the same link. Although I did in the last two postings on this same subject.

    Even hobby store rockets could be fired at a target and mounted with an explosive payload. But they are still fully legal. So are huge fireworks. I could also take a bunch of D engines and get a substantial boost too.

    I am not sure what the big deal is on this twice redundant topic except that editors have a shortage of material.

  40. United States people to piss off list by Realistic_Dragon · · Score: 1

    1) Arabs with money and contacts
    2) Europe, the second most populous and wealthy power block in the world
    2) People within 50 miles of major cities with high explosives and a well tested delivery system
    4) ???
    5) Aliens

    --
    Beep beep.
    1. Re:United States people to piss off list by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You missed one point:

      6) Profit!

    2. Re:United States people to piss off list by WolfWithoutAClause · · Score: 1
      3) People who can't count up to 4 successfully.

      ;-)

      --

      -WolfWithoutAClause

      "Gravity is only a theory, not a fact!"
  41. FUD by thpdg · · Score: 5, Informative

    Is this just FUD? Estes says everything is ok.

    --

    -Patrick

    "They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."

  42. That's funny... by RyoShin · · Score: 1

    I go to Kettering (about a year now,) and I never knew we had an amateur rocket club. Of course, most clubs don't advertise properly (that, and the main method of advertising is putting posters on public boards, which no one ever reads.)

    Maybe they shut down before I got here.

    1. Re:That's funny... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Must be a B section thing.

    2. Re:That's funny... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Three people from Kettering (myself include) commented on the same article on slashdot. I know I shouldn't be surprised, but still.... Oh and as far as I know A section hasn't had an active rocketry club for at least five terms.

    3. Re:That's funny... by RyoShin · · Score: 1

      That would be why I don't know of it. I'd probably still stick to my Gaming club in any case...

  43. Sad by blike · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Model rocketry had such a huge influence on me and my ambitions as a child. I remember being fascinated when my first estes rocket took flight and came down safely under a small parachute. To me, it was like my own personal NASA. I remember all the things I learned about the physics of gravity, drag, and newton's laws (however simplistic). Even recently I returned to the hobby armed with years of experience and tried my hand at video rocketry (http://www.blike.com/dmrocket/). I was still dumbfounded with fascination.

    It breaks my heart to think that kids might not be able to experience the joy and wonder that rocketry brought me.

    1. Re:Sad by DerekLyons · · Score: 1
      It breaks my heart to think that kids might not be able to experience the joy and wonder that rocketry brought me.
      It breaks my heart to think that someone thinks they learned so much about science, and didn't pick up any reading comprhension or critical thinking along the way. Maybe you learned less than you think.

      These regulations do not cover the rockets that you used as a child and that continue to be used today. It covers the much larger and quite different high powered rockets, not the smaller Estes type rockets.

  44. Blown Away? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So is this the crappy king of Blown Away or the good kind of Blown Away where we get to see Nicole Eggert's ta-tas.

  45. Why Worry ? by data64 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    I am sure this can be out-sourced too.
    Especially, since both India and China have healthy and thriving space programmes.

    < /sarcasm >

  46. Hobby rocket != Terrorist weapon by prgrmr · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The chances of an unguided, sub-sonic rocket taking out an airplane is very small

    While I can agree that some regulation of large quantities of solid propellant is a prudent thing, the thresholds in the current regs are too extreme, I think. Also, the $25 fee for a limited use permit is an unnecessary and excessive tax for an activity that has miminal impact on public assets.

    1. Re:Hobby rocket != Terrorist weapon by FirstTimeCaller · · Score: 1

      The chances of an unguided, sub-sonic rocket taking out an airplane is very small.

      Tell me about it! But I'm determined to keep trying!

      --
      Wanted: witty unique signature. Must be willing to relocate.
    2. Re:Hobby rocket != Terrorist weapon by Pvt_Waldo · · Score: 1

      Who's gonna bother trying to shoot down a plane? Certainly the Qassam rocket (home made) used in the Middle East isn't used for that. It's used to lob unguided, explosive laden rockets capable of several miles range down onto the heads of urban areas.

    3. Re:Hobby rocket != Terrorist weapon by prgrmr · · Score: 1

      You are forgetting that this is the government telling us what we should worry about, and why should they let the facts get in the way of scaring the hell out of as many people as possible.

  47. Re:This sounds reasonable. by L0stm4n · · Score: 0

    Unlike regulating bits, rockets *can* really be used to do harm.

    Certainly, they're more dangerous than your typical windows virus!


    Yeah until that windows virus takes down the coast guard Allowing a terrorist to sneak a dirty bomb into A major harbour.
    --
    superman runs linux
  48. KETTERING! Wow... I go there! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Kettering got mentioned on ./ I can't believe it. the poster must go there. Are you A section or B section. If you're B Section, how's Ernie? I miss that old guy. He's the only old man that could brighten my day by cursing at me and talking about his devlish escapades as a young man. Anyway, I think it's cook that a school of about 3000 students made it into ./

    Hail General Determination!

    1. Re:KETTERING! Wow... I go there! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'll be going there next b-section, so I don't know Ernie yet. Professor?

  49. Rocketry turns kids into terrorists by Animats · · Score: 4, Funny

    When he was 19, Werner von Braun joined a rocketry club, the Verein für Raumschiffahrt (VfR). A few years later, his terror rockets were bombing London. If it hadn't been for the rocket club, the V-2 wouldn't have been built.

    1. Re:Rocketry turns kids into terrorists by Overzeetop · · Score: 2, Informative

      And America wouldn't have had a space program. To quote Tom Lehrer's song on WvB's life, "'Once the rockets go up, who cares where they come down. That's not my department.' says Werner von Braun"

      (If you're too young to have listened to Tom Lehrer, find $30 and go buy his CDs. It's a hilarious view of the world in the 1960s, by a singing mathemetician/professor from MIT. Right up the /. demographic's alley. TL, for those who don't know, is still alive and living in SoCal, but he's got that old man bitterness that spoils the old sarcasm of his songs.)

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    2. Re:Rocketry turns kids into terrorists by Radon+Knight · · Score: 1
      When he was 19, Werner von Braun joined a rocketry club, the Verein für Raumschiffahrt (VfR). A few years later, his terror rockets were bombing London. If it hadn't been for the rocket club, the V-2 wouldn't have been built.

      And your point is?

      Back before humans had weapons (think 2001: A Space Odyssey), picking up the jawbone of an ass suddenly enabled you to kill someone. Should we start outlawing pieces of skeletons beyond a certain mass-threshold?

      Any incipient technology which ultimately can be used as a weapon has a very short learning curve by definition. This is nothing to get our knickers in a twist over, and there's nothing we can do to prevent it. The parent post strikes me as unjustified scaremongering. (However, that is not to say that there may not be some justification for imposing greater restrictions on rocketeering clubs.)

    3. Re:Rocketry turns kids into terrorists by scharkalvin · · Score: 1

      Actually the Nazi party and the SS made him an offer he couldn't refuse. (You have family in Germany?)

    4. Re:Rocketry turns kids into terrorists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Nazi Germany banned all rocket experimentation or rocket discussion outside of the German military.."

      Does history repeat itself? One small step for the ATF, one giant leap for Reichsminister Ashcroft

      http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/V/Vere in _fur_Raumschiffahrt.html

    5. Re:Rocketry turns kids into terrorists by Brianwa · · Score: 1
      If it hadn't been for the rocket club, the V-2 wouldn't have been built.

      But he then moved to America and played a major role in creating the Saturn V, using the same propulsion technology that he used in the V-2.

    6. Re:Rocketry turns kids into terrorists by Thomas+Shaddack · · Score: 1

      According to what I heard somewhere, for Mr. von Braun V2 was a step on his way to the Moon. He was skilled enough, so at the end it didn't matter what side he started on - he ultimately achieved his dream.

    7. Re:Rocketry turns kids into terrorists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Zhere are zhree effs in Raumschifffahrt!

  50. Outlaw fertilizer? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    They'd have to arrest all members of Congress then.

    1. Re:Outlaw fertilizer? by dirvish · · Score: 4, Funny

      Are you implying that they are all full of shit?

    2. Re:Outlaw fertilizer? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just the members of [political party other than my own].

  51. Kettering University Programming Society by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Here's a little Advert for a little know Kettering Club. The programming society is a group of students that gather on weeks 3,6,9 to eat pizza and talk about programming. We need more people, about half of the club is graduating soon. We'd like to get a few projects off the ground this term too.

    If you would like to join or maybe even start a b section chapter contact me at ritt0249@kettering.edu

    (Officers get a free year subscription to ACM)

    1. Re:Kettering University Programming Society by finaldarkone · · Score: 1

      Um... sorry this last one ended up here. it's my first time posting.

  52. Gun Control by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Cumbersome regulations (which include extensive background checks) are pushing many to abandon the hobby.

    Welcome to the world of law-abiding gun owners.

    1. Re:Gun Control by DnsZero · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well thats different.

      [fantasy type="world" class="political:lobbiest"]

      The gun regulations have fixed all kinds of problems. Now we don't criminals running around using firearms to commit crimes. Gun deaths have dropped to an all time low and our vision of Utopia on Earth will come about shortly.

      [/fantasy]

    2. Re:Gun Control by HiyaPower · · Score: 1

      Yep. You got it. We know that every self respecting criminal these days goes through the background check and gets fingerprinted and has their records sent to the FBI. Further, up here you have to also be interviewed by the police department. Apparently that is so that they can get to know their objective when its time to put them behind bars.

      Last time we had this sort of crud, they were going to put "taggents" in all the explosives and gun powders so that they could trace them. Yeah right.

      About all this stuff has done is to be a major pain in the butt to all concerned. Rather than making sure that nobody brings a gun on an airliner, I dare say we would have zero highjackings if everyone were required to be trained in the proper use of firearms and have a gun when they fly. [ok, ok, a bit of byperbole, turn off the flames]. However, if you are a male in Switzerland, you must re-qualify every several years in markmenship or have to go back to boot camp.

    3. Re:Gun Control by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      actually as of september 12th 2001. hijackings will no longer be successful in the USA.

      i dont care if the person has an uzi and you are armed with a paperclip.

      the hijacker will be unsuccssful.

      look at the shoebomber, quite frankly im suprised he is even alive. they smashed him in the head with a fire exstingisher, then they sedated him.
      i think they wanted to OD him.

  53. Regulate them ALL! by DnsZero · · Score: 1

    If were going to be requiring background checks for model frickin rockets, then what do you think we should require for 10000 pound SUV's? An anal probe and psych eval?

    Cause they sure as hell have a far greater damage potential. Especially if you compare both vechicles (SUV and the rocket) with their maximum payloads.

    (That's not an exageration Hummer H1 GVWR is 10,300lbs)

    What about firecrackers? They're frickin rockets that come PRELOADED with explosives!!!

    Holy shit, has no one read the story of Chicken Little?

  54. next on the a$$cr0ft list by Roskolnikov · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Hasn't the US Gov't seen any of the Dirty Harry movies?

    When will RC cars and Aircraft be outlawed?

    I seem to remember a scene in a movie where an RC car fitted with a bomb was used to explode a car.

    When you take all of the things that could be used in violent acts away, people invent new methods (and generally more efficient) methods for doing the things you planned on preventing.

    Case in point; it was too hard to get enough explosives to damage the WTC buildings, but highjack a couple of airplanes fueled to cross the continent and you have the means to do so.

    Why not outlaw planes? why not require background checks to fly? I defer to George Carlin on this one, surely a large fist could be used to take control of a plane, will we have strength tests at the gates?

    While I rattle on about how stupid we've become, why not just sedate all plane passengers with enough to keep them out cold for the duration of the flight? you fall asleep in the terminal and wake up at your destination? Heck, why not just sedate the entire population?

    If you spend all of your time trying to prevent the things that could happen, nothing will happen and no progress will be made.

    End of silly rant.

    --
    Unix, an obscure operating system developed by bored researchers in an attempt to get a better game playing experience.
    1. Re:next on the a$$cr0ft list by greed · · Score: 1
      I seem to remember a scene in a movie where an RC car fitted with a bomb was used to explode a car.

      I don't know about movies, but it's certainly used in GTA3 and Vice City. Not just RC cars, but RC helicopters too. Whee! Kaboom!

      On that logic, we'd better regulate baseball bats, cars (oh, I guess we do already), fists, and so on.

    2. Re:next on the a$$cr0ft list by siriuskase · · Score: 1
      When will RC cars and Aircraft be outlawed?
      I seem to remember a scene in a movie where an RC car fitted with a bomb was used to explode a car.

      You were playing Grand Theft Auto. God help us if the powers that be ever play Grand Theft Auto. I doubt they will since they were obviously years behind in reading Tom Clancy books or they would have outlawed 747's.

      --
      If you must moderate, please moderate as irrelevent, not something bad, because I'm sure someone will find this interest
    3. Re:next on the a$$cr0ft list by taniwha · · Score: 1

      yup - in fact I'd argue (as a rocketry hobiest and sometimes R/C flier) that R/C planes are much more dangerous than rockets - our rockets have 1 guidance system - fins - it makes them go up well - completely useless for aiming at a target (unless it's straight up above and standing still and there's no wind) - building a large RC plane that can be launched from the ground and then flown by GPS is not that hard - after all that's basicly a cruise missile

    4. Re:next on the a$$cr0ft list by kabocox · · Score: 2, Insightful

      While I rattle on about how stupid we've become, why not just sedate all plane passengers with enough to keep them out cold for the duration of the flight? you fall asleep in the terminal and wake up at your destination?

      Actually, this would be great for the airlines. They could fit alot more people on the plane that way! I remember a lot of road trips were like this too. I'd go to sleep about 10 mins. after traveling on interstate then just wake up 4 hours later at where ever we were going. Traveling is so much faster that way.

    5. Re:next on the a$$cr0ft list by ronfar · · Score: 1
      Actually, he's talking about the scene in the Dirty Harry movie The Dead Pool

      But Tommy did do something similar in Vice City, though I think I killed more people with my chopper blades than with the bombs I set...

      --
      All the creatures will die, And all the things will be broken. That's the law of samurai. (Jubai, 1605)
    6. Re:next on the a$$cr0ft list by mangu · · Score: 1
      they were obviously years behind in reading Tom Clancy books


      No, no. They keep their Tom Clancy reading up to date, but fall asleep before page 50. There's no way one of those people would read to page 1000 or so where the 747 attack happened in the book.

    7. Re:next on the a$$cr0ft list by Idarubicin · · Score: 1
      I'd go to sleep about 10 mins. after traveling on interstate then just wake up 4 hours later at where ever we were going. Traveling is so much faster that way.

      You bastard--you ran over my cat! Open you damn eyes when you drive!

      --
      ~Idarubicin
    8. Re:next on the a$$cr0ft list by Maltheus · · Score: 1
      Case in point; it was too hard to get enough explosives to damage the WTC buildings, but highjack a couple of airplanes fueled to cross the continent and you have the means to do so.


      Actually, the seismological readings at the moment the buildings started to fall would indicate that it wasn't too hard get enough explosives to bring down the buildings. By your logic, building #7 fell because it was just its time or it was having sympathy pains for the first two towers. Larry Silverstien (owner of the WTC properties) pretty much admitted this on a PBS interview when he referred to the decision to "pull" the building.
    9. Re:next on the a$$cr0ft list by siriuskase · · Score: 1

      Thanks, something else to add to the Netflix list

      --
      If you must moderate, please moderate as irrelevent, not something bad, because I'm sure someone will find this interest
    10. Re:next on the a$$cr0ft list by Roskolnikov · · Score: 1

      An attempt to bring one of the buildings down had already been attempted; seismological readings would have shown the potential energy of the buildings turning into kinetic energy at the point of structural failure; the structural failure is what caused the fall(s) Structural failure caused by the intense heat of the buildings superstructure being coated with burning jet fuel.

      to get the same effect with explosives you would need to have access to the superstructure and a material like thermite to create the heat required to cause the failure. The twin towers fell as a direct result, the rest fell as a result of secondary damage or as you've suggested the decision that salvage would not be a viable option.

      None of this really matters for the the point that I was trying to make. To simplify.

      Take away the guns and knives will be used, take away explosives and JP8 will be used. Controlling rocket fuel will not prevent terrorists from doing what they do; metal shavings and pool chemicals can be just as dangerous and a bit less suspicious. All controlling rocket fuel is going to do is dampen rocket hobbyists.

      --
      Unix, an obscure operating system developed by bored researchers in an attempt to get a better game playing experience.
    11. Re:next on the a$$cr0ft list by kabocox · · Score: 1

      You bastard--you ran over my cat! Open you damn eyes when you drive!

      What's your cat doing on the interstate? I'm a passenger on the interstate. My wife does the driving. I get to snooze, or tell the kids to be quiet, or sing very badly to keep my wife awake.

      What don't you always travel the interstate with some one else?

  55. Weapons for terrorists by Invalid+Character · · Score: 2, Insightful

    With all this worry over terrorism and the concern over the resourses taht will be available to terrorists, people seem to forget that almost anything can be used as a "weapon".
    Also why even bother making these regulations when even high schoolers can make homemade rockets using gunpowder from fireworks? Hell, you can even make your own gunpowder and solid fuel from readily and unregulated sources.
    Terrorists are NOT stupid and if anyone is going to find a way to cause mayhem, they sure will. Beside the guys who hijacked the airplanes on 9/11 were i university and had a pretty good education.
    All these new regulations will do is stiffle amature rocketry.

    --

    --

    Registered .sig quotient : 1337

    1. Re:Weapons for terrorists by dex22 · · Score: 1
      Also why even bother making these regulations when even high schoolers can make homemade rockets using gunpowder from fireworks?

      Shut up, man! What are you trying to do? Next thing, Men In Black will be snatching firecrackers from kids because they could make a sound weapon! Argh! Shut up! Shut me up too!

  56. Democracy is Dead in America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Gee who you gonna vote for? Republicans or Democrats? Our two party system is too vulnerable to corruption. Seriously does it really matter which party is in government. It amusing to watch all our rights die the death of a thousand cuts. Washington would roll in his grave if he saw what a parody this country has become of the one he helped create. The way things are going, I'm thinking of moving to Canada, the new Land of the Free.

    1. Re:Democracy is Dead in America by AB3A · · Score: 1
      Our two party system is too vulnerable to corruption.


      Umm, last I looked, the two party system in the US was no worse than most other multi-party democratic governments. The problem is the sheer size of government, making it hard to track and hard to assign blame. People need to remember that party affiliation is merely a guide, not a prediction of what a specific person will do once in office.

      --
      Nearly fifty percent of all graduates come from the bottom half of the class!
    2. Re:Democracy is Dead in America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I disagree. With only 2 parties Corporations can better focus their lobbying dollars. Plus they only have two parties they need to donate campaign funds to in order to control them. Politicians in the US only represent the needs of their people as long it doesn't interfere with the ambitions of their corporate masters.

  57. Why the Feds don't care by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful
    It's the technological base here in the country that we need to protect, and this hobby is a good introduction for kids that are interested in technology.

    You, I, and the rocketry guy quoted might believe this, but protecting the technological base in this country is not a priority for the American powers-that-be.

    More important is keeping labor cheap and the country tied down under a web of Homeland Security minutiae, which will keep the populace cowed and their own grip on power secure.

    By contrast the Indian government, which actually seems to have their own national interest in mind, will be happy to run the miniscule "security" risk and let Indian kids play with model rockets-- the better technologically educated they are, the more advanced the tech jobs they can attract from willing American corporations.

    You can glean a government's whole philosophy from little issues like this.

    1. Re:Why the Feds don't care by DECKARD6 · · Score: 1

      It was only a matter of time before someone linked model rockets to India's outsourcing of American tech jobs.

  58. What about gun rights by argoff · · Score: 3, Insightful

    next thing you know, they'll be trying to nickle and dime away our right to bear arms on the grounds that people don't kill people, guns do ....

    .... oops, uh, nevermind.

    1. Re:What about gun rights by Dirtside · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Guns don't kill people -- people kill people. On the other hand, a lot more people kill people when there are guns everywhere and there's no societal desire to train people how to properly use and respect guns. I'm perfectly happy to allow everyone in the U.S. to own as many guns of any caliber as they want, as long as everyone is required to take a mandatory gun safety and training class before they can own one.

