Slashdot Mirror


Laser Painting Could Lead to 25-Year Prison Term

lowy writes "According to this USA Today article, a New Jersey man was charged under federal anti-terrorism laws with shining a laser beam at a jet flying over his home. The Feds arrested him after he flashed a police helicopter searching for the source of the beam. He now faces up to 25 years in prison under Patriot Act charges." It seems to be happening around the country, as our earlier post makes clear.

1,615 comments

  1. ummm.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    link to the usatoday story, please?

    1. Re:ummm.... by HTH+NE1 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Note to self: don't try to signal departing rescue craft with laser pointer.

      --
      Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
    2. Re:ummm.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does this mean the police must end the use lasers for speed enforcement?

    3. Re:ummm.... by ckedge · · Score: 1

      .
      Ooohhhhhshit, you have no idea how relevant this is.

      I've been thinking for a year or so that I should add a laser pointer to my wilderness tripping emergency gear - along with the flares and mirror. You know, if you're out on the water in your sea kayak or trapped on a lake when on a canoe trip, you can easily use the laser pointer to signal an airliner overhead (plans on their way to Europe and stuff take "great circle" routes that pass overtop of all sorts of out of the way northern places).

      But *now*, I might end up charged with who knows what!

      Interesting :)

      .

    4. Re:ummm.... by accelleron · · Score: 1

      Save yourself the risk...

      Whenever I go hiking/camping/whatever I always carry a couple of these:

      http://www.lumastrobe.com/traffic2.htm

      With 4-5 it's easy enough to set up a small perimeter of easily visible (especially at night) lights flashing in random sequence (place them ~3 feet apart on an elevated, easily visible surface.) 20 hours apiece means that these and a family pack of heavy-duty AA's (I like the Energizer E2's because they last forever), will make your warning lights last longer than your food supply. And the best part is you can't be sued for using one.

      --
      Genius may have its limitations, but stupidity is not thus handicapped.
    5. Re:ummm.... by zonker · · Score: 0

      a long time ago my uncle told me about how some of his friends at bell labs used to shoot high power lasers into the sky to "paint" the clouds. of course nowadays folks do it for laser shows for outdoor concerts etc...

    6. Re:ummm.... by http101 · · Score: 1

      "The Feds arrested him after he flashed a police helicopter searching for the source of the beam." ...additional note to self, do NOT signal to police helicopter with your 'squeeky toy'.

      --
      -- Game Developers: Stop porting badly-textured games from crappy console systems!
    7. Re:ummm.... by Datamonstar · · Score: 1

      Although it would be nice, those type of lasers probably fall under a different category. Probably something similar to a remote control. Also, if the use of radar detection was ever ended, what means of detecting speeding would the poliece have then? Pacing? Electronic survelience devices installed on all automobiles? I, for one, gladly welcome the radar gun.

      --
      The eternal struggle of good vs. evil begins within one's self.
  2. Only 25 years? by Skyshadow · · Score: 1, Interesting
    So trying to blind pilots in order to cause their aircraft to crash will only net you 25 years?

    Am I the only one here who thinks that's letting them off kind of easy? I mean, if I were to shoot a SAM at an airliner and get caught, I think I'd probably be looking at more than 25 years even if it missed. In both cases, the intention and the potential outcome are the same...

    --
    Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.
    1. Re:Only 25 years? by word+munger · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well, trying to kill someone generally nets you less than that. I assume if you actually succeeded you'd get a bit more than 25 years.

    2. Re:Only 25 years? by ScruffyScrode · · Score: 1

      I seriously doubt the man had the intention of taking down an aircraft with his daughter.

    3. Re:Only 25 years? by jim5272 · · Score: 5, Funny

      I think there is a big difference between hitting a plane with an industrial type laser, and screwing around with your laserpointer. Check it out I'm Luke Skywalker .. bbbzzzzzeeeewwww, oh crap was that a POLICE helicopter?

    4. Re:Only 25 years? by 2MuchC0ffeeMan · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Considering how windshields on airplanes are on the top of the plane, shining lasers at them probably won't blind them, and they won't crash.

      But it's the same as pointing a laser pointer at a itchy trigger finger cop.

      The guy shouldn't get 25 years, he obviously isn't a terrorist. But i'm now unpatriotic for thinking so.

      --
      Runnin' On Empty .... I'm Still Alive
    5. Re:Only 25 years? by Karmic+Debt · · Score: 1

      Uh .. Yeah, I think that's kind of harsh. Besides, there weren't any complaints about the pilots being blinded by the lasers but rather, consern that the laser could represent someone aiming at the plain with a gun.

    6. Re:Only 25 years? by Fnkmaster · · Score: 5, Insightful

      There are two possibilities. One is that there was intent to blind pilots and cause aircraft to crash, in which case 25 years sounds pretty light to me. Life imprisonment would be appropriate for attempted, premeditated mass murder.