      --
      "Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
    2. Re:What about gun rights by morgue-ann · · Score: 1

      I'm perfectly happy to allow everyone in the U.S. to own as many guns of any caliber as they want, as long as everyone is required to take a mandatory gun safety and training class before they can own one. Yeah, we're doing a pretty good job with automobiles (not).

  59. Perhaps the potential for payload is an issue by IronChefMorimoto · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I can kind of see why the Justice Department might want to regulate these rocket hobbyists, if it's been determined that a reasonably dangerous payload could be added to the rocket.

    Some sort of anthrax aerosol or something that explodes in mid-air over a small area. Maybe in a neighborhood or park. I don't know -- I'm just speculating here. Makes you wonder if it could be done.

    However, if THAT is the sort of issue that they're raising with these poor rocketry hobbyists, then when will (if it's not happened already) model airplane/helicopter hobbyists have to start filling out government forms? I mean, strap some sort of acid dispersal system onto the bottom of a remote control helicopter and actually CONTROL where you start spraying people (again -- just wild speculation here). THAT sounds to me like more of a threat than model rockets.

    My 2 cents.

    IronChefMorimoto

    1. Re:Perhaps the potential for payload is an issue by nick13245 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Then why don't the outlaw private aircraft? I believe they could deliver a much larger payload...

    2. Re:Perhaps the potential for payload is an issue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Errr... 0 threat is not greater than 0 threat.

      Yeah sarcasm, but when its much cheaper and easier to fill a van with fertilizer and diesel, why the hell would you fuck around with rockets?

    3. Re:Perhaps the potential for payload is an issue by driftingwalrus · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Couple problems there. For one, these rockets go straight *up*. Meaning anything they disperse over an area, the person launching it gets hit with as well. Secondly, a proper aerosol of something like anthrax is *extremely* hard to build, not considering the general difficulty of growing anthrax anyway.

      The most fundamental, substantial reason is this: It's too complicated. Terrorists do not use complex methods, because they don't have to. They can achieve very large impacts, with very small attacks. It's not about the amount of damage, it's about the ability to demonstrate that it can't be *prevented*. Once you do that, people will be scared out of their wits because they never do know when something is going to happen. The US government needs to get rid of this beleif that terrorists are going to behave like foreign governments. These aren't governments, they're guerillas. If one looks at the Vietnam war, a classic example of what guerilla warfare can accomplish, one finds constant use of the most rudimentary weapons and jury-rigged equipment. The simple reason is that they didn't need anything much fancier. The US can afford to hire a team of engineers to develop a missile, Al Qaeda can't.

      --
      Paul Anderson
      "I drank WHAT?!" -- Socrates
    4. Re:Perhaps the potential for payload is an issue by Pvt_Waldo · · Score: 1

      There's a huge difference between a model airplane and a rocket that can attain 45,000 feet of altitude. That's basically a rocket propelled artillery shell capable of unguided strikes on a target many miles away.

    5. Re:Perhaps the potential for payload is an issue by Pvt_Waldo · · Score: 1

      They only go straight up because people usually point them straight up. Try pointing one at a 45 degree angle and not have it pop a chute.

    6. Re:Perhaps the potential for payload is an issue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "For one, these rockets go straight *up*. "

      Why can't you simply shoot at an angle?

      Honestly, I think this is being blown all out of proportion. We are not talking about little cardboard tube Estes rockets here. These things are big enough to potentially cause harm or disruption in careless or malevolent hands.

      This is not the only hobby to face regulation. Ham radio operators face regulation and licensing, because they can cause potential disruption or the airwaves. Pilot hobbyists must jump through quite a few regulatory hoops.

    7. Re:Perhaps the potential for payload is an issue by bremstrong · · Score: 1
      Rockets just seem dangerous because they make fire and smoke. The payload mass a rocket can carry could be delivered more easily by any number of other methods. Rockets are limited to a relatively small payload of 40 lbs max. A truck payload, or van payload, or suitcase payload could all be larger. There are innumerable approaches a terrorist could take--it seems the homeland security people are wasting too much time worrying about the minor threat of model rockets instead of cargo containers, ships, trucks, etc.

      BTW, it seems that people are confused about the smaller model rockets they had as kids and the larger, newer "high power rocketry" rockets. This whole issue only applies to the larger class of rockets.

    8. Re:Perhaps the potential for payload is an issue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At that point, you need to make the payload the issue, not the delivery device. If they have access to that kind of payload, they are going to use it, as they already have access to other quite effective delivery devices... such as suicidal fanatics. Why bother with a model rocket when you can drive into NY and release it in a subway station?

    9. Re:Perhaps the potential for payload is an issue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Some sort of anthrax aerosol (...) then when will (if it's not happened already) model airplane/helicopter hobbyists have to start filling out government forms? I mean, strap some sort of acid dispersal system onto the bottom of a remote control helicopter

      Ban crop-spraying aircraft is the next step?
      All these bans are pointless. As long as a concentrated energy source (gasoline) and moving vehicles are legal, it's possible for a terrorist to improvise a weapon. You have to balance the risks. We accept the risks of automobile accidents, which have taken a far greater toll than terrorist actions in the last 5 years.
      Of course, if US leaders really wanted to reduce attacks on the USA they could stop invading other countries, stop firing cruise missiles at medicine factories, etc.

    10. Re:Perhaps the potential for payload is an issue by nbahi15 · · Score: 1

      You would be hard pressed to aerosolize anthrax.

      I would only like to add that once you start down the road of regulation of freedoms, you have a serious problem. ANYTHING is a dangerous weapon in the right hands. The hope or idea that you can control people through force and regulation is a ridiculously old fashioned concept. Just look at Iraq. If force was going to work then Iraq would be a safe place.

    11. Re:Perhaps the potential for payload is an issue by Zurgutt · · Score: 1

      Some sort of anthrax aerosol or something that explodes in mid-air over a small area. Maybe in a neighborhood or park. I don't know -- I'm just speculating here. Makes you wonder if it could be done.


      My god, you have to outlaw balloons - quick! 5 cent biological warfare delivery systems in hands of the kids!

  60. Use Canada or Mexico to bomb the United States by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Easy way to get around the background check:

    Build a rocket/missle in Canada or Mexico. Launch the rocket/missle from the border into major cities of the USA including:

    Boston, NYC, Seattle, Detroit, Houston, San Diego, Los Angeles, etc.

    1. Re:Use Canada or Mexico to bomb the United States by psbrogna · · Score: 1, Funny

      Awww, come on, put your name on that posting yah chicken. You'll make it easier for them to come get you.

  61. Why are you guys whining? by Cheirdal · · Score: 3, Funny

    You can still enjoy safe hobbies that involve owning assault rifles. Start an organization called The National Rocket Association (NRA) and write your congressment telling them that the NRA is very disappointed in their actions. That might actually get some results as long as you just use the acronym.

    1. Re:Why are you guys whining? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can still enjoy safe hobbies that involve owning assault rifles.

      Not in California. You know the unofficial state motto: "If it isn't illegal here already, it will be."

  62. Pay attention by nonameisgood · · Score: 1

    The ilk of Estes is not restricted, these folks of shoot big stuff (1000's of feet).

    --
    Faith is the very antithesis of reason, injudiciousness a critical component of spiritual devotion. Jon Krakauer
  63. THAT WHICH IS NOT EXPLICTLY ALLOWED IS FORBIDDEN by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    William S. Burroughs said it best when commenting on this 'cop ridden' country.

  64. Part of a greater problem. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This kind of thing probably has a bad effect on the economy in the long term. If we don't innovate, we are done for. As we run out of specific materials, we innovate and substitute other materials. If we can't innovate, the economy collapses. We also need innovation to keep ahead of China and India. Once something is routine, China and India will do it cheaper. (Just as Japan did.) Things that prevent innovation are therefore poison.

    Software patents, Patriot act and DMCA act like a form of friction as far as innovation goes. The thing that promotes innovation is freedom. The model rocketry problems are symptomatic of a greater problem.

    This year you can do something about this. Make your candidates aware of the problem and then vote for the one who seems to understand the problem best.

  65. Quote . . . by harley_frog · · Score: 1
    "The Justice Department is committed to preventing crime and terrorism, and as we all learned on 9/11, everyday items like box cutters can be misused with catastrophic results," said John Nowacki, a spokesman for the Justice Department, in a statement.

    Every day obejects being misused with catastropic results? How about pens in the hands of regulators ignorant of the impact they can have on hobbists and every day people? Hell, I thing the most catastropic misuse of anything has been power. Since 9/11, the Feds have grabbed too much power and used it more like a war club than a fine surgical instrument.

    --
    It's all fun and games until someone loses the key to the handcuffs.
  66. Link to Kettering info by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting
    from http://www.bluemountainrocketeers.org/newsletters/ 2003/122003.pdf


    November 18, 2003
    Web posted at: 12:21 PM EST
    Source: ARSA
    (ROL Newswire) -- Kettering University in Michigan has decided to discontinue their on-campus, student-run rocketry club due to the expenses of ATFE licensing and associated liability issues for the University. The decision made earlier in the school year was a major disappointment to students.

    Kettering University has its origins in the General Motors Institute. For almost 80 years, it has maintained close ties with General Motors who is a corporate partner with the University. Kettering uses a unique system of co-op education that combines classroom studies with professional work experiences. The university recently opened a $40 million Engineering and Science Center that will house the Departments of Mechanical Engineering and Chemistry.

    1. Re:Link to Kettering info by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Geez...5 years there, and I never even knew there was a rocketry club.

  67. You may laugh... by fiannaFailMan · · Score: 3, Insightful

    but I once heard of the Brits arresting an Irishman for carrying a can of oil. Apparently it 'could have been used to clean guns.'

    --
    Drill baby drill - on Mars
    1. Re:You may laugh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That sounds like an urban legend to me. Do you have proof for these wild assertions?

  68. How long before they go after RC planes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The poor man's armed UAV?

  69. Why let truth get in the way of an anti-govt rant? by SensitiveMale · · Score: 4, Informative

    From the article

    While the vast majority of model rocketeers are not subject to regulation, high-powered rockets, which can be 30 feet long and weigh hundreds of pounds -- with some flying more than 60 miles or reaching speeds over 1,000 miles per hour -- do need to comply with the requirements of federal explosives law."

    After reading the comments, I was all set to believe the government was way out of hand. But then I decided to read the article.

    The rockets I use to launch used 'B' & 'C' engines, and when I got older the big 'D' engines. The rockets that that are being regulated ARE NOT MODEL ROCKETS.

    I realize that commenting without reading the article is a badge of courage here but you gotta read the article sometime.

  70. THIS REALLY ISN'T FUNNY! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If anything he should have been moderated +5 Insightful rather than Funny.

  71. Time to adapt? by earthforce_1 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I think it is time for model rocketry enthusiasts to start developing miniature lightweight engines that run on less restricted liquid or gas fuels, such as gasoline, alcohol, kerosene or propane. Time to "route around" the restrictions. Nobody is going to concern themselves with you filling up a jerry can of gasoline. , as they will assume it would be going into your lawnmower. Since the engines themselves would be more expensive, you would probably want to reuse and recover them. I had no problems buying small O2 cylinders for my welding kit, at least here, (Canada) there isn't draconian restrictions on it.

    Ironically, this would probably make for a less safe hobby, as I wouldn't want to be anywhere near a liquid fuelled rocket that ruptured its fuel tank and/or oxidizer on launch.

    --
    My rights don't need management.
    1. Re:Time to adapt? by cr0sh · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Hybrid rockets are a start - the problem with the current crop (NOX + "plastic" fuel) is getting the NOX (not super-easy to get, nor cheap), plus the whole setup actually seems pretty dangerous (I have seen a high-power hybrid launch - the guy launching it stood next to the rocket, filled it up - when the countdown was ready he waved, turned the valves off, removed the hoses, then ran like hell - to get clear of the rocket before the ignighter hit).

      I am wondering if an inversion of this could be done - compressed gasoline or kerosene (or some other flammable liquid - methonol or something), "pumped" (the pressurization of the liquid would do this - pressurize it with an air compressor or hand pump) through a solid-fuel oxidizer core (perhaps ammonia nitrate fertilizer-based?)...

      Not sure if this would work - and I am not crazy nor experienced enough to try it out...

      --
      Reason is the Path to God - Anon
  72. Retreivable fireworks -- no reason to restrict. by the_REAL_sam · · Score: 1

    A model rocket is little more than a retrievable firework. It's made of paper, plastic and a small charge to get it off the ground. The fact that it's shaped like a rocket has no bearing.

    The hobby teaches kids about something interesting.

    Who proposed the restriction? We should remove him / her from office.

    --
    "Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us." -Jesus Christ The Lord's Prayer
    1. Re:Retreivable fireworks -- no reason to restrict. by rwrife · · Score: 1

      Now you're on to something.....we make up the difference in the .9lbs limation by using the explosive compounds found in fireworks....next stop: the Moon!!

  73. Anyone notice that buying gun powder is legal ? by DRWHOISME · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Go to the gunshop and you can buy kegs of gunpowder,even through the mail. The NRA would put Bush out of business if he cracked down on that . So the regs are useless if your going to disallow one and allow the other.

    An idea for you high powered rocket guys is to go with a method of fueling rockets with gunpowder.
    I wonder what the gov would do then ?

    1. Re:Anyone notice that buying gun powder is legal ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We use black powder for ejection charges...and your are right....you can go buy a pound of FFFF BP no problem. Ever seen what a pound of fast burning black powder can do? Its some bad stuff. BP is *way* more dangerous than perchlorate based motors.

    2. Re:Anyone notice that buying gun powder is legal ? by DRWHOISME · · Score: 1

      you can buy perchlorate at web chem stores. Pretty affordable really.

      And there might be a way to slow black/smokeless powder rate down.

    3. Re:Anyone notice that buying gun powder is legal ? by gnu-generation-one · · Score: 1

      "Go to the gunshop and you can buy kegs of gunpowder,even through the mail."

      Go to a gas station and buy 10 liters of gasoline. The government can't regulate it because everyone is utterly addicted to the stuff to get from their home to pretty much anywhere in a car.

      I seem to remember someone demonstrating (on TV) a method for projecting a bowling-ball far, far into the distance, using just a small amount of gasoline. I'm no expert, but that looks a lot more fun than firing rockets which as you say, are just tubes full of slow-burning propellant.

    4. Re:Anyone notice that buying gun powder is legal ? by Thomas+Shaddack · · Score: 1
      An idea for you high powered rocket guys is to go with a method of fueling rockets with gunpowder.

      There's an another option, the saltpeter-sugar (or a better one, saltpeter-sorbitol) solid fuel. Recipes are all over the Net[1], including variants that solve some problems like radiation heating of the engine (the stuff is translucent and the heat radiated from the burning core tends to overheat and destabilize the outer parts of the engine rod).

      [1] Google for keywords nitrate sorbitol rocket.

  74. Not about using the rocket as a weapon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't think the rules are about using the rocket as a weapon. The rules are about using the propelent as a weapon. I mean how hard would it be to set up a rocket engine to have all the propellant go off at once instead of in a more controlled burn. And without the law someone could carry around an engine/bomb that is totally legal.

  75. Straw Man by Ars-Fartsica · · Score: 1

    We do not equate private possession of water woth private possession of cesium chloride, which can also be used for beneficial and pernicious purposes. Society finds a balance, and in this case I can say that the potential threat of fires, damage, etc far outweighs someone's need to have a hobby.

    1. Re:Straw Man by Thomas+Shaddack · · Score: 1
      Electrical wiring caused more fires than all the model rockets. Why not require an electrotechnician licence for sale of copper cables thicker than say 1 mm2? Do you know how much damage a single bolt clamp that is not tightened enough can cause? Badly connected wires can kill, so banning unlicenced private possession of equipment for electrical installations makes sense. Or not?

      Because of cowards like you the technicians have more difficult life, whenever they need something just a tid bit more exotic, and there is more red tape and tax-fed useless bureaucrats with self-importance delusions. And I don't even mention the impact of the War on Some Drugs on the availability of chemical equipment. :(

      Fuck the society and its so-called balance. The "balance" is usually (and in technical issues always) dictated by the ones who know the least about the issues they are so eager to make decisions about.

  76. Kettering University Programming Society by finaldarkone · · Score: 1

    Wow! Kettering got on slashdot. pretty good for a tiny school in the most decrepit city in the nation. If anybody ./ers are interested in th A-Section Kettering University Programming Society, contact me at ritt0249@kettering.edu . We are planning some projects this term, and hey... the worst thing that can come out of attending a meeting is some free pizza and pop. Many of our members are graduating and we need to keep our funding for our pizza damnit. Thank you.

  77. My logic by nuggz · · Score: 1

    I was actually attacking the attitude in the origional article.

    I might not have been clear in my post.

    1. Rocket engines can be dangerous.
    2. Many things are dangerous.
    3. Harsh laws and regulation mostly harms law abiding citizens.

    The article suggested that rocketry isn't dangerous, and these people wouldn't do bad things. I agree proper care can make it safe, and amateur rocketry clubs aren't going to blow up the US.
    The problem is that the 'baddies' of whatever stripe don't care about the law, and will still have access to the same materials.
    The more prominent or widespread the legitimate use the less likely they will ban it.
    Note that air travel, diesel fuel, rental trucks, fertilizer and box cutters are still widely available.

    If the legitimate use is limited they are more likley to push it.
    P2P, guns near schools, model rocketry.

    No this isn't a troll.

    1. Re:My logic by gclef · · Score: 1

      Ah. We may be in violent *agreement*, then, just looking at it in different ways. Fair enough.

  78. BUSH LEAST WELCOME PERSON IN IRELAND EVER! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And that includes english people!

    1. Re:BUSH LEAST WELCOME PERSON IN IRELAND EVER! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      that is if they don't arrest him for warcrimes first

    2. Re:BUSH LEAST WELCOME PERSON IN IRELAND EVER! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      perhaps the IRA has run out of cash so Bush has to get his chequebook again

  79. America is *Technically* Not a Democracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just an FYI, while not in practice, America is technically a republic with a democratic voting system. Lately, I think it's clear we've become a true democracy, which is a foolish and dangerous thing. A democracy puts control in the hands of popular opinion rather than educated and dedicated officials who are held responsible by the people whom they serve. As you can see the by the myriad of mindless and tastless reality shows which clutter our TV programming, popular opinion is a fickle and easily swayed entity.

    1. Re:America is *Technically* Not a Democracy by thogard · · Score: 1

      This situation is why the constitution was written not to allow people to vote for a President. The idea was the people (throught their state) vote for a few people that would get together and then decide who would make a good president and then elect them. The system worked once and its been getting more manipulated ever since.

  80. Even better by EaterOfDog · · Score: 0

    Unitednuclear.com has actual radioactive materials. And alot of other cool stuff. Don't go there if you don't want to spend money. Check out the "Wanna Buy Some Uranium" gif. Ha!

    --

    Crushing my karma one post at a time.
  81. Open societies outlaw actions, not knowlege by siriuskase · · Score: 1
    Surely anything that can be done with a model rocket can be done more easily with other aircraft. That doesn't mean any of them should be outlawed or restricted. It's just that going after the model rocketeers is ridiculous.

    The primary purpose of these regulations is to restrict practical knowledge of the subject. If someone wants to use the knowledge to construct an illegal rocket, that is obviously already illegal. It is the restriction of knowledge that crosses the line of what should be allowed in an open society.

    --
    If you must moderate, please moderate as irrelevent, not something bad, because I'm sure someone will find this interest
  82. Model rockets: NO. Guns: YES. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    The government's crackdown on Boy Scout hobbies has arguably left the nation a much safer place. Legions of Boy Scout fanatics, armed with model rockets and swiss army knives have been dealt a serious blow and their nefarious activities have been set back days, perhaps even weeks.

    Scout leaders are being urged at this time to encourage scouts of all ages to take up firearms training. Firearms, being readily available and licensed, are a safe recreation. Remember, guns don't kill people, rockets do.

    Nothing to see here. Move along.

    Terrorist #1: I would like to use this rocket to wage holy war against the infidels.

    Terrorist #2: You cannot. The infidels have fuel limits. You will not have the range.

    Terrorist #1: In that case I will use this assault rife I bought for home defence.

    Terrorist #2: You are a most wise servant of Allah.

    Terrorist #1: Mwaahahahahah!

    Terrorist #2: Mwahahahahaha!

  83. what about Estes by CAIMLAS · · Score: 1

    What about Estes? This is surely to impact their bottom line - ie, their profit. Might they put up a fuss? Have they?

    --
    ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
    1. Re:what about Estes by Teancum · · Score: 1

      Estes rockets are essentially classified as fireworks rated for personal use. They have so many restrictions on how powerful they will go that they are considered "harmless" by the Federal government.

      Now if you try to get a type "E" engine or type "F" (or worse yet, something rated even higher), that is when you have to start to draw blood and delivery instructions for your first born child.

  84. DON'T BE FOOLED by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Reconsider that. In Canada it's now illegal to express your opinion during election campaigns. Our healthcare system is crumbling and it's illegal to pay to get treatment, you are legally bound to wait in line for months perhaps years for treatment. We're not allowed to watch legally obtained US television stations because the government controlled CRTC determines what Canadians are and aren't allowed to watch. Our system of government is setup to establish a dictatorship and the only party that wants to change this is currently being accused of having a scary hidden agenda. One of the acusers is quoted as saying "There should be no votes on human rights". Yep that's Canadian democracy.

  85. Typical for this administration by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Ignoring facts that contradict their preconceived conclusions is a hallmark of the Bush administration. Their tratment of our liberties reminds me of the Vietnam war's famous quote "In order to save the village we had to destroy it".
    War on Terror != give up your freedom

  86. Re:This has been a problem with pyrotechnicians to by LostCluster · · Score: 0

    The Rhode Island nightclub tragedy was touched off by a fireworks display inside a nightclub next to flamable soundproofing foam that no licensed technician in their right mind would have ever had ever let happen. It wasn't a case of international terrorism, it was a case of domestic stupidity. The lawsuits over who's legally responsible are still ongoing, because there were so many people who shoulda/coulda stopped this that didn't.

    Anybody who's touching off a pryotechnic device of any kind should have to file a document showing that they've thought out the safety issues and are confident that it's safe.

  87. Take your cryin' ass to your mommy. by glrotate · · Score: 0, Flamebait
    Once the formerly free American sheeple resign themselves to arbitrary governmental intrusions...


    It appears as though you don't understand the meaning of the word 'arbitrary'.


    If the government was cracking down on left handed guitars that would be arbitrary.


    Regulating rockets most certainly isn't.


    You've obviously never studied Constitutional law because you have no right to build rockets.

    1. Re:Take your cryin' ass to your mommy. by darth_zeth · · Score: 5, Informative

      the gubmint doesnt have the POWER to REGULATE rockets, actually. The constitution does not outlien our rights, it outlines the government's powers.

      --
      "Nobody writes jokes in base 13." - Douglas Adams
    2. Re:Take your cryin' ass to your mommy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey, slick. Show me in the Constitution where it says he can't. It's idiots like you that forget that the government can only specifically prohibit. Everything's legal until then.

    3. Re:Take your cryin' ass to your mommy. by winwar · · Score: 5, Interesting

      "You've obviously never studied Constitutional law because you have no right to build rockets."

      Unless of course you believe that powers not specificially given to the government by the people are reserved for the people. It is called the Tenth Amendment, part of the Bill of Rights. Before you spout off about Constitutional law, perhaps you should read the Constitution first.

      Unfortunately, it seems to be an often ignored part of the Constitution....

    4. Re:Take your cryin' ass to your mommy. by glrotate · · Score: 0

      A1S8

    5. Re:Take your cryin' ass to your mommy. by darth_zeth · · Score: 1

      Article 1 section 8 doesn't seem to mention the congress's power to regulate rocketry...

      --
      "Nobody writes jokes in base 13." - Douglas Adams
    6. Re:Take your cryin' ass to your mommy. by avgjoe62 · · Score: 1
      Hey, slick. Show me in the Constitution where it says he can't. It's idiots like you that forget that the government can only specifically prohibit. Everything's legal until then.

      Yiippeee!!! I can fianlly realize my life long dream to strip down to my birthday suit, paint myself yellow and run down Main Street while playing Yankee Doodle Danady on a Kazoo!!

      --

      How come Slashdot never gets Slashdotted?

    7. Re:Take your cryin' ass to your mommy. by Tassach · · Score: 4, Informative
      The constitution does not outline our rights, it outlines the government's powers.
      Moderate parent up -- he actually understands what the Constitution does, unlike the majority of slashdotters (or the majority of senators, for that matter). The Constitution grants a limited (and specifically enumerated) set of powers to the various branches of the government, and lists specific things that the government is FORBIDDEN to do. The Constitution does not CREATE rights -- we already have them. What it is supposed to do is to prevent the Government from infringing on the rights we already have.

      --
      Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
    8. Re:Take your cryin' ass to your mommy. by mpe · · Score: 1

      Unless of course you believe that powers not specificially given to the government by the people are reserved for the people. It is called the Tenth Amendment, part of the Bill of Rights. Before you spout off about Constitutional law, perhaps you should read the Constitution first.

      The problem may be more of understanding than reading. How else do you get interpretations that the "Commerce Clause" supercedes the 10th Amendment. When the only part of the US Constitution which can (logically) supercede the 10th Amendment is a later amendment.

    9. Re:Take your cryin' ass to your mommy. by sneakers563 · · Score: 1

      And that of course was one of the arguments against the Bill of Rights: that it would be taken by some to be an exhaustive list of the rights of the people. Which, as you correctly point out, has happened.

    10. Re:Take your cryin' ass to your mommy. by identity0 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Actually, it would be reserved for the states, since private citizens would not be making laws against rocketry...

      And I think the relevant amendment would be the ninth, the one that says the rights listed in the constitution are not the only ones that exist.

    11. Re:Take your cryin' ass to your mommy. by Moofie · · Score: 1

      I believe you have an inalienable right to do just that.

      However, we don't really believe in inalienable rights around here anymore. Unfortunately.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    12. Re:Take your cryin' ass to your mommy. by glrotate · · Score: 1

      It's called the interstate commerce clause. Please pick up a textbook on Constitutional Law. It really is an interesting subject.

    13. Re:Take your cryin' ass to your mommy. by glrotate · · Score: 1

      The Constitution doesn't contain language about any inalienable right.

      With Constitutional law the SC balances the interests of the state versus those of he individual. Depending on the nature of the issue the threshold for permissibility varies. It is referred to as the level of scrutiny. Generaly there has been standard, intermediate, and strict scrutiny. These are by no means set in stone and justices are happy to pervert them when it suits their intellectual bias.

      The moral of the story is that in the real world absolutes like your "inalienable right" aren't paticularly practical and aren't protected without exception.

    14. Re:Take your cryin' ass to your mommy. by Moofie · · Score: 1

      No, the Constitution doesn't talk about any rights, as such. Except to outline particular rights that the Government is not allowed to infringe. I don't think the language is terribly difficult to understand.

      The Founders who opposed the Bill of Rights were absolutely right. They feared that some idiot would think that only the rights mentioned in the Constitution are rights. Unfortunately, we seem to keep electing those morons to the Legislative and Executive branches, who in turn appoint additional morons to Federal benches.

      But hey! It's a living document, right? It's good that it changes, to restrict our rights more and more. Yay!

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    15. Re:Take your cryin' ass to your mommy. by glrotate · · Score: 1

      The notion of a living constion that you find distatseful has generaly been used in conjunction with the expansion of protected rights, so I'm not sure what your objection is. (e.g. right to privacy , Grisworld)

      Anyway, regulating the trade of rocket engines clearly falls within Congress power to regulate interstate commerce. So this discussion has been moot.

    16. Re:Take your cryin' ass to your mommy. by Moofie · · Score: 1

      What exactly does a person building an amateur rocket engine in his garage have to do with interstate commerce?

      I mean, you might argue that the fact that said amateur eats food and uses gasoline that comes through different states gives the Fed the right to tell this person to do whatever they want him to, but I think you'd be, like, really wrong.

      The Interstate Commerce clause has been horrifically abused.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    17. Re:Take your cryin' ass to your mommy. by winwar · · Score: 1

      Hmm, yes, if we are talking about rights, then the ninth would be more appropriate.

      Of course, the power to make laws comes from the people... And undelegated powers are reserved to the States "or to the people" according to the Constitution.

      Oh, well, in any case, I don't think the feds should be getting in the way of this hobby-it was already regulated-one can hardly launch these types of rockets in your backyard.

    18. Re:Take your cryin' ass to your mommy. by winwar · · Score: 1

      Yes, the great clause that has been used to justify anything and everything. Look, I believe the Constitution has to be interpreted to some extent. But I really doubt that was the intent of the original clause. Granted, ultimately the Constitution is what the courts say it is, but unfortunately, they don't seem to read it much :)

      Ultimately, I think it is best that individuals can do what they want without government interference as long as they don't bother/harm anyone else. I think that was the original intent of the Constitution. The ICC has been used to subvert that intent, even though it has been done for the public good. The end result however, has been the government's good.

      There is no reason to fingerprint these people and run background checks on them. That is unwarranted government intrusion. The materials used in these rockets can't be any worse than the materials that I can store in any garage (gasoline). They already had to get clearance to launch the rockets anyway.

      Constitutional law is an interesting subject. And like sausages, one might not want to see how it is made or applied for that matter. Remember, just because it is Constitutional does not make it right (slavery used to be legal...) I would submit that those who are involved in the process are not any better at it or more correct than your basic educated person who can read the primary sources. Those in the system are beholden to it and restricted by it (precedent-even if it is "bad" or "wrong"). Granted, the details are hard to work out-they always are-especially when you have conflicting "rights". But the overall concepts put forth in the Constitution are not hard.

    19. Re:Take your cryin' ass to your mommy. by Mycroft_VIII · · Score: 1

      They may not have use the words 'inalienable right' within the constitution But the founders certainly believed in inalienable rights as can be seen in thier writings and a certain other famous document they wrote.
      The fact that scotus has seen fit to allow errosion of our rights in many cases doesn't make it right or contitutionaly correct except in a purely pragmatic sense.
      The whole concept of the 'interest of the state' having any value when said value would erode the rights of the individual would almost certainly be seen repugnant, or at least suspicious in the extreem, by the founding fathers. I would tend to agree.

      Mycroft

      --
      https://signup.leagueoflegends.com/?ref=4c3ed6600b6ea
    20. Re:Take your cryin' ass to your mommy. by Mycroft_VIII · · Score: 1

      "Anyway, regulating the trade of rocket engines clearly falls within Congress power to regulate interstate commerce. So this discussion has been moot."

      Eh only if there is interstate commerce involved.
      If I build and test a model rocket with local (my state only) suplies. It's no longer within federal jurisdiction and does NOT fall under the INTERSTATE commerce clause.

      Mycroft

      --
      https://signup.leagueoflegends.com/?ref=4c3ed6600b6ea
    21. Re:Take your cryin' ass to your mommy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually the Constitution is amazingly easy to read. You don't need a college education to understand it...barely a high school one.

      What you *do* need to do is to read the damn thing. How many people in the country have even half a clue as to what it contains? Sure they know a few of their "government granted" rights, but they usually don't have a cluee as to what is contained in the rest. And they vote.

      The minute we depend on some puffed up Supreme Court Judge to determine what rights we do and don't have is the minute we become slaves.

      The Constitution is a contract between the people and their government. Time to make the government perform on their contract.

      If we cant understand it ourselves, we probably should never have signed it in the first place.

      Oh wait...we didn't sign it.

      See Lysander Spooner, "The Constituiton of No Authority".

    22. Re:Take your cryin' ass to your mommy. by glrotate · · Score: 1

      The fact that scotus has seen fit to allow errosion of our rights

      One side thinks the SC is eroding rights, the other thinks they are inventing them. That must mean they are pretty much down the middle.

    23. Re:Take your cryin' ass to your mommy. by hitchhacker · · Score: 1


      correct.
      It's clarified here in a 8 hour class on the US Constitution.
      The first hour should cover it.
      or.. just read the thing yourself.

      -metric

    24. Re:Take your cryin' ass to your mommy. by hitchhacker · · Score: 1


      Sure they know a few of their "government granted" rights

      The government doesn't grant us rights! We, the people, have rights. We grant the government privileges to do certain things enumerated in the Constitution. What the hell is the point in enumerating anything if the ICC grants the government any privilege they can think of?

      Understanding the purpose of the Constitution takes a bit more than just reading it.
      Michael Badnarik's 8 hour course on the Constitution
      enjoy,

      -metric

    25. Re:Take your cryin' ass to your mommy. by Mycroft_VIII · · Score: 1

      Not necesarily. It just means the two 'sides' have differing spins. All it realy implies is that both sides are, at times, unhappy they're not getting it all thier way.
      All I know is if the constitution says A, the founding fathers say in thier dialogs at the time discussing what they wrote, that yes indeed A is A and scotus asserts !a, then scotus is wrong.
      A clear example might be the first amendment
      "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;<b> or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press</b>; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." [emphasis mine]
      Note the emphasized portion. Yet SCOTUS has held, iirc, a compelling intrest or some such, in allowing 'obscenity' laws. And even said they couldn't define obscenity. My response is: so , the first says nothing about obscenity, just no law.
      I use this example because it's a fairly black and white case, not because I think we should have billboards with graphic sex on them to advertise strip bars or some such nonsense.
      And there are other examples. The point behind such strict and absolute restriction on the federal government is not because the founders were so absolute minded, or because they were lazy.
      The simple matter is they understood the slow encroachment that would happen without very strong restraint on a government and a watchfull, intelligent, citizenry. Unfortunately for all they gave us the first we are often failing to be the second.
      They also used such blunt uncomplicated language to lower the bar so that the common man could see plainly when thier government was breaking the rules. Many of them were very well educated, some in law, and could have quite easily wrote a nicely complicated piece of leagalize that would require a degree to decipher.
      Remember these men had just succesfully tossed one bad government and had no desire to replace it with another.

      Mycroft

      --
      https://signup.leagueoflegends.com/?ref=4c3ed6600b6ea
    26. Re:Take your cryin' ass to your mommy. by glrotate · · Score: 1

      Where in the Constitution does it say that we have to interpret it as some of the founding fathers said?

      Also note that many of the founding fathers passed the Alien and Sedition acts.

      Take a law class some time. Flexible interpretation has been the case since the begining of time. The reason we have human judges is to allow for human judgement. Everyone that's ever begged a judge to make their speeding ticket a non-moving violation understands the value of having human judgement involoved in jurisprudence.

    27. Re:Take your cryin' ass to your mommy. by Mycroft_VIII · · Score: 1

      There is a difference between interpretation and claiming a=!a. Interpretation means taking the original meaning and aplying it to a new situation.
      There has to be a reasonable limit. For example, you can't get some guns and rifles under strict limits out of the second amendment, what the founding fathers said on the issue only makes it MORE obvious than the amendment itself.
      You can't get alot of things SCOTUS and the courts has said out the constitution, but they do it anyway.
      And I never said the founding fathers were perfect, heck some of them owned slaves, but they were pretty smart and carefull about the constitution. You know they even left in a clear methode to fix anything in it we later decided was wrong. The courts are not that method, thier job with regards the constitution is to deal with the grey areas and to apply it to things and situations that did not exist when the constitution was framed. Not to decide the words mean somthing they very clearly did not.
      And btw it's not the judge you normaly ask to reduce a charge in a speeding ticket, it's the prossecuting attorney. The judge generaly has to accept the change in charges and plea, but that's mostly a formality at that point.

      Mycroft

      --
      https://signup.leagueoflegends.com/?ref=4c3ed6600b6ea
  88. no need for conspiracy theories by dangermouse · · Score: 4, Insightful
    What's important isn't controlling model rockets, per se; what's important is getting the American public used to a never-ending "war against terror", keeping them keyed-up, ever fearful and ever compliant.

    Well, you're half right. What's important isn't controlling model rockets. It's controlling explosives, which happen to be used in model rockets. The ATF didn't decide to clamp down on the hobby of model rocketry to pacify the citizerny-- that's an idiotic scenario even for the average conspiracy theorist. Model rocket enthusiasts are catching a side-effect of new explosives regulation because they use explosives in their hobby.

    It sounds like the ATF may have been overzealous in creating those new regulations, and that those regulations may have had unintended (or disregarded) side effects, but you're going way out of your way to justify an assumption of maliciousness here.

    1. Re:no need for conspiracy theories by ibpooks · · Score: 2, Informative

      You're exactly right. I'm a fireworks and pyrotechnics hobbiest, and we are governed by the same restrictions on explosives.

    2. Re:no need for conspiracy theories by Lost+Engineer · · Score: 1

      It isn't about rockets. It's about fear. The government will outlaw/regulate out of existence as many things as possible. Just like drugs, trying to clamp down on explosives is impossible. All you need is cow shit and gasoline for Christ's sake. And of course Homeland Security knows this. Like the granparent says, it's all about fear.

    3. Re:no need for conspiracy theories by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      All you need is cow shit and gasoline for Christ's sake.

      I don't think stink bombs count as terrorism, but they might.

    4. Re:no need for conspiracy theories by kin_korn_karn · · Score: 1

      Overzealous is ok, if the zealot comes back later and says, "wait, we went too far, let's repeal these regulations".

      The problem is that the ATF will not admit that they made a mistake, this won't get repealed, and the regulations will just keep piling up.

    5. Re:no need for conspiracy theories by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is there a way to make a non-explosive rocket out of interest? The only type I can think of would involve compressed air. I'd be curious to know.

    6. Re:no need for conspiracy theories by cpt+kangarooski · · Score: 1

      If they're used right, sure, why not. But that doesn't sound like a good stink bomb. Why not spray large quantities of putrescine, cadavarine, or ethyl mercaptan?*

      There's not much that smells worse, and honestly, who would want to be in charge of finding out what does?

      *Do not really do this unless, I dunno, you're really into projectile vomiting.

      --
      -- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
    7. Re:no need for conspiracy theories by Beer_Smurf · · Score: 1

      "Well, you're half right. What's important isn't controlling model rockets. It's controlling explosives, which happen to be used in model rockets."
      You don't have a clue.
      Model and/or high power rockets do not use explosives.
      The propellants used in rocket motors are worthless as explosives, they can at best rupture their casings making a bit of a boom but can cause little damage.
      In fact without the pressure of the casing they don't even burn very well.
      I do know and have flow rockets with both organizations mentioned in the article.

    8. Re:no need for conspiracy theories by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Guess I can keep eating at Taco Bell then.

    9. Re:no need for conspiracy theories by dangermouse · · Score: 1
      Model and/or high power rockets do not use explosives.

      Are you kidding? How the hell do you think ammonium perchlorate propels a rocket? With lovely wonderful thoughts ?

    10. Re:no need for conspiracy theories by shawn(at)fsu · · Score: 1

      fireworks and pyrotechnics

      I'm sorry but aren't these two things by thier very nature, explosive?

      I would be suprised if they were not under the same restrictions.

      --
      500 dollar reward for tip(s) leading to the arrest of the person(s) who stole my sig.
    11. Re:no need for conspiracy theories by Beer_Smurf · · Score: 1

      "Are you kidding? How the hell do you think ammonium perchlorate propels a rocket? "

      Ammonium perchlorate is only one component in solid propellant which may include metals and is bound in a matrix of synthitic rubber..
      The propellant burns at a rate related to the surface area and chamber pressure, it does NOT explode.
      If you take a chunk of this solid propellant and light it, it does burn, but it is not particularly impressive.
      I can assure you, no explosion.
      You can do alot more with household chemicals.

    12. Re:no need for conspiracy theories by lonesome+phreak · · Score: 1

      Actually, I think the idea to ban them is more about the Kassam rocket idea than anything. I think the idea behind it is to reduce the possiblity of easily getting ahold of rocket delivery systems that might be used in a terrorist attack.

      Of course, most off-the-shelf model rockets can barely deliver a hard-boiled egg, much less a threatening explosive warhead. An E size rocket engine (the largest of Estes's regular model rocket line) can only launch up to 425 grams. I'm no rocket scientist (haha, bad joke), but the engine itself ways 37.2 grams. Their biggest rocket weighs 6.6 oz, or 187 grams. This leaves you able to deliver a 200 gram payload up to 350 feet for around $40-$50. Of course, the ATF is talking about real rockets, not model rockets. I don't know any statistics for them.