      The other possibility is that it was a stupid, stupid person who wasn't really thinking about the consequences of what they were doing at the time and there was no premeditated intent to cause a plane to crash. If that is the case, I think 25 years is a bit extreme.

      In any case, hopefully a jury will figure out what the case was - as long as it doesn't go before a secret court with hearings closed to the public, then I'm happy.

    7. Re:Only 25 years? by jest3r · · Score: 1
      Unless the passenger airliner was doing a barrel-roll I am not sure how you could blind the pilot from the ground ..

      In any event I think they should come down just as hard, or harder, on kids who shine laser pens on movie theater screens ..

    8. Re:Only 25 years? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The pilots reported being temporarily blinded. That counts as a complaint and something that should result in a severe penalty.

    9. Re:Only 25 years? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      The pilots saw the laser in the cockpit. Obviously, he was able to target the windows.

      He intentionally did something which could cause a plane crash. End of story.

    10. Re:Only 25 years? by douthitb · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Did you see what his excuse for pointing the laser in the cockpit was? He said he was looking at stars with his daughter, and it "accidentally" pointed into an airplane's cockpit.

      Am I missing something here? Can someone please explain to me how to use a laser pointer to look at stars?

    11. Re:Only 25 years? by mmkkbb · · Score: 4, Funny

      Well, it's certainly hard enough to throw a little girl hard enough to bring down an airplane no matter how strong you are.

      --
      -mkb
    12. Re:Only 25 years? by trentblase · · Score: 2, Informative

      Well, this was a $100 laser... not exactly your average keychain laserpointer. Also, the plane was on approach.

    13. Re:Only 25 years? by bmongar · · Score: 1

      A jury? Well he could be declared an illegal combatant and denied all rights, including being charged. Then he could just be held indefinately.

      --
      As x approaches total apathy I couldn't care less.
    14. Re:Only 25 years? by sgant · · Score: 5, Insightful

      OK, I can see giving him more time. He was trying to do something that could have had a very dangerous outcome if he succeeded.

      But they're talking now about outlawing lasers to the general public?!?! Huh? Because they can be used for this?

      OK, outlaw them. They have the slight chance of maybe blinding one of the pilots on approach. (again, another Tom Clancy scenario in a book about using an ultra bright light to bring down an approaching airliner...just like in the same book a 747 pilot crashed his plane into the Capital building in Washington...but I digress......)

      But if they could do this, why not outlaw all guns and rifles in the US! I mean, couldn't THESE be used on approaching and departing airliners? A 460 Weatherby Magnum rifle could do some serious damage...maybe bust open a fuel tank if aimed with any degree of accuracy. I mean, if you're going to outlaw a 10 dollar laser pointer, shouldn't a high-powered rifle be in the same boat?

      But no no...can't do that can we! We have the NRA...there is no National Laser Association lobby group in Washington looking out for our right to keep and bear lasers!

      (is it bear or bare...I can never remember)

      --

      "Leo Fender was in a 'state of grace' when he designed the Stratocaster." -- Paul Reed Smith
    15. Re:Only 25 years? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The guy did something that has no other purpose than to try and blind pilots and make them think they are under attack by terrorists. Stupid is besides the point. What, did they let Scott Peterson go because he was too stupid to come up with a decent alibi?

    16. Re:Only 25 years? by duncangough · · Score: 1

      It's positively Darwinian - gene pool safety in action, right before our eyes. That's 25 years where the bored and action/consequence-less people in society will have a chance to breed :)

    17. Re:Only 25 years? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He also apparently lied to the FBI when interrogated about the matter.

      I don't think that this is an 'itchy trigger finger cop' thing....but if it helps you to simplify it in your mind to such ignorant ends, then by all means - it's a free country.

    18. Re:Only 25 years? by saider · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Considering how windshields on airplanes are on the top of the plane, shining lasers at them probably won't blind them, and they won't crash

      Think about this. If the pilot can see the ground from the cockpit (and they can), then someone on the ground can shine a laser in their eye. Your assumption is that the plane was directly overhead. The plane was on approach to a nearby airport and was at very low altitude. One can easily see inside the cockpit from various angles around the plane.

      This will likely be settled and the guy will receive minimal if any jail time. But the gov't has to show that it is addressing this issue.

      --


      Remember, You are unique...just like everyone else.
    19. Re:Only 25 years? by rayde · · Score: 5, Informative
      people can use laser pointers such as these for use in astronomy.

      another site says:

      Red laser pointers have grown cheap and ubiquitous, but unfortunately, they are not very effective as sky pointers. In contrast, green laser pointers are very effective because of the eye's greater sensitivity to the 532 nanometer green light. Under dark sky conditions, the beam from a 5 milliwatt green laser pointer creates a dramatic impression, and the beam apparently extends for more than a kilometer. Any bright light source, ranging from light pollution induced sky glow to a crescent moon, will reduce the apparent brightness of the SkyPointer(TM) although the beam will usually remain visible. The light pollution acts in such a way that people closer to you will still see the beam, whereas those further away may have difficulty.