      Various explosive receipies are all over the net. You could just go to a gun store and buy gunpowder, and put a bunch of tack nails in it. It wouldn't do much to troops in body armour, but would cause much damage in a crowd. Get fancy with a barometric switch to explode ten feet above your target...ouch.

      You could probably modify the $35 rocket to hold multiple engines, and boost the delivery/payload somewhat. I doubt you could get it to increase a magnitude though.

      --
      Maybe we DID take the blue pill. You wouldn't remember anyway.
    13. Re:no need for conspiracy theories by Mycroft_VIII · · Score: 1

      Actually multi stage and somtimes even the tricky multi enginge first stage rockets are often built.
      The in the latter case big stabilization fins are recomended.
      I'm shure you could get more than 200 grams moving, and going farther than 350ft with a bit of work, in fact I rember adds in the late 70's - early 80's for camera rockets that caried more wiegth higher with cameras in the nose and tiny electronic devices to cause the camera to start taking pictures on the way down.
      Now I'm shure that with more modern tech some, err, interesting things could be done.

      Mycroft

      --
      https://signup.leagueoflegends.com/?ref=4c3ed6600b6ea
    14. Re:no need for conspiracy theories by ibpooks · · Score: 1

      Actually pyrotechnics are usually in a lesser regulatory class than rocket fuels. "Residential"-grade fireworks are class C (1.4G) and technically not considered explosive. "Commercial" fireworks are class B (1.3G), which are regulated by the ATF, DOT, and other agencies. Things like dynamite, blasting caps and oxygenated rocket fuels are class A (1.2G) which are are very strictly regulated. My point was that any hobby that uses materials from the 1.3G or 1.2G classes is subject to strict regulation.

  89. Re:Something Windows can do that Linux can't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hey, in egg_troll's defense, there's something else Linux can't do that Windows does very well: catch virae. Note to egg_troll: He's right, stop sniffing glue. Freon is a much more suitable option for you.

  90. Hey, whose side are they on?-Experiment has failed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Or as our beloved Reichsminister Ashcroft explained, to the Senate Judiciary Committee, "To those who scare peace-loving people with phantoms of lost liberty ... your tactics only aid terrorists, for they erode our national unity and ... give ammunition to America's enemies.""

    It's all OK. America's days as a viable nation are numbered. Every nation has sooner or later fallen. Look at history.

  91. Re:This has been a problem with pyrotechnicians to by caffeineboy · · Score: 1

    Yeah, I agree. My point was that no one who isn't a licensed pyrotechnician can buy the kind of stuff that is being restricted by these laws. Hence, the laws are solving a non-problem.

    McVeigh did not use legal fireworks, nor did he purchase anything with a pyrotechnician's license. Restricting the actions of competent, licensed pyrotechnicians is, therefore, not accomplishing the law's original intention.

    Similarly, the people buying these kind of model rocket engines are not terrorists, and it would be trivial to allow exceptions in this law that would make this hobby easier. But as in the case of most beurocratic solutions, laws are applied with a broad brush and often accidentally outlaw or restrict obviously benign activities.

    It's a shame, but I can't see a way around it since there is no way that hobbyists could constantly scour every law that is being passed for potential conflicts.

    --
    +++ ATH0 +++
  92. What about (2nd): right to bare arms? by darth_zeth · · Score: 3, Insightful

    or do geeks only care that they can frag aliens online?

    i swear, half the kids in my dorm who would be bragging about headshots in CS looked damn near terrified when i asked them if they wanted to go to the range to shoot *gasp* REAL guns.

    Was that just a characteristic of my dorm, or the geek cultrue as a whole?

    --
    "Nobody writes jokes in base 13." - Douglas Adams
    1. Re:What about (2nd): right to bare arms? by cjwl · · Score: 1

      Obviously you've lost touch with games vs. reality.

      Which is probably what they're terrified of.

    2. Re:What about (2nd): right to bare arms? by Penguinshit · · Score: 2, Informative


      You might wanna have a look at this site..

      And I don't usually have bare arms when I bear arms...

    3. Re:What about (2nd): right to bare arms? by focitrixilous+P · · Score: 1

      Was that just a characteristic of my dorm, or the geek cultrue as a whole?
      I'll get you with a SPAS or I'll go shoot my 20-Gauge with you. Either one is a good time. All my fellow geeks have no fear of guns, at least none I see. I built a small cannon like thing out of PVC pipe, and every geek I know thinks it's teh l33test.

      I think I'm the exception to the rule, though.

      --
      SAILING MISHAP
    4. Re:What about (2nd): right to bare arms? by nyseal · · Score: 1

      I don't think I want geeks to 'bare' anything, especially on-line.

      --
      [SIG] Remember Mattel handheld games?
  93. Actually, there is some serious threat ... by Pvt_Waldo · · Score: 2, Informative
    > Yeah, when have you ever heard of an amateur rocket being used for terrorism?

    There are some real similarities between these "extreme" hobby rockets and the Quassam rocket, which is used in the middle east. Here's a description of the Qassam...

    The Qassam (and newer Qassam 2) rocket is a simple, homemade steel rocket filled with explosives, developed by Hamas during the Al-Aqsa Intifada. Both models lack a guidance system, and the larger rocket (the Qassam-2)) has a range of only 5 miles with a 20 pound payload. Nonetheless, its use shocked the Israeli military and public, who are used to the Palestinians lacking any method of long-range warfare. Hizbollah, for contrast, has long shelled Israel from Lebanon using the Katyusha rocket. The Qassam rockets have been used to attack various Israeli towns, in some areas such as Sderot in the Negev and some Israeli settlements in Gaza shelling occurs almost daily, causing large scale property damage, serious injury and occasional loss of life.


    Israel has tried to stop the development of such rockets by extensive crackdowns on suspected militants, and by the destruction of facilities (such as metal shops) which could be used for their construction.



    Home made rockets that can attain altitudes of 10-40,000 feet have some pretty serious potential for misuse if you ask me. How hard could it be to just set up 10 of these a few miles outside some major city center, load them up with crude explosives (or better yet "dirty bomb" stuff like radioactive materials) and send them unguided to land in the heart of the city. Who cares if they land a mile off, or smack into some building? Think of the terror effect of 10 rockets slamming into downtown Manhattan, launched from some abandoned warehouse district in New Jersey, and the shooters are long gone after launch has happened.


    I would argue that the exact technologies and equipment used by these amateur rockets are directly useable by terrorists. You can even bet that a certain amount of the technology for the Qassam came from amateur rocket sources, similar to the one at http://www.space-rockets.com/newbook.html. Looks like about everything you need you can get there.


    And I love the last line on the page. "Foreign Nationals Welcome To Attend The Class!!"

    1. Re:Actually, there is some serious threat ... by nosphalot · · Score: 1
      Why bother with a rocket? If you have the materials to make a dirty bomb, why not just place it in a stolen or rented van and park it in a parking garage in the city of your choice?

      Building rockets takes skill and testing, which both take time and are likely to get noticed. Driving a van full of fuel oil and fertilizer is pretty simple, and much more effective. Why does everyone think that evil doers have some grand plan involving fringe hobbies. This isn't a Bond movie.

    2. Re:Actually, there is some serious threat ... by Pvt_Waldo · · Score: 2, Informative

      Tell Hezbollah that. They've fired over 140 of them into Israel.

    3. Re:Actually, there is some serious threat ... by farzadb82 · · Score: 1
      If you really believe in the crap you just said then you are only fooling yourself.

      Laws do not apply to outlaws. If a terrorist cannot aquire the rockets premade, then they will make them themselves (infact they'd probably make them themselves anyway) and then what do you do ?

    4. Re:Actually, there is some serious threat ... by radish · · Score: 1

      But it's much harder for a Palestinian to drive a truck bomb into Isreal (due to the incresased security etc) that it would be for me to (hypothetically) drive one into Manhattan (which is totally open). Thus, in that situation, I would choose the truck over the rocket. Easier, bigger, more reliable and more accurate.

      --

      ---- Den ene knappen er powerknapp, den andre er Bender voice knapp "Bite My Shiny Metal Ass"

    5. Re:Actually, there is some serious threat ... by mpe · · Score: 1

      Laws do not apply to outlaws. If a terrorist cannot aquire the rockets premade, then they will make them themselves (infact they'd probably make them themselves anyway) and then what do you do ?

      Assuming they need to bother. No doubt black market arms dealers have military rockets for sale...

    6. Re:Actually, there is some serious threat ... by grmoc · · Score: 1

      And the funny thing about all of this is:

      Why the hell would a terrorist go and ask permission???
      (Wouldn't they just ignore the law, procure whatever they needed and just do it?)

    7. Re:Actually, there is some serious threat ... by Moofie · · Score: 1

      And hurt a grand total of how many people? I think the number is really close to zero.

      With numbers like that, I'd much rather Hezbollah try to use rockets than guys in delivery vans. You know, a system that actually works...

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    8. Re:Actually, there is some serious threat ... by antiMStroll · · Score: 1
      "Think of the terror effect of 10 rockets slamming into downtown Manhattan, launched from some abandoned warehouse district in New Jersey,..."

      Given the probable low payload capacity, I think most New Yorkers would be more concerned about them coming from New Jersey.

  94. Re:Retreivable fireworks -- no reason to restrict by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting
    A model rocket is little more than a retrievable firework. It's made of paper, plastic and a small charge to get it off the ground. The fact that it's shaped like a rocket has no bearing. The hobby teaches kids about something interesting. Who proposed the restriction? We should remove him / her from office.
    We really need a new moderation category..Like one that says "Clearly did not bother to read the actual article" How the hell is a moderator supposed to moderate these except perhaps for "overrated" but then of course the meta-moderators will see that and the text and assume I just dont agree with the political background of the post. Using the original posters logic I should be able to have Stinger missiles in my yard...After all..they are little more than a few snips of metal, a palm pilot and a IR detector for turning the lights off in the bathroom after you leave. Now of course one could argue that a free people should be able to have Stingers..Though I strongly suspect the "jump on the patriot act bashing" group does not believe this en-mass. Yes..The government is out of control..Yes the patriot act has gone too far in some places..Lets find those places, point to them, and fix them (note that a battle like this will and should rage through the end of civilization)..There are enough areas the government and "we the people" mess up on our own that we do not need to make up stuff like this.
  95. Yes it's FUD. by glrotate · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    This only affects the weirdo's who build rockets that they shouldn't be building anyway.

    Any of the stuff we did as kids is still unregulated.

    Moreover the really huge stuff hasn't even been banned, it's just a hassle to get licensed.

    Cry me a river.

  96. Look at the bright side! by barthrh2 · · Score: 2, Funny

    The good news is that you can still head down to your local Wal-Mart or Jim-bo's Guns 'n Booze emporium and buy yourself enough ammo for even the most psychotic killing rampage.

    But of course, these guys aren't terrorists, they're just exercising their constitutional rights. After all, a few thousand people have did at the hands of terrorists, clearly making them the clear & present danger.

    1. Re:Look at the bright side! by ronfar · · Score: 1
      The good news is that you can still head down to your local Wal-Mart or Jim-bo's Guns 'n Booze emporium and buy yourself enough ammo for even the most psychotic killing rampage.

      *nodding solemnly* "Yes, thank God..."

      --
      All the creatures will die, And all the things will be broken. That's the law of samurai. (Jubai, 1605)
  97. When rockets are outlawed.... by neanderdude · · Score: 1

    When rockets are outlawed, only outlaws will have rockets. You can have my rocket when you pry it from my cold, dead hands. snip snip snip...and yet another hobby enoyed by many is made unavailable because of "safety." "A society that will trade a little liberty for a little order will lose both and deserve neither." - Thomas Jefferson

  98. MOD PARENT UP by Lost+Engineer · · Score: 1

    Where are those mod points when I need em.

    1. Re:MOD PARENT UP by darth_zeth · · Score: 4, Funny

      Where are those mod points when I need em

      you didn't use them to mod +1 funny to a soviet russia joke, did you?

      --
      "Nobody writes jokes in base 13." - Douglas Adams
  99. Am I asleep? by EaterOfDog · · Score: 0

    Am I awake? Have I been sleeping?

    --

    Crushing my karma one post at a time.
  100. Re:Why let truth get in the way of an anti-govt ra by prgrmr · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The rockets I use to launch used 'B' & 'C' engines, and when I got older the big 'D' engines. The rockets that that are being regulated ARE NOT MODEL ROCKETS.

    So what, in your opinion, constitutes a MODEL ROCKET?

    These people seem to have some interesting ideas, should you need some suggestions.

  101. Surprised no one said it... by Dr.+Descartes · · Score: 1

    OMG TEH TERRAR!

    Unfortunately, it probably will be hard for hobbyists to gain any sort popular sympathy. For every person with a degree of common sense there's two that believe that government initiatives such as these will help keep terrorists at bay...

    Further, it seems that some of the powers that be believe this stuff works. For me, that's alarming.

  102. Re:This has been a problem with pyrotechnicians to by afidel · · Score: 1

    It's MUCH worse than that. Due to new regulations in this same act the largest ~1/3rd of commercial shells are now illegal to produce! That means that for most American's this year will probably be the last fourth of July with really large displays until the country returns to some sense of sanity (probably never in my lifetime). All of this and there is zero chance it will actually stop a terrorist, Nichols and McVeigh built theirs from fuel oil and fertilizer for pete's sake. We live in a free country, let's do the things that might actually gain some safety for us and get rid of these stupid knee jerk reactions that make us less free (therefore accomplishing some small part of the terrorists goals).

    --
    There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
  103. Is this really so hard to fathom? by SensitiveMale · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Stop all the silly suggestions as if such a rocket will be used to "shoot down a plane".

    Is it really so hard to image that using "high-powered rockets, which can be 30 feet long and weigh hundreds of pounds -- with some flying more than 60 miles or reaching speeds over 1,000 miles per hour" can be used as a weapon?

    Someone rolls up 15 miles outside of DC, fires a salvo of these rockets with 10 lb. of explosive on each and disappears before the first one even hits?

    Sure, they won't do much damage but that is the point of terrorism. Terrorism can't win a war by itself, it requires the other party to lose the will to fight.

    It amazes me that people think that building a rocket weighing "hundreds of pounds" or flying over 60 miles is "a hobby.

    The really interesting thing is that over 1/2 of the replies to this topic are simply knee jerk anti-Bush rants.

    If you can't see that a 30 ft rocket that can fly over 60 miles needs to have some type of regulation then I can't help you.

    1. Re:Is this really so hard to fathom? by cr0sh · · Score: 3, Interesting
      Have you ever been to a high-power rocket launching? These aren't "slap-together" missles. Many of these rockets take several 10's to hundreds of hours to put together - spending anywhere from $500.00 to several thousand per rocket is not unheard of. Many of the people involved are rocket scientists and engineers in their day jobs - others are involved in other highly technical disciplines, and got their rocketeering chops from flying their own stuff. These guys know how to build big and safe engines from simple sugar (so-called sucrose or candy loads). The people involved know each other as a group, and work out trading skills and such - this guy needs and engine built (candy fuel in a PVC or alluminum tube), so he trades that for his skill at machining a nozzle from graphite or alluminum on a lathe. The launch pads themselves use pieces of alluminum rail that is pretty expensive (most of it is 80/20 style extruded alluminum). Transport, setup, and takedown is a relatively long process. None of this is cheap - not the materials, not the rockets, not the knowledge.

      I can't imagine a quick salvo being built and fired off perfectly. During the launches I have seen, more than a few failed on the pad, many failed mid-flight. I have seen video of launches that exploded on the pad (without the help of explosive tips). Lastly, none of the rockets I saw went 60 miles - hell, none broke 20,000 feet, nor went out of the flying envelope secured for the days (pretty large volume, too).

      That isn't to say that these things couldn't have been made to be missles - but the expense and expertise required to do so is huge, so huge it hasn't happenned yet, despite high-powered model rocketry being around for well over a decade (and model/experimental rocketry being around for much, much longer).

      Finally, for the people that do this - it is a hobby. These are guys (most are grown adult men with maxed out credit cards or other funding) who instead of buying a motorcycle or a boat, build large and expensive rockets to fly and amaze their peers with. As a spectator, I have found it to be an incredible and exciting hobby. It tempts me to get involved in it - I just can't afford it (either monetarily or time-wise)...

      --
      Reason is the Path to God - Anon
    2. Re:Is this really so hard to fathom? by codegen · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It amazes me that people think that building a rocket weighing "hundreds of pounds" or flying over 60 miles is "a hobby.

      <sarcasm>
      It amazes me that people think that writing your own operating system is "a hobby".
      </sarcasm>

      What about mountain climbing? What about amateur astronomers that make their own 30 to 40" telscopes including computerized tracking systems accurate to less than 1/2 arc second? What about amateur robotics?

      Now it may be the case that there needs to be some type of regulations for serious hobbies, but there is such a thing as overkill.

      --
      Atlas stands on the earth and carries the celestial sphere on his shoulders.
    3. Re:Is this really so hard to fathom? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Someone rolls up 15 miles outside of DC, fires a salvo of these rockets with 10 lb. of explosive on each and disappears before the first one even hits?

      Anyone can invent a fearful scenario: A 747 full of pasengers and fuel, parked at the gate waiting for, what, 20 or 30 minutes for everyone to settle down and the last passengers to make it on board is a pretty static, and explosive, target. Hit the wing with a small charge delivered by a rocket or plane and kaboom! It's a bad day at the airport all around.

      The government is trying to scare us into giving up all our freedoms. Convince us that the enemy is all around us. Everywhere. And can strike at any time. We'll willingly give up our freedoms so the government can protect us. Because we want to live. That's 1984.

      War on Terror? Please. Who, specifically, are we fighting again? It's like the war on drugs. Spend lots of money. No discernable targets. Lots of media. No actual change.

      Shortly after 9/11 there was an add on TV. The add said, "The terrorists thought they would change America"... then you see a street were every house has an American flag flying. The text says, "They were right".

      The intent of the add is to show how the terrorists somehow failed because the country united.

      Actually the terrorists succeeded because we're living in fear and giving up the very freedoms that make this country great.

      You can't fight terrorism by repressing your own people. You can't fight terrorism by bombing foreign lands. Other parts of the world have lived with terrorism for years without freaking out. The key bit there is "lived with". You begin by understanding that there's no "win", there is only dialog and patience and change.

      How can you ban an extreme hobby, that has never been used to murder, and keep guns. That's just going after the easy political victories. Look at what we've done to make you safer.

      End of rant.

    4. Re:Is this really so hard to fathom? by SensitiveMale · · Score: 1

      The government is trying to scare us into giving up all our freedoms. Convince us that the enemy is all around us. Everywhere. And can strike at any time. We'll willingly give up our freedoms so the government can protect us. Because we want to live. That's 1984.

      There is a little bit of difference between regulating 30 foot rockets that can fly 60 miles and searching people at the airport.

      Always amazes me that people are now complaining about "losing freedoms" yet those same people are always wailing for stricter "gun control" laws.

    5. Re:Is this really so hard to fathom? by Pvt_Waldo · · Score: 1

      Basically a quick look at current events shows that the Qassam rocket is being used in the middle east with some terroristic success against Israel. So basically, the hell with your "experience" :^)

      They aren't that accurate - they don't have to be. Just point one at a big city and you'll hit something. They aren't pretty, they don't have decals, they don't have spiffy high tech components - they don't need them.
      Info on Hamas Qassam rocket

      CNN info page on the Qassam rocket

    6. Re:Is this really so hard to fathom? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Always amazes me that people are now complaining about "losing freedoms" yet those same people are always wailing for stricter "gun control" laws

      All that and the only thing you picked up on was the gun mention in the last line.

      Sigh...

    7. Re:Is this really so hard to fathom? by kps · · Score: 1
      War on Terror? Please. Who, specifically, are we fighting again?
      Militant Islam. Unfortunately, political correctness prevents our governments saying so, hence the pretense that "a terrorist could be anyone" leading to restrictions and regulations like these.
      Other parts of the world have lived with terrorism for years without freaking out. The key bit there is "lived with". You begin by understanding that there's no "win"...
      Wrong. The Germans aren't bombing London or massacring civilians any more. The Japanese aren't bombing Hawaii or massacring civilians any more.
    8. Re:Is this really so hard to fathom? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Someone rolls up 15 miles outside of DC, fires a salvo of these rockets with 10 lb. of explosive on each and disappears before the first one even hits?"