    20. Re:Only 25 years? by harrkev · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Please read this very informative article entitled "Lasers Aimed At Airliners: Overreaction?"

      My only complaint with this article is that the author does not realize that $500 or so will buy you a VERY powerful laser that is easily capable of damaging the eyes in a heartbeat. But otherwise, a good read.

      I am getting very discouraged at the sheer amount of paranoia in our society. Everybody is overreacting to everything and is afraid of their own shadow. My wife is afraid for me to even pull out my Leatherman in public, because she is afraid that other people might thing that I might be a terrorist or some other type of bad guy. Riiiight. Like I could really kill 100 people in a mall with only a 2-1/2 inch blade and a pair of pliers. Except for special circumstances (like on an airplane), you cannot kill 100 people with a pocket knife unless your name is Bruce Lee or Chuck Norris, in which case you don't even need the knife.

      Remember: if you walk around in fear, then the terrorists have already won. Think long and hard about where the term "terrorist" came from. I refuse to give them the satisfaction of being afraid.

      --
      "-1 Troll" is the apparently the same as "-1 I disagree with you."
    21. Re:Only 25 years? by mopomi · · Score: 1

      It's actually quite common, and with the green laser pointers (have not RTFA), one can easily see the beam along its length and can thus follow it to the star in question--it's basically allowing one to extend their finger out a few hundred meters so that others can see what you are pointing at.

    22. Re:Only 25 years? by sgant · · Score: 4, Informative

      Very easy...using a green laser pointer, where you can actually see the beam, it's very easy to point out stars and planets etc etc. It's used as a pointing device out of doors.

      They work quite well too so there's no "it's that star...no no, that one next to the bright on there...no, down further....see it?" With the pointer you just follow the beam upwards. A green lasers beam is quite visible.

      --

      "Leo Fender was in a 'state of grace' when he designed the Stratocaster." -- Paul Reed Smith
    23. Re:Only 25 years? by amightywind · · Score: 1

      I agree. There have been many aledged abuses of the Patriot Act. This is not one of them. We recoil in disgust when we hear of cars being hit with rocks from dropped overpasses. How is this any different? Lock him up, throw away the key.

      --
      an ill wind that blows no good
    24. Re:Only 25 years? by HairyCanary · · Score: 1

      A green laser pointer will make a beam visible to the naked eye at night, which actually makes it handy for pointing out different stars to someone who is standing with you. I didn't RTFA, so I do not know what kind of laser this guy used.

    25. Re:Only 25 years? by Shadwhawk · · Score: 1

      A green laser pointer, at night, can have a visible beam. It can be used to point things out. Check out thinkgeek's description of their green laser pointer: they specifically mention using it to point out stars.

    26. Re:Only 25 years? by Squatchman · · Score: 1

      The "good" laser pointers give you a visible beam to work with.

    27. Re:Only 25 years? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pilots have a clear view of the ground 50 meters in front of them from the flight deck. Therefore a laser on the ground a few hundred meters in front of the plane has a clear view of the pilots. All pilots who reported eye injury/temporary blindness from lasers were in the process of landing the plane. Hopefully this guy gets 50 years in jail.

    28. Re:Only 25 years? by yack0 · · Score: 1

      That's 'enemy combatant'.

      --
      -- There is no sig line, only Zuul.
    29. Re:Only 25 years? by Mavakoy · · Score: 1

      From the article:

      "He was charged with interfering with a flight crew under the USA Patriot Act. He also was charged with lying to federal officers. The charges carry a maximum jail sentence of 25 years."

      I'm assuming that a large chunk of the 25 years has come from lying to the FBI...

    30. Re:Only 25 years? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      how do you know his intent?

    31. Re:Only 25 years? by kfg · · Score: 1

      The third possibility is that it was just some guy playing "green dot" who happened to pass it over a plane and the only consequence was freaking out a pilot over something essentially harmless.

      Imagine trying to "bring down" a car with a laser pointer. I'll be you couldn't do it in a Godzillion years.

      I find it telling that law enforcement officials admit that there was no act of terrorism involved and charges were only filed to "make and example" of how seriously they take the issue.

      Perhaps they should be the one's thinking of the consequences of their actions, as such reasoning is simply no reason to press crimianl charges, although it seems to be growing in popularity these days.

      The only legitimate reason for pressing a criminal charge is because you believe the person actually did what you are charging him with. Anything else is pure jackbootism.