      Wouldn't you say that the 10lb of explosives per rocket were the problem, rather than the rockets themselves? Just ignore the "ability to obtain explosives" question behind the curtain...

    9. Re:Is this really so hard to fathom? by loraksus · · Score: 1

      but wait, they already have regulations. . .
      aww, fuck it, you'll probably be in denial anyways, so I'm not going to continue.

      --
      1q2w3e4r5t6y7u8i9o0pqawsedrftgthyjukilo;p'azsxdcfv gbhnjmk,l.;/
  104. Missle Defense Shield by mbowles · · Score: 2, Funny

    Wouldn't DoD's missle defense shield protect us against the threat of INBMs (Inter-Neighborhood Ballistic Missles)?

  105. LOL - I can still buy fireworks at CraZy L00iE's by salesgeek · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Why the government even tries is beyond me. Amateur rocketry, which is safe, fun, educational and produces the rocket scientists of tommorow is now regulated.

    but I can still stop by my local roadside fireworks/adult bookstore/stuckey's and buy as much stuff that goes boom, crackle and sizzle for two for the price of one... all I have to do is join the Fireworks PAC...

    Governement idiots.

    --
    -- $G
  106. Where does incompetence cross over to malice? by ianscot · · Score: 4, Interesting
    those regulations may have had unintended (or disregarded) side effects, but you're going way out of your way to justify an assumption of maliciousness here.

    I'd agree with you... if I hadn't spent nine months after 9/11 arguing with my friends that we should too give Bush a chance, that the unintended consequences weren't the result of malicious intent.

    I finally gave up the argument during the mid-term elections. Mostly it was the "poison pill" restriction of civil rights for people within the Dept. of Homeland Security. That was nothing, nothing but a low tactic, and it was one they had to go out of their way to carry out. No unintended consequences there. They knew who they were choosing to screw, and that they were doing it to paint guys like Max Cleland as unpatriotic to win their elections.

    Look up. You have a President whose administration has argued a)that we're fighting a war whose beginning and end can only be declared by him; and b)that he's got all-but-dictatorial power when we're at war. Sometimes, he grants, he chooses not to exercise that power -- but he says he has it, and puts his signature by that. His legal advisors are set to work justifying that position.

    Arbitrary power has arbitrary consequences -- to wit, this example. The cracking end of that whip happens in places like Abu Graib.

    I'll judge us by how we correct the unintended consequences, not by how well we rationalize them. And I don't see one shred of effort by those in power right now to do anything but bury stories they think are unfavorable to their staying in power. Bush will try to paint Kerry as a raving lunatic for wanting to restrict the Patriot Act in libraries. He'd do the same if Kerry talked about model rocket hobbyists. There's nothing unintentional about those choices, either. They know what they're doing.

    --
    "Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
    1. Re:Where does incompetence cross over to malice? by dangermouse · · Score: 1
      I'd agree with you... if I hadn't spent nine months after 9/11 arguing with my friends that we should too give Bush a chance, that the unintended consequences weren't the result of malicious intent.

      Yes, let's now assume that I'm a Bush administration apologist.

      I voted against that right-wing braindamaged jackass the first time around, and I'm going to do it again. I'm not interested in "giving him a chance". But if there's anything the Bush administration is not, it's masterminds. If you really think they've hatched a Machiavellian plot to discredit John Kerry through overregulation of model rocketry, you need your head examined.

    2. Re:Where does incompetence cross over to malice? by nyseal · · Score: 1

      And when has a politician in ANY generation not tried to paint a scenario like the one you describe in an 'anti-party' light? All politicians (not just American) do the same thing.

      --
      [SIG] Remember Mattel handheld games?
  107. doom3 by firstadopter.com · · Score: 1

    more power to john carmack so he can spend more time away from doom3 and the next gen engine.

  108. Their web site is hurting their bottom line. by kiddailey · · Score: 1


    What's affecting their bottom line is the unbelieably poorly designed website.

    Ugh. Crappy use of Flash aside, the interface and archtecture of that thing is aweful!

    1. Re:Their web site is hurting their bottom line. by martinX · · Score: 1

      I'm surprised no-one else has commented. The Estes site is the worst I have seen for a while.

      ESTES: PLEASE REDESIGN YOUR SITE.

      --
      When they came for the communists, I said "He's next door. Take him away. Goddam commies."
  109. OT:Rocketry turns kids into terrorists by The+Good+Reverend · · Score: 1

    He's in socal now? I had him as a professor at UC Santa Cruz in 2000, he had been teaching there one quarter per year. I was under the impression he still lived in MA, even though he wasn't teaching at UCSC anymore.

    Great guy, great songs, and an awesome math teacher.

  110. Re:This has been a problem with pyrotechnicians to by smurd · · Score: 1

    The only thing new in regulations since the bombing and 9/11 is an "Employee Possesser" questionare that needs to be on file with the display company.

    You seem to be referencing a "user limited permit" The timelimit you reference is 24 hours WITHOUT an approved explosives magazine to store it. They also require a CDL with hazmat since any quanity of class B (professional display shells) have to be placarded.

    There have always been "a lot of permits to be filled out" (That's why there is usually a firetruck and ambulance there). Most of the issues revolve around insurance, 1e6 is generally the minimum that most municipalities want, and it is slowly increasing. I somehow doubt that is a result of terrorism or any other political issue, probably just the result of judjements.

    You can see the actual forms for yourself at the ATF website

  111. Fear-based governing by blair1q · · Score: 1

    The people currently in charge think that knowledge is dangerous, so they seek to keep people from obtaining it.

    If they only learned that making people appreciate what you're doing makes them not hate you, then they'll find a way to live in peace in a world where an ounce of chemicals can kill millions.

    1. Re:Fear-based governing by Oswald · · Score: 1
      ...making people appreciate what you're doing makes them not hate you

      Completely without malice or rancor, I tell you: this doesn't always work. There will always be people who hate you, if not personally, then as part of a group that you may or may not have ever volunteered to join (like, for instance your race or you gender or your nationality). This is going to become a very interesting world to live in, I'm afraid, because hate can only be minimized, not eliminated, and bullshit laws like the ones we're discussing don't work worth a damn, and the weapons just get smaller and more effective.

    2. Re:Fear-based governing by blair1q · · Score: 1

      Sure. Acceptance is sigmoidally[1] related to effectiveness.

      You'll never get 100% effectiveness of a policy, but below a certain acceptance level you'll get almost no effectiveness, and above a slightly higher acceptance level you'll get almost total effectiveness.

      Working to decrease acceptance is the opposite of political effectiveness; and the people working the system now are working against themselves, and getting us killed in the process. So they try to prevent us from knowing how to kill, as though that will prevent others from killing us.

      If a model rocket was a Glock, this wouldn't just be a story on a corner of /.

      [1] Like this sigmoid with translation and scaling to fit in the box from (0,0) to (1,1).

  112. You ARE crazy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now say you love Big Brother.

  113. Water rockets = non-explosive (sort of) by SeanDuggan · · Score: 1

    Try water rockets. Yes, it's basically air pressure. Admittedly, they can explode, but the risk is a bit less and I don't think the ATF has caught on to them yet.

    --
    This sig has absolutely no significance and serves only to take up screen space and waste the time of the reader.
    1. Re:Water rockets = non-explosive (sort of) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Fun fact of the day -- compressed gas can store lots of energy, and deposit said energy all over nearby structures *very* quickly.

      IIRC, a scuba tank stores more energy than its weight in chemical explosives.

  114. Kerosene and nitric acid by mangu · · Score: 2, Informative

    I think that's the cheapest fuel + oxidizer combination. The problem is that liquid fuel is harder to handle, need pumps, injectors, etc. Perhaps the easiest would be to make your own nitrocellulose (cotton, nitric acid, sulfuric acid), and dissolve in acetone and mix with some filler (would sawdust work?) to make it burn slower.

    1. Re:Kerosene and nitric acid by kfg · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You have just posited becoming a manufacturer of solid fuel rocket engines/explosives and would be subject to all the laws pertaining thereto, or a criminal if you ignored them.

      They weren't so silly as to leave a loophole that would just allow us to take care of our own percieved needs.

      However, your post is a good example of why the law is pretty silly. It only really restricts legitimate use. Terrorists will simply ignore the law, as that is what terrorists do. They'll make their own or just steal what they want.

      None of these "anti-terrorist" laws restrict terrorists. They just keep your grandmother from being able to crochet while she's on a long flight.

      KFG

  115. Actually..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I've seen the single best reason for this.

    See, an associate of an associate, I won't name names, built rockets with me and my father. He thought it would be cool to build a really big one. So he did. And launched it. Now, we had a nice big field, but it was only a mile from a big highway. This isn't a problem with those cheap Estes things, but this was a missile. And there was a good wind that day.

    Long story short, he nearly took out a Coca Cola bottling plant.

    Can't be used for terrorism my ass. Though I wouldn't be worried, as giant rockets are really hard to sneak in and out of anywhere. You too can learn this if you try to drive around with a 6 foot model rocket in your car.

    ~Anonymous and Cowardly

  116. As Iraq is showing us... by syukton · · Score: 3, Interesting

    As Iraq is showing us, anyone can make an IED, and they don't need rocket engines to do it. With the recent success of SpaceShipOne, I'm sure I'm not the only one wondering what kind of power old tires and laughing gas can provide when they fall into the wrong hands.

    Hey wait, can we hit two birds with one stone and sell the ingredients and instructions on mixing rubber particles and N2O to MAKE model rocket engines, thereby skirting the legal restriction? hmmm. Like a website where you can order both ingredients and a reusable mixing chamber + exhaust for them to combust within. It might make model rocketry a little more complicated (hey, this isn't rocket science! oh, wait..) but all things considered, I'm curious what kind of altitude a model rocket can achieve with a propulsion system similar to SpaceShipOne's.

    --
    Reinvent the wheel only at either a lower cost, greater effectiveness, or your own personal enrichment and satisfaction.
    1. Re:As Iraq is showing us... by NerveGas · · Score: 1

      Hey wait, can we hit two birds with one stone and sell the ingredients and instructions on mixing rubber particles and N2O to MAKE model rocket engines, thereby skirting the legal restriction? hmmm. Like a website where you can order both ingredients and a reusable mixing chamber + exhaust for them to combust within

      Of course you can. N2O rocket motors aren't uncommon. They require a higher initial outlay for the N20 tank and the charging equipment, but once that's done, they're cheap and easy. In the N2O combustion chamber, just about anything works as fuel - a lot of the "fuel" used in them is nothing more than a plastic rod.

      steve

      --
      Oh, you're not stuck, you're just unable to let go of the onion rings.
    2. Re:As Iraq is showing us... by syukton · · Score: 1

      Got links? pages with diagrams and such? I've got a lot of spare time and a few old tires I could grind into powder.

      --
      Reinvent the wheel only at either a lower cost, greater effectiveness, or your own personal enrichment and satisfaction.
    3. Re:As Iraq is showing us... by NerveGas · · Score: 1


      I haven't looked around for making your own, but Hypertek makes a whole line of N2O motors:

      http://www.magnumrockets.com/hypertek.html

      There are also some mailing lists just for "experimental" rocketry (meaning anything that's made yourself). Google for "experimental rocketry", and you'll get a whole slew.

      steve

      --
      Oh, you're not stuck, you're just unable to let go of the onion rings.
  117. Re:This has been a problem with pyrotechnicians to by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All of this and there is zero chance it will actually stop a terrorist, Nichols and McVeigh built theirs from fuel oil and fertilizer for pete's sake.

    Don't worry, sooner or later there will be laws regulating how much fertilizer you can buy, too. It might take another terrorist attack with an ANFO bomb here in the U.S., but it will happen-- eventually pretty much anything that "could" be used to kill will be more strictly regulated than guns, which have no other purpose but to kill.

  118. It's not the rocket, Its the explosive fuel by HighOrbit · · Score: 1
    From the Article
    "To store at a house, you need to get additional storage permission, and for me, since I live in a residential area, it's basically impossible," Ebert said. "You have to get local fire marshal approval. The fire marshal's not going to give you permission to store explosives."
    Do you want your neighbor storing explosives next door?
    1. Re:It's not the rocket, Its the explosive fuel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not particularly. However, as others have noted, this fuel is not explosive.

    2. Re:It's not the rocket, Its the explosive fuel by cr0sh · · Score: 1
      Does he store gasoline? Does he store flour (flour dust is highly "explosive")? Does he store pool acid (which, along with alluminum, well...)?

      Hell if he owns an automobile he has a ton of explosive potential at his house (big gas tank full of gasoline, plus that potential energy storage "tank" we call a battery - oh, which also vents hydrogen and other flammable gasses)...

      Storage of explosives at home is a strawman argument...

      --
      Reason is the Path to God - Anon
    3. Re:It's not the rocket, Its the explosive fuel by CommieOverlord · · Score: 1

      While flour dust might be "explosive" I don't believe that the 2 kilo bag of flour in my neighbour's pantry poses any risk to my safety or that of my house.

      A basement full of manufactured explosives (some of which may be big enough to launch a 30lb rocket 60miles) is probably a risk. I'd appreciate that a certified expert verifies that the conditions it is stored in my neighbour's basement is safe.

      If my neighbour can't get a permit then it's been deemed non-safe.

  119. The Outlaw balloons by jeephistorian · · Score: 1

    If that's the case, then balloons should be outlawed. Just tie a few together with the payload and a simple trigger and badda bing, handy dandy delivery method! Any rational person can come up with THOUSANDS of delivery methods!!

    Fritz

    ___________

    --
    Huh?
  120. Re:Doesn't affect most rocketeers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Actually it does affect more than just the 30 foot rockets. Any motor with more than 62.5 grams of propellant, is affected. An H motor, which is where the regulations start, can be used to launch a rocket up to around 5 pounds. That sized of a rocket isn't going to go very high on an H. The whole thing boils down to how the ATF is classing aluminum perchlorate. They class it as a low explosive, even though it can't explode. It just burns. Where they are regulating it is that you need a low explosive user permit to keep regulated motors. Try and get one of these and you will see where the problem is. The FAA already has plenty of regulations to handle rocketry. A rocket one to 3.3 pounds, needs 48 to 72 hours notice prior to launch. Anything over 3.3 pounds needs an approved waiver, and 30 to 45 days notice depending on where you look for the regulations.

    Tripoli # 09990

  121. Let's shoot ourselves in the foot... by mightymik2 · · Score: 1

    Wasn't it just last week that NASA said it has to collaborate with the private sector? OK...where are we going to get those people, India? We NEED hobbies like rocketry and model airplanes to train the next generation of scientists. If you belong to AMA, you can fly up to and including G size motors. There is a program called ARLISS that takes high school and university Coke (or beer) can sized payloads aloft on these bigger rockets being talked about in the wired article. There are your own personal goals, like going higher and faster, and there's the community of like minded individuals you can share beer with. Without this, we could become a 2nd class country ... we don't even spend enough on research and development anymore. and where do you think that hybred rocket engine in spaceshipone came from in the first place? From the model community, that's where.(google hypertek). Even Estes USED to make an E motor, and for a while made F motors as well. Take anything you read on the Estes site with a big grain of salt. Let's outlaw those model jet motors too, after all, thise could be used to make pilotless drones. How about outlawing trucks and cars, those can be made into bombs too. People overseas do it every day. Cracking down on your own citizens is NOT what is needed here.

  122. Offtopic by NoMoreNicksLeft · · Score: 1

    We need an X-Prize like contest for model rocketry. Anyone capable of putting a mini-satellite that orbits the earth a few times would win it. Of course, with the way things are now, you'd have to ship it down to south america to not get in trouble...

  123. Outlaw cropduster airplanes by mangu · · Score: 1

    If you have anthrax aerosol (much harder to get than model rockets) that you want to disperse over some area, then get a crop duster. That's an airplane *designed* by professional engineers to spray aerosols precisely over a chosen area. Why risk something going wrong with a jury-rigged contraption when you can easily rent a machine built for it?

  124. Voting not the only way to be involved in politics by KenSeymour · · Score: 1

    People often look at their vote as the only way to have their voices heard.

    Do not overlook these other ways:

    1) write/email/phone your representatives
    2) donate money to candidates/PACS/NGOs
    3) volunteer time for candidates/PACS/NGOs
    4) get involved in discussions with regular people

    If you have some money to spare, use 2. If you have time to spare, use 3.
    NGOs can take the government to court for not doing what they are supposed to.
    You can contribute time or money to that, if you feel strongly enough.

    In the eighties and nineties, the Replicans/conservatives got really organized doing all of these things.
    Now, the presidency of George W. Bush has stirred the Democrats/Progressives or Liberals (you pick) to do the same.

    If you really think that you can't make a difference, go ahead and sit on your ass and compain and you won't make a difference.

    Moneyed interests have always had a lot of influence. But maybe the fincial contributions of 1 wealthy equals the influence of 1000 outraged average people.
    But right now it can't be that hard to find 1000 outraged average people.

    --
    "We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them." -- Albert Einstein
  125. Re:Why let truth get in the way of an anti-govt ra by scharkalvin · · Score: 1

    So what, in your opinion, constitutes a MODEL ROCKET?

    A MODEL rocket is a scale or semi scale model of a real rocket. It is NOT a research vechile, does not carry a payload (some larger model rockets DO carry small cameras, or transmitters. Some hobbiest launch raw eggs to prove they can bring them back alive). Weight of the propellant is limited to 4oz or less, and the rockets at liftoff must weight less than 1lb. THAT is a MODEL rocket. Anything outside of those parameters
    is an AMATEUR rocket and falls under FAA regulations before it can legally fly. Past a new threshold, it now appears to fall under even more strict regulations regarding explosives. Other than limitations on shipment, MODEL ROCKET engines do NOT fall under government regulations. These are the 1/4A through F engine sizes with less than 4oz of fuel. Such engines can still power a well designed rocket past the speed of sound and to altitudes of several thousand feet. (far enough away to loose it!)

  126. same old stuff by lee+n.+field · · Score: 1

    Gun owners have been putting up with this ATF crap for generations.

  127. Silly Hysteria by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    '"If we're in an environment where the government says you've got to get fingerprinted and background checked, and spend three to four months to do it, (adults are) not going to participate in my hobby,"
    How silly! Seattle required me to get fingerprinted and have a full FBI background check before issuing an emergency worker's pass that would get me through checkpoints in a terrorism incident. That makes perfect sense. If I were a terrorist, that card could let me slip away from the scene of a crime or create havoc at an emergency command center.

    All this requirement means is that someone, perhaps the local police, would come to a club meeting, check IDs and take fingerprints. That'd take about half an hour. Then the club members simply need to wait a few weeks to a few months until the FBI runs the check. They're not going to be poking through your garbage or peeking in your bedroom window.

    Some of you have need to get a life, watch a few less weird movies, and stay away from paranoid websites. The shrill left, in particular, seems to be getting as nutty as the John Birchers were in the 1950s. Don't become one of them.

    --Mike Perry, Inkling blog , Seattle

  128. Total safety and security are a myth by Cid+Highwind · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It amazes me that people think that building a rocket weighing "hundreds of pounds" or flying over 60 miles is "a hobby.

    Does it amaze you that some people think pistol shooting, motorcycle racing, skydiving, rock climbing, etc. are hobbies, too?

    It would probably amaze you even more to hear that many people don't don't want to live in a perfectly safe but utterly boring world, nor do they appreciate being restricted by people who think they can make that world a reality.

    --
    0 1 - just my two bits
    1. Re:Total safety and security are a myth by SensitiveMale · · Score: 1

      Does it amaze you that some people think pistol shooting, motorcycle racing, skydiving, rock climbing, etc. are hobbies, too?

      Umm, nope.

      It would probably amaze you even more to hear that many people don't don't want to live in a perfectly safe but utterly boring world, nor do they appreciate being restricted by people who think they can make that world a reality.

      Actually it wouldn't.

      But I don't consider storing explosives and building a 30 foot rocket that can travel 60 miles to be the equivalent of "rock climbing" or "skydiving".

    2. Re:Total safety and security are a myth by Cid+Highwind · · Score: 3, Insightful

      But I don't consider storing explosives and building a 30 foot rocket that can travel 60 miles to be the equivalent of "rock climbing" or "skydiving".

      High-power rocketry may have a higher level of hazard to bystanders, but it's probably less useful in terrorism than knowing how to shoot and drive fast. A stolen car can deliver a much bigger warhead much more accurately than a homemade rocket. The rocket builders are being singled out because they are a small enough group to regulate without causing an uproar, not because their rockets are especially useful to terrorists.

      Back to what I was trying to say in my previous post, making society absolutely safe and secure is impossible. Every increase in security and safety comes with an equal and opposite loss of convenience and freedom. Our elected leaders will never say anything about that, presidents and congresspeople don't get re-elected by telling the voters they can't be safe. So, the BATFE is under a lot of pressure from political leaders pushing this "myth of security" to do something about terrorism and this is apparently the best they could come up with.

      --
      0 1 - just my two bits
    3. Re:Total safety and security are a myth by SensitiveMale · · Score: 1

      The rocket builders are being singled out because they are a small enough group to regulate without causing an uproar

      You don't really believe that do you?

      Really?

    4. Re:Total safety and security are a myth by Cid+Highwind · · Score: 1

      Was there supposed to be a point somewhere in that post?

      --
      0 1 - just my two bits
    5. Re:Total safety and security are a myth by winwar · · Score: 1

      Look, I don't want to believe this, but why else would they be regulated heavily?

      They may not be regulated BECAUSE they are a small group whose regulation may not cause much uproar. But it sure makes it easy to do and show someone (your superiors?, the public?) that you are DOING SOMETHING.

      These rockets have no real security risk. They were already regulated. Two things that are more dangerous: rental trucks filled with homemade explosives and pipe bombs made with black powder.

      Do you need a background check and to be fingerprinted to by diesel fuel, fertilizer and black powder? Nope.

      Which items have killed/maimed/harmed more people? Gee, I wonder...

      Which would cause an uproar if heavily regulated? BINGO.

      The government does stuff all the time that does not increase safety, actually decreases safety, in the name of keeping us safer. This is one of them (most airline "security" is another). It is a waste of limited resources. After a while I have a hard time believing that it is purely stupidity-I have to believe there is some malice in there somewhere-where I don't know.

      Because if it is ALL stupidity, then the human race is doomed.

  129. Govt regs by bigredmed · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Why aren't the anti govt red tape repulicans getting after this? First its the Internet over Powerlines that will screw up HF radio and now this. If you can't practice, you can't get good, and when show time comes, you won't be ready. If we ruin HF radio, then when the hurricane comes and HF is all that gets out of Miami, don't be knocking on my door whining about the lack of comm from the disaster zone as I won't be investing in HF. When we look at our engineering schools and see them half full of non-resident aliens on J-1 visas, and we wonder why little Timmy and little Johnny don't grow up to be engineers, we look back at the bubble wrapped world they grew up in and we see why. No challenges, no opportunities for growth, no chance to see something they think is really cool and start thinking about doing it for a living. These regs and the mindsets that set these regs need to be dealt with. If the govt really wants to deal with model rocketry, a better way to do it is to co-opt it. Think about how many military bases there are, add the Natl Guard, and the Coast Guard and there are a ton of people around this country that the govt could use to "host" or "sponsor" these groups. The "host" would be able to keep tabs on the members of the group and would be able to get the group surplus goodies to make cooler rockets. The kids would care less that the govt was in effect spying on them and the adults wouldn't have to go through the hassles of getting finger prints and security screens just to buy and Estes engine.

    1. Re:Govt regs by [cx] · · Score: 0

      Yeah but just because the government won't let people do it officially, doesn't mean people won't do it. Everyone breaks the law every day in some insignificant or significant way. I think it is funny how they are stripping American children away from rocketry and telling them it's a thing a terrorist would do. If terrorists wanted to, they would start a rocketry club and would not give two shits that it wasn't legal, they are TERRORISTS. These laws are to prevent US citizens from playing with rockets, it has nothing to do with terrorism.

      If a terrorist wanted to fire a rocket coated in anthrax through downtown New York for instance, I'm sure he wouldn't go "Dammit, if they hadn't passed that law about illegal model rocketry I would have done it for sure".

      I am sick of seeing the USA government gamble away it's future and the future of their next generation to appease the oil cabinet of the present. It's time for a change, not just because of this, but because these kinds of policies won't go away any time soon. I'm glad election is this year.

      But it sucks for the kids and rocket enthusiasts, sure Bush is talking about going to Mars and going to the Moon again, then he strips the country of model rocketry almost saying "Sure we can go there, but don't ever hope any of you can."

      Any kid that was interested in space will have to test out rocket simulations as opposed to real physical experiments. Which is a shame for NASA and every young wannabe astronaut/rocket scientist.

      [cx]

  130. definition of 'model', 'large', 'High Power', etc. by cwg_at_opc · · Score: 1
    I used to be certified to fly "H" motors way before 9/11, and the testing procedures were minimal then.
    Over the past few years(6-7ish?) the regs have gotten tighter because even without 9/11 happening
    you can have serious accidents if you're not trained, careful and follow safe procedures.
    Recently, you needed a LEUP and a class 3 pyrotechnics licence and a BATF approved storage
    facility to store more than a certain amount of propellants(I forget how much.) As mentioned before,
    it is hard enough to get any decent sized hobby rocket to get off the ground without any problems let
    alone have it be guided to an airborne target. The worst a terrorist could do with a hobby rocket is
    try to ballistcally drop something on a target and even then, without any guidance there are no guarantees
    it'll go where you want it.

    Here's a link to the Rocketry FAQ on rocketryonline.com, and a quick paragraph from it:

    1.1 What, exactly, is a 'model rocket' versus a 'high power' rocket? Where do liquid fueled and
    homemade rocket motors fit in? What about amateur rockets?

    'Model', 'high power', 'advanced', and 'amateur' are all terms which have many definitions, depending
    to whom you are speaking. In r.m.r., and in the FAQ documents, the definitions (if any) accepted by the NFPA,
    National Association of Rocketry, and Tripoli High Power Rocketry Association are used. If these
    definitions conflict the NAR definition is used.

    'Model rockets' are rockets that conform to the guidelines and restrictions defined in the NFPA 1122 document. These rockets weigh less than 1500 grams, contain less than 125 grams of total fuel, have no motor with more than 62.5 grams of fuel or more than 160 NS of total impulse, use only pre-manufactured, solid propellant motors, and do not use metal body tubes, nose cones or fins. One inconsistancy with this is the CPSC definition of a model rocket motor, which by their definition must contain no more than 80NS total impulse. NFPA document 1127-94 contains the most complete definition of a model rocket and the model rocket safety code. This is the same safety code as adopted by the NAR.

    'Large Model Rockets' is a term used in the FAA FAR 101 regulations. It refers to NAR/NFPA model rockets that are between 454 and 1500 grams (1 to 3.3 pounds) total liftoff weight and contain more than 113 grams but less than 125 grams of total fuel.

    'High power rockets' are rockets that exceed the total weight, total propellant or single motor total impulse restrictions of model rockets, but otherwise conform to the same guidelines for construction materials and pre-manufactured, commericially made rocket motors. High power rockets also allow the use of metal structural components where such a material is necessary to insure structural integrity of the rocket. High power rockets have no total weight limits, but do have a single motor limit of no more than O power (40,960NS maximum total impulse) and have a total power limitation of 81,920NS total impulse. NFPA document 1127-1985 contains the most complete definition of a high power rocket and also the high power rocketry safety code. This safety code has been adopted by both the NAR and TRA. Metal bodied rockets are allowed by NFPA 1127 where metal is required to insure structural integrity of the rocket over all of its anticipated flight.

    'Amateur' rockets covers all other non-professional rockets that do not meet the criteria for model or high power rockets. This includes metal bodied rockets, liquid or hybrid fueled rockets, and rockets with any type of homemade rocket motor.

    'Experimental' rockets is an ambiguous term. In the early 1980's it was used (reportedly coined by the magazine 'California Rocketry') to describe rockets that exceeded the model rocket limit at that time (1 pound total liftoff weigh

    --
    "...that's as white as it gets; all the bits are on..."
  131. What?!?!?!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I really dont think it's because they think they will be used for terrorism, I think it's because they can be easily mistaken as a terrorist's weapon, and therefore should be outlawed.

    Sweet Jebus, what are you smoking?

    "This thing is not dangerous, but someone might think it's dangerous, so you're not allowed to have it"

    Yeah, great logic there.

    1. Re:What?!?!?!? by EvilSporkMan · · Score: 1

      Um, actually, some gun laws work like that. If you're carrying an otherwise legal gun out in the open and somebody goes "eek! he has a gun!", apparently you're guilty of brandishing a firearm in public.

      --
      -insert a witty something-
  132. One flaw in your argument... by Tassach · · Score: 3, Informative
    The chemicals used as model rocket propellants are not explosives. This is probably because THEY DON'T FUCKING EXPLODE. Just because the ATF wants to CALL them "explosives" does not magically alter the laws of physics.

    Model rocket propellants are much less dangerous than gasoline -- which, by the way, actually IS an explosive.

    --
    Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
    1. Re:One flaw in your argument... by DunbarTheInept · · Score: 3, Informative

      The fuel in a solid model rocket engine burns quickly and expands fast. So does Gasoline. Whether they are "explosives" or not is entirely a function of what kind of container you try to contain that expansion in. Allow the quick expansion to be released in a controlled manner, either out the rocket exhaust hole, or by moving a piston head, and it's a propellant. Try to contain the expansion until it bursts, and it's an explosive.

      An explosive is nothing more than a thing that burns so fast that
      it can expand quickly.

      Not that this excuses the stupid legislation, mind you. It just means that the difference between, say, a rocket engine and a steam engine is just a matter of degree, rather than of type. Both can explode if used improperly.

      --

      Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

    2. Re:One flaw in your argument... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      No. There are technical definitions for explosives and combustibles. Combustion, which is what a rocket does, has a flame rate of 10 feet per second or slower. Detonation, which is what an explosive does, is defined as supersonic flame travel.

    3. Re:One flaw in your argument... by loraksus · · Score: 1

      wrap one in a dozen layers of duct tape, stomp on it a bit and you got yourself an explosive (electronically fired too)

      --
      1q2w3e4r5t6y7u8i9o0pqawsedrftgthyjukilo;p'azsxdcfv gbhnjmk,l.;/
    4. Re:One flaw in your argument... by DunbarTheInept · · Score: 1


      Detonation, which is what an explosive does, is defined as supersonic flame travel.

      The post in question, with which I took exception, called gasoline an explosive. It was clearly therefore NOT using that definition of "explosive", since gasoline vapors catching fire do not do so at supersonic speed. It's fast, I'll grant that, but not that fast.

      --

      Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

    5. Re:One flaw in your argument... by Kindaian · · Score: 1

      Not exactly...

      As a previous post stated, an explosive is so by it's speed of burn. It has nothing to do with where it is contained at all. It's a physical property of the material.

      Cheers...

  133. They outlawed model rocketry?????? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh yeah I feel safer already!!!!

  134. Amen! by isotope23 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I hate the way the government has perverted the interstate commerce clause. To my mind that has been the biggest erosion of rights this country has ever had. Anyone with a modicum of intelligence should be able to understand the intent of the clause, "to regulate commerce between the states". Now it has become a catch-all for any federal law, and a judicial test is no longer required.

    --
    Service guarantees Citizenship! Questions Guarantee GITMO.... Amerika Uber Alles!
    1. Re:Amen! by Mycroft_VIII · · Score: 1

      No kidding, I remember reading about a man arrested for growing several hundred marijuana plants in California.
      The problem is he was growing it with a license to do so from the State of California under thier medical marijuana law and was in full compliance with said law. None was leaving the state or being used by other than citizens of the state.
      He was tried and convicted in federal court under the federal statutes and was not allowed to introduce the fact of his autorization from the state to do what he was doing.
      After convicting him the jury found out this little detail and to a member signed a petition claiming that they had essentialy been duped into a false verdict.
      Now since everything took place within california, and according to it's laws. HOW the HELL does the federal gvt thing they have ANY jurisdiction.

      Mycroft

      --
      https://signup.leagueoflegends.com/?ref=4c3ed6600b6ea
  135. Fond memories by DaveJay · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Once upon a time, in grade school, we made model rockets, spread all the students over the very large land area surrounding the school, and shot off the rockets one by one (with the scattered kids doing their best to catch the rockets as they parachuted down so that they wouldn't hit the ground and get damaged.)

    My rocket went up, but never came back down, at least that we could tell. I was disappointed to lose the rocket, but all the "cool" kids were trying to get their rocket to go the highest, so my disappearing rocket was a celebrity.

    Now, at the time, my parent's house was a block from the school. YEARS later, a neighbor across the street (about a block and a half away from the school) was cleaning his gutters, and found a rocket. He gave it to my mother, in case I wanted to "play around with it". Sure enough, it was MY rocket from that day in eigth grade.

    Anyway, just relating a fond memory of rocketry hijinks. And, for what it's worth, I never blew anything up, never hurt myself or others, and didn't develop into a pyromaniac.

    Yet.

    (Mwahahahha)

  136. If you don't vote Libertarian, you ASKED FOR THIS by Bob_Robertson · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Keep in mind that Rutan had to ask PERMISSION before he could fly high this week, too.

    Regulations crush innovation. Both sides of the Party of State Power just LOVE regulating everything you do. So if you voted for anyone other than a Libertarian, you voted for someone who enjoys regulating your life.

    Bob-

    --
    The Ludwig von Mises Institute. The reasoning individuals economics
  137. Terrorism at its finest...? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    I seem to remember a scene in a movie where an RC car fitted with a bomb was used to explode a car.

    Imagine a truck with a trailer of some sort. This trailer has, in the floor, a trapdoor of some kind, ahead of or behind the axle. In the trailer are 1) A couple of "terrorists", 2) A supply of simple pipe-bombs, 3) A supply of cheap skateboards.

    One "terrorist" duct tapes a bomb to the skateboard, the other lights it and places it, through the trapdoor, onto the road surface.

    All of this, going down the freeway...

  138. RE:Its ok by isotope23 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    "America's days as a viable nation are numbered"

    Congratulations, you are now considered a terrorist with these remarks. An unmarked van will shortly be coming to your home, to give you an all expenses paid vacation at a secure and undisclosed location. You will never have to work again. (At least until the "Arbeit macht frei" slogans appear at your re-education resort)

    --
    Service guarantees Citizenship! Questions Guarantee GITMO.... Amerika Uber Alles!
  139. If APCP was an explosive, I might agree with you by hlygrail · · Score: 1


    ... but since you can't make APCP *explode*, why is the government attempting to regulate it as an explosive? There is a fundamental difference between deflagration and explosion. Even the BATF tried to make a "training video" of the "dangers" of APCP by making it explode. I heard they couldn't do it, and even got one of their agents hurt when they tried to fake the explosion with a blasting cap...

    Amateur rocketry involves 95% science, 4% craftsmanship, and 1% fuel. For run-of-the-mill amateur rocketry, these reglations are pointless. Besides, it's easier to build a nitrous-based rocket anyway, and you can skip all the government BS.

  140. Then you better outlaw water by clone22 · · Score: 1

    Since it is pretty easy to electrolyze it into hydrogen and oxygen and use the hydrogen to lift a balloon over a populated area with [insert mode of destruction here].

    --
    Ask me about my vow of silence!
  141. Hunting?? by clone22 · · Score: 1

    Last time I checked, 2nd Amendment didn't mention hunting.

    --
    Ask me about my vow of silence!
    1. Re:Hunting?? by qtp · · Score: 1

      Last time I checked, 2nd Amendment didn't mention hunting.

      No, but popular sentiment does support hunting (and "plinking") in a signifigant (but not majority) portion of our country.

      A lot of "Liberals" (such as myself) recognise that, although handguns are used to commit crimes, they do have legitmate and non-violent/non-criminal uses that should be permitted. Overregulation of handgun ownership is akin to attempting to treat the symptoms (persons resorting to violence and using deadly force on their neighbors) without addressing the diseases that are causing them, such as the lack of quality education, poverty, few opportunities, inability or unpreparedness to deal reasonably with adverse situations, emulating the poor example presented by our leaders (such as going to war based on inadequate information and attacking a perceived and imagined threat because the real threat is immiterial and difficult to identify), etc.

      --
      Read, L
    2. Re:Hunting?? by clone22 · · Score: 1

      Hunting is made out to be a justification for gun ownership. This is wrong. The justification for gun ownership is the defense of Liberty.

      --
      Ask me about my vow of silence!
  142. Opinions from a rocket scientist by Ribald · · Score: 2, Informative

    To all the people saying that accuracy doesn't matter, or a guidance system could be created easily, let me throw in my impressions.

    For a terror weapon, no--accuracy doesn't matter all that much. The V2 rockets Germany fired into Britain, for example, could generally hit pretty close to London. Firing an unguided rocket into an urban area, however, would be a little trickier. First off, any solid-fueled rocket I've seen of decent size leaves a visible trail of smoke (at least the larger ones; amateur rocket guys--correct me if I'm wrong), so it's fairly easy to trace it back to its launch point (not that the launcher would necessarily care).

    Also, it would be pretty difficult to launch one of these from an urban area and not be noticed--you'll need a fairly large open field, especially if you're going for a longer range. Yeah, you could launch one straight up from your backyard, but it would come basically straight back down.

    Finally, as to guidance--good luck. Even the old V2 was gyro-stabilized, and it did well to hit inside the city it was aimed at. GPS won't do you any good at all. Sure, it will give you a decent position and groundspeed, but it's updated at most at a 1-Hz rate.

    To guide a missile, you need high-rate dynamic outputs (I'd say at least 100-Hz for a crude rocket), and good attitude (pitch/roll/yaw) outputs--GPS gives neither. You need an inertial navigation system, or at least an inertial attitude reference system, and those are very, very hard to make. I can think of three companies that sell these systems--two in the US, one in the UK, and I work for one of them (my opinions are my own, not my company's, etc.). They're on the State Department's Significant Military Technology List, which makes them hard to get, even if you've got the $50k-$200k to buy a nav-grade one.

    Sure, if you had space to launch one from, and had the math/engineering background necessary to stabilize the rocket, compute its ballistic trajectory (you can do a decent numerical integration of this in Excel, even accounting for decreasing mass and thrust effects pretty easily and quickly, BTW), and had calm (or at least known, steady) winds...

    Yeah, you could send a rocket with a small payload on a (pretty flat) trajectory for a few miles and probably manage to hit a (large) building or park-size area. But you're not going to shoot a rocket off at 80 from horizontal from 30 miles away and take out the president's car.

    And actually making it explode...that's a whole new matter! Not my field, but I think constructing a fuzing device capable of detonating the warhead in a proximity fashion is beyond the scope of your 'common' terrorist. Likewise, if you wait for the impact to set it off, anything easily constructed to accomplish that would likely be destroyed before it managed to initiate the detonation. Putting in an unstable explosive won't work, either--it would explode on take off (we're talking, what--upwards of 30g's?). That leaves you commanded detonation, so you have to be close enough to see the rocket and detonate it before it smashed into something and broke, which is tricky at those speeds.

    So basically, that leaves a short range rocket with a small payload that can't be too volatile, and is probably going to not blow up in the first place, or make a harmless fireball (and it's not heavy enough to make significant shrapnel). I'll admit, you could fill it with scary Chemical X, but I think the best you're going to accomplish is knocking out a window--like that kid who flew a Cessna into the Bank of America building in Tampa, taking out a few windows and half a cubicle.

    I don't fear terrorist rockets--it would be a lot simpler to take the money and rent a truck, and fill it with any nasty number of things. Any idiot can do that.

    But it's like with anything else. You want to stop people from doing things you don't want with computers? To the jail with them all. Don't want anyone to be able to make anything that might turn into a scary weapon? Throw all us engineers in there, too.

    --Ribald

  143. Stealing Military hardware is easier by gelfling · · Score: 1

    I'm sure their intentions in these rules are good but anyone who's going to build SRBMs in their own house probably has the money and connections to buy shoulder fired missiles. I'm sure for $50,000 you could find a Russian SA-18 Grouse with a HE warhead and a 5.2Km range.

    And in the end, propellants to build such a homebuilt SRBM are pretty tightly controlled.

    Low tech alternatives like Palestinian Katyushas (BM-21 based) are actually pretty ineffective even with a 20Km range.

  144. Re:Why let truth get in the way of an anti-govt ra by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I realize that commenting without reading the article is a badge of courage here but you gotta read the article sometime.

    Agreed. If you had done so and cited your quotation properly, you would see that those were the words of a justice department spokesman and use figures he pulled out of his ass to scare people. A pound of propellant won't drive the rocket of his scenario, but it's still subject to the regulation.

  145. On Other News . . . by Dausha · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I saw on the History channel that the Panama Canal would not be possible today due to the environmental groups and issues. Many of yesterday's engineering feats would be stymied today because of all the environmental litigation and resistance by environmental groups. Consider, as well, the rhetoric stating that our inability to improve our energy production (i.e., electricity power plants) over the past couple of decades is for similar reasons. Even 'clean' means of producing electricity has fallen into the angst of some groups (e.g. wind-generated electricity now bad because it kills birds).

    How is that any different than the issue we have at hand? The government is imposing regulations that are making a hobby more difficult, so people are leaving the hobby. I see this as a similar issue, so I don't see why we complain about one but not the other.

    --
    What those who want activist courts fear is rule by the people.
  146. Payload by gr8_phk · · Score: 1
    " Explosives aren't the only kind of payload that can be deployed with a rocket."

    And rockets aren't the only way to deploy those other payloads. I'd think they're actually a rather bothersome way to deploy anything - Low capacity and low accuracy. The big ones are rather conspicuous to launch too - you'd be identified or at least noticed.

    We need to not worry so much about what COULD be done. Or at least consider the cost/benefit to a terrorist vs other things they could do. You could cause damage/death/mayhem with all sorts of stuff.

  147. Imagine a... by StarfishOne · · Score: 1

    ah, nevermind :)

  148. Umm.... by NerveGas · · Score: 1, Informative


    Unless something has changed that I'm not aware of, you can buy a high-power rocket motor at a launch without any permit *if you use it at the launch*. Not the easiest way, but it does work.

    Contact your local high-power rocket club. In our area, one of the local vendors got their permits to sell motors, so you can show up at a launch, buy a motor, and fly. Again, not necessarily the easiest or best, but it does work.

    Or, you could just use the nitrous-oxide hybrids. No permits required. If your club fronts the money for the initial charging equipment, it's not a bad way to go.

    steve

    --
    Oh, you're not stuck, you're just unable to let go of the onion rings.
    1. Re:Umm.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      "Hi, I'll buy 200 high-power motors, please."

      Or a terrorist can get "the license" needed to buy those motors in resale quantities.

      Or just smuggle a shipload of big fireworks.

    2. Re:Umm.... by owendelong · · Score: 1

      Something has changed. The Safe Explosives act prohibits anyone with an
      LEDP (Low Explosives Dealier Permit) from selling to anyone who is not a cleared person or who does not posess an LEUP (Low Explosives User Permit)
      or LEDP.

      In fact, it generally prohibits anyone at all from placing any of thse things in the hands of anyone who isn't a cleared person listed on an appropriate permit. That's why you can't ship these things UPS any more. UPS doesn't want to have to get all their employees "cleared". It's massively expensive and unlikely all of them would get "cleared".

      So, no, you can not buy anything at a launch any more outside of the Easy Access (.9# or less propellant) category unless you have at least a LEUP.

  149. the Qassam rocket by khallow · · Score: 1
    For those claiming that experimental rockets can't be used for terrorism, there's the Qassam rocket manufactured by Hamas. The larger Qassam 2 has a range of 8 km and carries a payload of 9 kg. Here's more information on the rocket. It's fueled by sugar, oil, alcohol and fertilizer.

    Despite aggressive attacks by Israel on suspected Qassam manufacture workshops, they still have a supply of the rockets and launch them even now from the Gaza Strip. I won't claim to do a rigorous study of this, but here's my thoughts.

    Hamas more or less is the effective Palestinian-side government of the Gaza Strip. They were able to manufacture some number of these rockets under the noses of the Israeli army, which is backed with a great intelligence service. So here's some observations. First, Hamas is a "terrorist group" with unusually serious resources and manpower. Second, Hamas chose to make and launch their own rockets rather than solely use military surplus. Perhaps they can't smuggle in much of the weaponry they want, or they're hoarding what they have.

    Their workshops are vulnerable to Israeli raids and have been hit occasionally over the past few years (including recently due to the above attack). I thought earlier this year that perhaps the manufacture of these weapons had stopped (due to losses suffered from previous Israeli raids), but apparently that's not so. The requirements to manufacture these weapons seem very simple, namely a machine shop, explosives for the payload, and the fuel mixture above.

    The current Qassams aren't particularly effective. The missiles are very inaccurate and unguided. Their range and payload are quite limited. But Hamas does have a ranged weapon which appears to have some value in psychological warfare. Future generations of Qassam rockets may be more effective.

    The point here is that a group with sufficent resources should be able to manufacture a number of crude missiles without major investments, fancy technology, or purchases of equipment and chemicals that would draw law enforcement attention. Those missiles probably wouldn't be effective. However, in a similar fashion to missiles designed to damage ships, one could with a lot of experimentation devise a missile designed for penetrating and damaging hardened buildings.

    So I can see legitimate scary scenarios for rockets killing people in terrorist attacks. But I don't see how current restrictions will keep this sort of development from occuring. Valuable information and experience will be withheld from lawful citizens while the villians will still break the law. It's another case where we impose restrictions on all citizens because someone could hypothetically do something dangerous.

  150. Partisan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's it.
    Keep throwing stones at each other...
    -Mr. Burns-

  151. The Judge already ruled. by Gyver · · Score: 1

    Regardless, rocketeers are hoping they will have legal relief in the future. Groups like Bundick's NAR, as well as the Tripoli Rocketry Association, have filed a lawsuit against the ATF that seeks to limit the regulation. But that suit has been slow to progress.

    The Judge ruled on this case back in March.

    He ruled that: "Rocket motors don't fit the literal definition of a PAD (Propellant Actuated Device), and are not exempt from regulation. However, the BATFE was wrong in classifying them as non-compliant, because they didn't follow the rules in filing a NPRM first."

    This did give us temporary relief from regulation, but the ATF is already pushing through another NPRM. So it's just a matter of time.

    http://www.rocketryonline.com/Search/db_search.c gi ?setup_file=News&submit_search=yes&db_id=1 140

  152. CANADA IS NOT A FREE COUNTRY by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't fool yourself. The Canadian government has outlawed free speech during this election. In Canada you are not allowed to watch legally purchased US sattelite TV programs because they are deemed to be un-Canadian. Our political system is best described as a democratic dictatorship with the added bonus of having a state run propaganda station called the CBC. Every other channel is censored by an the central comittee known as the CRTC.

  153. Why the random Kettering link? by SagSaw · · Score: 1

    Ok this is a bit off topic, but I don't understand why the poster linked to Kettering's website. During my five years there (graduated March '04, so that includes time both before and after September 11, 2001), I was never aware of any type of rocket club or rocket related research. If there was such an organization, it probably died from lack of interest rather than new laws and regulations!

    --
    Come test your mettle in the world of Alter Aeon!
  154. Re:Palestinian terrorists use amateur rockets! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In the Israeli / Palestinian conflict, "amateur" rockets are being used to terrorize Iraelis. The US forseeing the possibility of a terrorist attack using "amateur" rockets decided to make fingerprinting and background checks a necessity. Its a little extreme but if a terrorist attack used an amateur rocket with a biological payload, you guys would be attacking Bush for NOT thinking of this.

    ~me

  155. This kind of thing happend in the 1940's-50's by infonick · · Score: 2, Insightful

    HUAC (House Un-American Activites Committy) was formed in 1937. It was created out of fear of communism, and accused thousands of innocent people of being radical communists. This in the end caused thousands of dollars in damage, not to mention the cost to run the committy, and the damage caused by people trying to stay out of their way (for example: literature and theater that seemed unamerican would not have been published or preformed).

    Fast forward to today

    Now, the US is scared of terrorists. The US now has tightened security on all fronts. Now, amateur rocket hobbyists are being targeted as terrorists because they have rockets. So this is how this is going to work: Thoughs who register will be under a microscope; thoughs who dont will be criminals; and terrorists will get off scott free.

    --

    You are confusing me with someone who cares.
  156. Model airplane hobbyists are concerned too by pm · · Score: 4, Informative

    There's been increasing regulation in the US in the area of model airplanes as well. The Dept. of Transportation and the FAA issued a notice N8700.25 in Oct. last year that regulated "Unmanned Aerospace Vehicles" (link here). Reading through this document a lot of model airplane hobbyists are becoming increasingly alarmed about goverment regulation of their (my) hobby. The notice specifically states that it does not affect model airplanes but then states that model airplanes are flown at an altitude of less than 400 feet - which, if you have been to any model airplane flying field is about 400 feet less than reality.

    If model airplanes that fly above 400 feet (which a high percentage of them) are no longer considered model airplanes, but are now UAV's, then they may fall under new regulations.

    There are plenty of threads on the RC websites where hobbyists are trying to figure out what to do to try to limit the impact of new regulations on their hobby. One good example is This one.

    1. Re:Model airplane hobbyists are concerned too by antispam_ben · · Score: 1

      With stories like this: "11-Pound Model Plane Vs. The Atlantic, Again" I bet they (government entities such as Homeland Security) are worried, and ISTR the thing flew at well under 400 feet the whole way.

      --
      Tag lost or not installed.
    2. Re:Model airplane hobbyists are concerned too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      So now we'll be safe from terrorist weapons developed by law-abiding citizens. We're safe from all the law-abiding terrorists.

      Well, we're safe from all the law-abiding terrorists living in the USA. Can we bomb all the rocket labs around the world now?

      As with the Hamas-manufactured rockets, all that's really hard to get is a good rocket motor, of which the hard part is the nozzle. There are several ways to make them, once the design is available. Anyone that goes in business making those illegally will quickly have law enforcement tracking them as with any smuggled good. Hard business to do alone.

      Model airplane weaponization development. Hah.

      It's already been observed that a full-sized single-engine aircraft can already fly just fine and can be easily weaponized.

      If someone really wants to use model airplane technology for a weapon too large for an off-the-shelf model, I'm sure they already thought of having the model plane tow a balloon-lifted bomb. (Banning hydrogen, helium, and methane are difficult...)

      Fighting terrorism is like fighting crime. Smash the large organized groups. There will always be isolated idiots.

      Just as when the US led the world in smashing the Barbary Coast pirates. Now there are no pirates with home countries which demand money from other countries to keep ships "safe". There are still many individual idiots, and some countries neglecting their duties. We can expect the neglectful countries to encounter difficulties, if nothing else loss of sovereignty of their waters and coastlines. (Hey, Indonesia: All you beaches are belong to us!)

  157. You Forgot The One That Protects Them All by rm3friskerFTN · · Score: 1
    (2nd) right of the people to keep and bear Arms

    Some say the Second Amendment Protects the First Amendment

    "Reichsminister Ashcroft"??? ... you may have violated Godwin's Law

    --

    I believe Juanita

    1. Re:You Forgot The One That Protects Them All by Mycroft_VIII · · Score: 1

      And the first amendment is how we know when to use the 2nd and encourage our neighbors to do likewise.
      I always found the relationship of the first two amendments a beautiful case of mutual recursion.

      Mycroft

      --
      https://signup.leagueoflegends.com/?ref=4c3ed6600b6ea
  158. define the rocket as a type of "gun" by peter303 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    And you'll have free license to use it as you wish. The workings of rockets and guns are fair similar.

  159. rocket hobbyists get blown away by regulation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Our Rocketry in not a hobby, for most of us die hard Rocketeers, it's our PASSION! We grew up with the space race. We live it and breath it. Heck, some of us even solve our engineering problems in our sleep while dreaming. You can find pictures and rocket parts of our successful flights as well as the unsuccessful one all over our homes. I've been building and flying rockets for 43 years, It's my Passion and my hobby. The space race is what got me into the science of building and flying rockets. The men who built and piloted Mercury, Atlas, Saturn and the Shuttle have always been our heroes. I, as a Die Hard Passionate Rocketeer, will never give up my Passion/Hobby to regulation. I will support any fight against anyone who wishes to regulate our educational and harmless hobby out of existence.

  160. Re:This has been a problem with pyrotechnicians to by keraneuology · · Score: 1

    There were also reports that some of the best, most experiences anti-avalanche techs at ski resorts have experienced difficulty. The guys who winter here and summer on the upside-down part of the globe (who are often Aussies or Kiwis) suddenly found that since they were not US residents/citizens they were no longer allowed to blast ski slopes safe because even the ski patrol suddenly needed several additional layers of federal clearance to use the same avalanche rockets they've been using for years.

    --
    If the g'vt kept the data on you that google does you'd better believe you'd be calling it "doing evil"
  161. Please reread the 10th by glrotate · · Score: 1

    Read it closely and you'll see your question doesn't make any sense.

  162. well, gee... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Take the cumbersome federal regulations that impact model rocket hobbyists, multiply these by 100 or so, and you'll start to approach the level of bullshit that firearms hobbyists must endure.

    Just remember, it's all for the children. It must be so, because the politician you elected into office said so.

    But don't worry. Just as soon as the Democrats control the government again, Schumer,C linton, Feinstein, Leahy, Kennedy, and the rest of the usual crowd will fix everything by banning all those evil semiautomatic assault rockets that cause all the trouble. They will give you a long list of rockets which you continue to build or buy, all with power limits to keep them from going more than 50 feet high.

    Sensible Rocket Control. Yup, that's we need.

    Remember, John Kerry likes rockets too, but only good rockets, not semiautomatic assault rockets. He even has a Buck Rogers secret decoder ring. He's one of you!!! Doesn't that make you want to vote for him!

  163. FUD -- And the reality of current regulation by owendelong · · Score: 5, Informative

    There is a lot of FUD out there on this subject. Some promulgated by the government, some by people who aren't fully aware of what is happening.

    Here is some data I hope folks will consider. This comes from my time as a hobby rocketeer and my knowledge of the current regulations.

    Rocket fuel is not an explosive. Multiple independent laboratories, including the New Hampshire State Police have tried to make APCP (standard solid rocket fuel) explode and have been unable to do so. It burns, and, it has it's own oxidizer, but, it does not explode.

    The BATFE and the UN have classified it as an explosive under a definition of the term which encompasses anything which burns and includes it's own oxidizer (can't be extinguished by smothering). As such, this definition would also cover road flares.

    Prior to the safe explosives act, I could buy rocket fuel, which, as others have pointed out is less dangerous (and less explosive) than gasoline or fertilizer and diesel in the form of pre-made motors and store it in my house without need for any federal permit. As a result of the regulations, I cannot store rocket motors in my house, and, I have had to get a federal permit which cost me $100, required me to submit an FBI fingerprint card to be kept on file by DOJ, sumit to a DOJ background check, virtually waive my 4th amendment rights (that's right, BATFE can inspect my house anytime they choose even though I have a non-storage permit), and, requires substantial record keeping for all motors I buy, store, expend, or sell.

    Used to be if I went to a launch and someone had a motor I needed and I had a motor they needed, we'd trade. Under the new regulations, he and I need to record returning it to a vendor who then sells them to us. We aren't allowed to trade or sell the motors to each other without an explosives dealer permit.

    The problem is the BATFE has no procedures for regulating hobbies. The regulations are all written to cover people that blow up buildings for a living or blast tunnels for railroads and the
    like.

    While most of us in the hobby don't think any regulation is warranted and that the hobbies own process of self regulation has demonstrated a long history of excellent safety, we are mainly objecting to the fact that these regulations are so overly burdensome that they are eliminating participants from the hobby.

    As to the memberships in NAR and TRA, yes, many people who used to fly rockets are continuing to pay their dues to these organizations to help them continue the fight against these unreasonable regulations. But, if you go to launches, you will see fewer flyers and fewer rockets being launched on less power. The regulations are putting a damper on the hobby. Vendors are feeling the crunch, including Aerotech. Yes, they're doing better now than immediately after the fire, but, they're nowhere near their pre-fire business levels.

    Finally, even without the federal regulations, there are requirements to gain access to high power motors. TRA and NAR both have procedures and checkouts required for people to attain certifications for various levels of motors. Up to a G motor, there are few limitations. H and I motors require a level 1 certification. J, K, and L motors are level 2 which requires not only building, flying, and successfully recovering a level 2 rocket, but, requires a written test on rocket regulations and safety procedures. To fly an M, N, or O motor requires a level 3 certification which involves significant review and substantial expense to achieve.

    Further, to launch rockets over a certain amount, one must first obtain permission from the FAA in the form of a waiver. The FAA will not grant a waiver to launch a 300 pound rocket downtown or next to the local airport. General public safety is adequately addrsesed by the regulations prior to the Safe Explosives Act.

    Another consequence of the SEA is that most shippers are no longer able to transport rocket motors (it would require them to get every

    1. Re:FUD -- And the reality of current regulation by bobbybigrockets · · Score: 1

      The 30 foot, 60 mile rocket that keeps getting referred to is beyond the scope of Tripoli Rocketry Association, which limits rocket motors to P impulse. Still, a honking big motor capable of launching a 20 pound rocket thousands of feet. As a long time TRA member, I will tell you that even among the hard core 'big motor dudes', few are suggesting that motors above a certain size not be regulated. TRA, and NAR have repeatedly tried to reach a compromise with the ATF on a reasonable weight limit for regulating rocket motors. The ATF has not ever responded to these requests. It doesn't seem to fit their model of how the ATF works. One of our main complaints is that currently you can purchase without storage requirements, a rocket motor containing up to 62.5 grams of ACPC. That's 2.2 oz or about the size of a 35mm film canister. If you're into black power guns or cannons, you can store of to 50 pounds of black powder under your bed without any storage requirements. I'd like to see a challenge where one person drops a lit match into a barrel of 50 pounds of black powder and the other person drops a lit match into a container with 63 grams or even 63 pounds of ACPC. I'd volunteer to do the ACPC match drop any day. Something is wrong here. If I want to buy a motor that has over 2.2 ounces of propellant, I need to get fingerprinted, pay for a permit, waive my right to unlawful search, and build of purchase a n explosives magazine. Big rocket motors should be regulated, but the 62.5 oz limit is ridiculous.

    2. Re:FUD -- And the reality of current regulation by owendelong · · Score: 1

      Actually, in the certified (store-bought) category, TRA limits motors to O (40,960 newton seconds max), with a limitation on rockets to a total installed impulse of P (81,920 newton seconds max). Rockets that go 60 miles are outside the scope of TRA and NAR because both TRA and NAR require that rockets be launched within 5 degrees of vertical. However, if you were to put an Aerotech O-2000 in a 30 foot long minimum diameter fiberglass or carbon fiber airframe, I'm betting you could get that to go 60 miles with appropriate aerodynamic design and a non-vertical launch. However, it wouldn't do so with any meaningful degree of accuracy, and, at that distance, you'd be lucky if it got within 15 miles of your "target". Heck, at most launches I've been to, there are always a few rockets that can't even get straight up right.

      I gree with you that truly large motors should be regulated, but, they aren't really regulated at this time. If you want a really large motor, you can build it yourself without any concern for the regulations (if you know enough to use a really large motor, the research necessary to build one probably isn't that much more effort), and, at the price of the commercial really large motors, the cost delta between buy and build isn't as big as it is on the smaller stuff.

      Another interesting artifact is that a gun enthusiast can purchase and store 50 pounds of black powder under his bed with no permit, and no magazine, but, if a rocketeer is caught with 2 pounds of black powder for ejection charges and no LEUP or magazine, he's got a serious problem with the BATFE.

      Bottom line, the BATFE rules are truly arbitrary and capricious, and, as such, I hope eventually the court and/or congress will intervene and inflict some sanity in the process.

  164. Mod parent up +10 by flyingace · · Score: 1

    I am both enraged and impressed after reading all the links.

  165. DIY cruise missle project by data64 · · Score: 1

    Maybe the DIY Cruise Missle project from New Zealand had something to do this this. It was covered on /.
    here and here

  166. Re:This has been a problem with pyrotechnicians to by thomastheo1 · · Score: 1

    I guess it is more of a liability issue. If something does happen, the politicians have covered their butts and cannot be blamed.

  167. Once again, Irate slashdotters don't rtfa. by Mike+Buddha · · Score: 1

    You can still shoot your giant rockets. You can't store giant rocket engines or fuel in residential areas. You have to undergo a comprehensive background check, and the rockets have to be registered, not unlike other restricted weapons (ie silencers, automatic weapons). Make no mistake, a rocket is a weapon whether that's what it's used for or not. No amount of hyperbole can change that simple fact.

    --
    by Mike Buddha -- Someday the mountain might get him, but the law never will.
  168. Why Bother? by curtvdh · · Score: 1

    Leaving aside the problem that trying to get any accuracy out of a 30' rocket is like trying to fly an elephant, many hobbyists build their own engines.

    It's not hard to do, and the materials are quite readily available. If a terrorist wanted to build an I or even a K type engine (about 2,560 N-s max impulse), they could do so quite easily.

  169. s/rocket/mp3 peer2peer/g by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hmm, I think you should come up with a better argument/defence of your hobby than this dribble...

    For example, I know someone who lived 3 houses down from a person that was practicing their meth-lab "hobby" in their garage and started a fire which caused smoke damage to the whole neigborhood (although their house didn't burn down). This was in a nice suburban sub-division not your inner city housing tract either.

    Seems to me that allowing people to store large quantity of things that could catch fire and burn out of control in your house w/o letting people like the local fire dept (which during this fire went to 3 alarms because putting out such a fire with 1 truck wasn't gonna do it) wasn't such a good idea.

    Admittedly this was a case of an illegal hobby, but from your AC flame-bait post, I'm guessing you have the personality that you'd fuck any regulations and just do whatever you wanted to anyhow which seems to make you not so differnt from the aformentioned "hobbiest"...

    There may infact be no way to stop you (short of declaring a police state), but I'd think that your post is a poor diatribe if it was meant to generate support for your position (although there are undoubtedly thousands of anarchist lurking on slashdot that may be simpathetic to your position, I doubt if push came to shove they would really care either way).

    Note that in most municipalities, even pop-bottle rockets are outlawed (or even sparklers), it's hard to argue the case that a model rocket is inherently safer than a bottle rocket in the hands of "a Die Hard Passionate Rocketeer, will never give up my Passion/Hobby to regulation"...

    Anyhow...

  170. Since when do facts influence government policy? by HangingChad · · Score: 1
    This is just another example of how far removed from reality government has become. Model rockets are seen as potential terrorist weapon and much bigger threats go unaddressed. Instead of focusing on the terrorist threat we launch a war with Iraq. Instead of addressing real threats, we go after model rockets.

    Maybe not so strange when you put those ideas close to one another.

    --
    That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
  171. CYA and nothing more by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Since the media raked over the coals those who ignored the memo sent by an FBI agent regarding foreign nationals taking flight training, the whole mode of the federal government has been CYA.

    What do you honestly think is more important to a bureaucrat? Your constitutional liberties, or the ability to duck accusations that said bureaucrat was not on the ball when the inevitable NEXT attack comes? That the likelihood of model rockets being used to commit acts of terror is pretty low doesn't matter. What's important is government functionaries covering their ass.

  172. Re:define the rocket as a type of "gun" by snoopsk · · Score: 1

    Considering the numerous gun laws in the US, defining a rocket as a gun would invite even further regulation.

  173. They already are ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "Personally, I think that large asssault rifles/fully automatic weapons etc. should be banned, however the second amendment is very very clear on this matter. If such things are to be regulated, it should be done with a constitutional amendment."

    http://www.rmsg.us/textfiles/nfa34.htm

    The National Firearms Act of 1934 regulates very closely the ability to get an "assault weapon" which is defined as the ability to fire shots continuously by depressing the trigger (i.e. a "machine gun"). In order to own one the ATF must conduct an extensive background check and approve you for it. The number of folks authorized for this is probably in the hundreds.

    TRUE assault weapons like the AK-47, the M-16, the Galil, the FAL, etc rifles capable of firing continuously in automatic mode (the M-16 fires a three round burst) are limited to ONLY those who've passed the ATF vetting process. No gun shop carries these or will sell them to the general public in any state.

    http://www.atf.gov/pub/nfab/

    If you mean the "evil, black looking rifles" like the AR-15 and AK clones, those are SEMI-AUTOMATIC. One pull of the trigger will fire ONE bullet. They are functionally no different from the World War Two Garands (Band of Brothers, Saving Private Ryan, etc) or even some hunting rifles from Browning, Ruger, etc. They're just equiped with black plastic stocks and painted black.

    As per the Clinton ban, production and importation of magazines that hold more than 10 rounds is prohibited. Some states like California go further and prevent individuals from buying existing "hi-cap" magazines.

    California bans these "assault weapons" which "look evil" but function just like rifles say sold by Ruger:

    http://www.ruger-firearms.com/Firearms/P-Categor yR iflesCA.html

    So you can buy say the Mini-14; since it doesn't "look evil" cause it has a walnut stock etc; but the AR-15 which functions exactly the same way is banned in California because it has a. a pistol grip, b. a flash hider.

    You can't legislate your way to safety, some lunatic somewhere is always ready to shoot it out or blow some one up (like McVeigh). Your friendly representative in the State Legislature or Congress however can point to another useless regulation whether it's outlawing "evil" guns that "look scary" or model rocketry and assure those voters they've done their bit to defend the nation.

    As oppossed say to properly funding the police force (and raising taxes).

    1. Re:They already are ... by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1
      In addition, I'd like to point out that the Clinton Gun Ban (which only banned resale) applied ONLY to semi-automatic weapons. The fully automatic versions (which, as parent says, are hard to get due to the '34 law) are still quite legal in this country.

      It is a common misconception that "assault weapons" are somehow "more powerful/dangerous/deadly". The most powerful rifle I own is a single-shot 30-06. My Mini-14 (which is NOT an assault weapon within the meaning of the law - it's on the exempt list) is puny by comparison. Note that I spent some time and effort trying to convert my Mini-14 to an "assault weapon" after the Ban was signed, and before it went into effect - nylon stock, pistol grip, several large magazines, flash hider, etc. Only then did I think to get a complete copy of the law, and notice that it was on the exempt list, unless it had a folding stock ;(

      So I had to buy a MAK-90 real quick, just so I'd own an "evil assault weapon" (tm)....

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
  174. Not really ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The troops in Iraq have been hung out to dry for political reasons.

    They don't have armored vehicles to patrol in (Bradleys wear out the treads too fast) so they use Humvees which were designed twenty years ago for behind the lines support NOT urban combat.

    You see a lot of troops getting killed cause they have to drive around 80 mph in urban combat zones, the don't wear seat belts so they can bail out of a hit Humvee. Add-on Armor kits add a bit of protection but make the vehicle even nastier to drive in urban areas (and the thing is seriously underpowered already).

    Add to that political restrictions (like the Israelis) that prevent artillery strikes on snipers holed up in Mosques or near civvies and it's no wonder our guys are getting killed every day. [In WWII, the "werewolves" and hardcore Nazis that tried this in Germany and other countries got hit by artillery. Too bad the commanders on the ground have their hands tied by PC].

    The Palestinians are using terror tactics to desperately prevent a peace settlement. The LAST thing they want is a Palestinian state recognizing Israel. Blowing up civilians in a pizza parlor, shooting infants in a mother's arms is the weapon of the weak, designed to keep the fighting going to prevent three quarters of a loaf in the vain attempt to get it all (and avoid the fate of Michael Collins).

    The Palestinians blowing up kids and civilians and the Iraqis shooting at our guys and beheading Americans could be wiped out in short order if the full might of a modern mechanized army were unleashed on them. But unfortunately political reasons preclude this ... which sadly condemns the Palestinians and Iraqis to a constant state of war dictated by hardline rejectionists filled with Anti-Americanism and flat out Anti-Semitism (the mark as Nietchze said of the truly stupid).

  175. Thanks. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This way, in 20 years time, the USA will start to lag behind wrt rocket technology. Countries like europe and china will take the lead, and jobs in the speace industry will be outsourced to russia, india and pakistan. :-)

    I think those people will be very thankful.

  176. Make no mistake... by BJZQ8 · · Score: 1

    Make no mistake about it, this country, and the world, will regulate itself into oblivion. We are well on our way. Who needs anthrax and nuclear weapons when we have do-gooder politicians and bureaucrats?

  177. Will Thomas Pynchon please fscking die already... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    ...so he can begin spinning in his grave?

    Imipolex G for everyone!

    "The Moment was 6:43:16 British double Summer Time: the sky, beaten like Death's drum, still humming, and Slothrop's cock-- say what? yes lookit inside his GI undershorts here's a sneaky hardon stirring, ready to jump--well great God where'd that come from?" -- Gravity's Rainbow

  178. USS Liberty by crucini · · Score: 1

    Interesting stuff. Have you read Bamford's Body of Secrets? He devotes many pages to the destruction of the Liberty by Israeli jets, and tries to connect this with the overall Israeli strategy.

  179. Time for an upgrade ...? by quarkscat · · Score: 1

    to rockets that uses kerosene and liquid oxygen? OR perhaps alcohol and hydrazine? Better yet, time to start work on those personal railguns ... (BTW: anyone have a good source for 100 Kgs of mallable superconductor?)

  180. Explosive? Could be. by r_j_prahad · · Score: 1

    From the rec.models.rockets FAQ Part 01 - General Information:

    BATF Restrictions: Any rocket motor or reloadable fuel grain containing more than 62.5 grams of propellant is now classified by the ATF as a Class B Low Explosive.
    DOT Shipping Restrictions: Any single use rocket motor containing more than 62.5 grams of fuel, and any reloadable motor fuel grain weighing more than 62.5 grams are classified as UN 1.3c, or Class B, explosives.

    Been that way for a LONG TIME now. Shipping container bears "Class B Explosives" markings. These are the high-power rocket motors, from G thru P. They can "explode", your knowledge of physics notwithstanding (see sec. 1.7 - CATO).

  181. So let's outlaw people then. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Only people can kill. So kill em all!

  182. but the protest should have a purpose by Trepidity · · Score: 1

    If, as seems to be the case, successive administrations from both major parties favor increasingly-expanding police powers, what is the point of the protest? It only makes sense if there is evidence John Kerry will oppose new police powers or support rolling back existing ones. Thus far, the only evidence available shows that Mr. Kerry supports increased police powers at the expense of civil liberties; for example, with his vote in favor of the Patriot Act.

    1. Re:but the protest should have a purpose by Boogaroo · · Score: 1

      Ok, well how many congressfolk would vote against something so wholesome sounding as:

      Measure Number: H.R. 3162 (Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA PATRIOT ACT) Act of 2001 )

      Senate roll call found here states only ONE vote against(Feingold (D-WI)) and ONE abstention(Landrieu (D-LA)).
      ---

      Please choose something other than PATRIOT act. A vote for that piece of legislation, however horrible that act is, is certainly not an indication of full support of everything in it.

      Hell, hardly ANY act passed has 100% support from any one senator. By the time amendments and other pork are put into budgets, passing something that the senate won't choke on is the goal.

  183. how will that change it? by Trepidity · · Score: 1

    There are two major candidates for the next election: George W. Bush and John Kerry. Both support the expansion of police powers at the expense of civil liberty so we can fight a "war on terror". Most notably, both strongly supported the Patriot Act and worked towards its passage (and in the end, Kerry voted for it and Bush signed it).

    Unless, of course, you were implying we ought to vote for Nader, in which case I'd say go for it.

  184. All about APCP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Ok... some people here have the completely wrong idea about high-power rocketry.
    I will attempt to straighten some of your views out.

    Ok, first off... APCP does NOT EXPLODE.
    At atmospheric pressure, most APCP burns at a rate of 1.5mm (0.059 inches) per second. That is very slow, no?

    Now, there is a value called "n" which is used in the equation R=a*P^n... for most APCP formulations, this value will be around 0.4. What the mentioned equation does is deterimine the regression rate (burn rate) at elevated pressure by substituting the pressure (P) into the equation (in PSI). A common "a" value to use would be around 0.017 (the "a" and "n" values can be determined by burning "strands" of propellant under pressure and measure how long it takes to burn a certain length strand).
    If you work out this equation, you will find that at even 1000psi, the burn rate is still quite slow.

    There are differences between gasoline and APCP. APCP contains it's own oxygen source so it can burn in the absence of oxygen in the form of an oxidizer - gasoline is does not.

    Yes, gasoline can be very explosive... only when dispersed in a "mist" so the surface-area avaliable for combustion with the air is very high - even FLOUR can explode when "dusted"!

    I have been doing experimental rocketry for about 3 years now. Yes, that means I make my own rocket motors - (http://nzex.aorangi-gardens.co.nz/silicone-flight .jpg).
    I have never seen an accident come close to happening at my local rocket club. Most people who take part in rocketry don't build their own motors anyway - this takes away a large amount of PERCIEVED RISK. In fact, the MOST serious injury I have recieved from my taking part in rocketry is a CUT FINGER from trimming my cast propellant "grains" for use in a motor to get them to fit properly.

    You are always going to get the odd stupid, ignorant person who thinks they can take a bunch of chemicals, mix them up like they would a cake recipie and then shove the stuff down a pipe and expect results. These type of people get themselves burnt beyond belief/killed - Fortunately, these type of people handily remove themselves from the gene pool very effectively.

    To all of you who think guidance systems are easy to implement - think again. Hey hey, just where are you going to get a MIL-SPEC GPS system from? How are you going to control those servos with the utmost accuracy required for guidance? Got the software skills to program it all to work?

    I don't think so... think about what you are saying.

    - Matt
    - (www.nzex.tk)

  185. A big step backward for mankind by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I've been a model rocketeer for a long time, and my concern is this will push kids back to the homebrew engine days - with the resultant injuries and damage that was the reason G Harry Stine, George Estes and others created the hobby.

    Model rocketry is fun, and a good way to get kids away from computers into the sun. It develops an interst in science, engineering, and using computers to design and test. Competitions are good ways to meet people and make friends for life.

    It'l be a shame if teh government kills our hobby.

    JLC NAR 21573

    --
    I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
  186. definition of hi-ex against low-ex? help? by fantomas · · Score: 1

    Detonation, which is what an explosive does, is defined as supersonic flame travel.

    ..but the chemicals used as both in fireworks as both a propellant and a firing charge are defined as "low explosive" rather than "high explosive" because they *ignite* rather than *detonate*. They are "explosives" but they burn but do not "detonate". Is this correct?
  187. Easy circumvented by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is easily circumvented. Terrorists will simply move to building giant water rockets!

    1. Re:Easy circumvented by o'reor · · Score: 1
      Excellent. Please remind me of putting the Coca-Cola company on my list of rogue corporations for fostering terrorism with their new super-sized bottles.

      By the way, a 2-litre water rocket already has an impressive range (up to 300 feet if aimed well) which makes it an interesting weapon for junkyard wars.

      --
      In Soviet Russia, our new overlords are belong to all your base.
  188. i feel this is a whiner article ...sorry guys... by pensivemusic · · Score: 1

    large segments of society feel they should be freaking free to avoid the responsibilities of life. i mean, in real life, we have these issues and if kids and groups think a background check is a burden, i say 'tough'. someone else will see it as a small price and a smaller burden for the greater good of chemical / propellant and explosives regulations. it is not aimed at the kids, it is aimed at those pretending to be kids and them blowing society up. welcome to adult life class 101.

  189. oh... my rocket only travels 20,000 feet +- by pensivemusic · · Score: 1

    which is the range of a lot of mid size artillery and motar shells dude. this is serious distance.

  190. You learned all that? by jonathan_the_ninja · · Score: 1

    Gee, the only thing I learned from having my Estes rocket was in my bedroom--I learned that having the safety key in made it so that the rocket could launch; not that it couldn't, and I learned that the hard way, see, that was after my kid brother pressed the button.

    --
    I love NetHack.
  191. Re:i feel this is a whiner article ...sorry guys.. by owendelong · · Score: 2, Informative

    It's not just the background check, and, it's not about pretending to be a kid. Many of the rocketeers that I have encountered work in the aerospace field in their real life.

    The problem here is the combination of truly burdensome regulation (more on this later) _AND_ it's complete lack of effectiveness. While the BATFE has people focused on hobby rocketry, real terrorists are laughing their ass off making real bombs that really explode out of things that still aren't regulated (ammonium nitrate, diesel fuel, gasoline, alcohol just to name a few of the unregulated materials). Further, the raw materials for APCP are not regulated, and, it is quite easy to learn to make your own motors. It requires some machining resources, and, the mixing process is nowhere near as safe as the final product. As such, most hobbyists prefer to buy their motors rather than build them. I'm betting that the obstacle of building your own motor would not be a significant hurdle to a terrorist. Just so you know, the basic ingredients of APCP are Ammonium Perchlorate (this is the only item that takes some searching to find a place you can buy it, but, it is readily available, and, if you were desperate you could substitute Ammonium Nitrate, although it is not as safe and the mixture becomes more critical), Rubber, Metal (usually iron if you want a red flame, copper for a blue flame, aluminum for a white flame, but, also affects the rate of combustion), a small amount of black powder, and
    a plasticizer (essentially an epoxy or resin). All of these things are
    easily purchased annonymously.

    Now about how burdensome the regulation is... Prior to this regulation, I could go to a launch, buy motors, launch them in rockets at the launch, and I didn't need to worry about federal paperwork, regulation, etc. Now, I have to present my LEUP, provide a copy of my LEUP and clearance letter to each dealer (a signed copy), maintain records of each and every motor I buy, burn, return, destroy, store (wait, I'm not allowed to store any more), or otherwise dispose of for a period of at least 3 years. I have to allow the BATFE to inspect my home at any time of their choosing (even though I have a non-storage permit and don't store any explosives), had
    to submit an FBI fingerprint card, and had to be subjected to a federal background check. For this privilege, I also have to pay the BATFE $100 and go through the whole process all over again every three years. I can no longer trade motors or sell them to other rocketeers at launches (instead, sometimes we'll loan rockets -- he'll fly his motor in my rocket and I'll fly my motor in his rocket), but, usually, we both have to find a friendly dealer, then, we both "return" our motors to the dealer who then sellse them back to us. All because to sell to each other, under the new regulations, at least one of us would have to have a Dealer permit instead of a User permit.

    This is not the inconvenience of having to deal with DMV to get a drivers license. This is a much more burdensome regulation. Imagine if gasoline (which is far more explosive than APCP) were regulated in this manner. I bet you wouldn't be saying "it's a small price and smaller burden for the greater good of automotive regulations".

    Finally, kids come into this in that alot of launches have kids present. They fly low power stuff (A-G) and have a great time doing it, but, one of the things that inspires them to fly the low power stuff and learn about rocketry is watching the higher power stuff. Also, kids like to hang around and learn from the adults that are flying the higher power stuff. They get not only theoretical lessons, but, they actually get to see lessons in applied physics, mathematics, structural engineering. They
    actually start to see the application of what they're being taught, and,
    that makes them much more interested. Kids at launches start actually asking questions and listening to answers about gravity, acceleration,
    mass, Newton's laws of motion, etc. They see what happe

  192. Shh, don't let the government read this... by antispam_ben · · Score: 1

    It seems there's still some areas where the US Government hasn't passed regulations to "protect" the public/people from themselves. One is the requirement to brush our teeth (I remember when this was compared to then-proposed laws requiring wearing of seat belts in cars). Here's another: http://www.houseofscience.com/ouch/ouch.html

    --
    Tag lost or not installed.
  193. The US has free healthcare with shorter wait by siriuskase · · Score: 1

    They might make you sit in the emergency room for many hours, but they can't kick you out. It is illegal for the hospital to kick you out without treating you. If you don't pay, it is the hospital and the doctor who don't get paid, they can't come repossess your healthcare, the worst that they can do is bugger up your credit report which might not matter if you are extremely ill.

    --
    If you must moderate, please moderate as irrelevent, not something bad, because I'm sure someone will find this interest
  194. ca by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Meh thats only in the US. Not like th US can fingerpront a guy in canada shooting off rockets