      KFG

    32. Re:Only 25 years? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      25 years is the max he can get under the Patriot Act. I doubt he'll get anything even close to that.

    33. Re:Only 25 years? by stilwebm · · Score: 1

      Well, cockpit windows need some view of the ground. That is quite useful when it is time to land. The view from cockpit windows does not need to look straight down because planes move forward at rapid speed. The angle of incidence of a laser beem from the ground may be low, but the thick glass panes may refract the laser light in a way that causes bright glare on the interior or the laser, from sufficient horizontal distance, may directly hit the eyes of the flight crew.

      These aren't your $5 laser pointer keychains we're talking about. These are high powered lasers.

    34. Re:Only 25 years? by Jtheletter · · Score: 5, Informative
      Besides, there weren't any complaints about the pilots being blinded by the lasers but rather, consern that the laser could represent someone aiming at the plain with a gun.

      I know the /. article did not provide a link to the actual article, but you're making some rather strong incorrect statements. I did RTFA and (A) the laser light entered the cockpit and temporarily blinded both the pilot and the co-pilot. Apparently either the angle of laser relative to the cockpit was such that it went in, or else there was some unlucky refraction/reflection. (B) There was no concern that this represented someone pointing a gun at the plane, there was concern that terrorists were trying to blind pilots to cause them to crash. Although the investigators did state that they do not believe the actions of the suspect in this case to be terrorist.

      --
      -- I'm not a pessimist, I'm a realist. It's not my fault that life sucks so much. --
    35. Re:Only 25 years? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Personally, I don't see much of a difference between your two possibilities. The point in sending someone to prison is to remove him from society and hope he learns his lesson. In either case, this man needs to be removed from society.

      I don't want someone roaming the streets who has the intent and means to crash an airliner.
      I don't want someone roaming the streets who has the means and is stupid enough to use them to crash an airliner.

      In either case, he's a danger to others. Sure, _anyone_ can be considered a "danger to others" in that everyone has the means to harm anyone else. But he has proven that he's willing to use those means for just that purpose, intentionally or otherwise.

    36. Re:Only 25 years? by MoonBuggy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      As I see it, the time isn't the issue here. The fact is that this man is not a terrorist and should not be punished under terror laws - argue for him getting more or less time to your heart's content, but do not twist the course of fair and just use of the legal system. If these laws exist for terrorism cases, use them in terrorism cases. If the rest of the existing laws are inadequate, change them, don't use that fact as an excuse to get unpopular proposals into general use through the back door with false assurances that they will only be used in very specific circumstances.

    37. Re:Only 25 years? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not a standard laserpointer. It's a laser designed to point out objects 5 miles in the distance. That counts as an industrial type laser.

    38. Re:Only 25 years? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      So this just accidently shone a last into the cockpit of an airplane on approach, and then just happened to also shine it into the cockpit of the helicopter they sent looking for the source.

      Yeah, Occom's Razor loves that one.

    39. Re:Only 25 years? by eyeball · · Score: 4, Insightful

      But they're talking now about outlawing lasers to the general public?!?! Huh? Because they can be used for this?

      Some days I think it would be a lot easier for the govenment to just tell us what we can do. "Ok, all you're allowed to do is go to work, watch TV and shop. Nothing else."

      --

      _______
      2B1ASK1
    40. Re:Only 25 years? by Squatchman · · Score: 1

      You can have my Laser pointer when you pry it from my cold dead hand!

    41. Re:Only 25 years? by douthitb · · Score: 1

      Very interesting, thanks for the info!

    42. Re:Only 25 years? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "The other possibility is that it was a stupid, stupid person"

      1. He was from NJ
      2. He shined it on the police helicopter that was looking for the laser source.

      I think it is more than just a "possibility"

    43. Re:Only 25 years? by Mark_MF-WN · · Score: 1

      Banning a tool is almost always a retarded move, be it a gun, a laser, encryption software, or a dvd copier.

    44. Re:Only 25 years? by iocat · · Score: 2, Informative

      US Citizens can't be declared either enemy, or illegal combatants. Thanks, court system!

      --

      Dude, I think I can see my house from here.

    45. Re:Only 25 years? by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 1

      A rifle round in a large aircraft will probably not bring it down, or cause anything more than a small leak if it hits a fuel tank. If that were true, WWII bombers would have been far more susceptible to being shot down. As it is, it takes quite a few holes, and maybe a couple through the cockpit/aircrew, to do any real damage.

    46. Re:Only 25 years? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stupid attempted murderers and smart ones are treated the same under the law. Why should stupid terrorists be given lighter sentences?

    47. Re:Only 25 years? by kronchev · · Score: 1

      Damn, I must be tired, I completly read over the part where it says he was intentionally trying to blind them.

    48. Re:Only 25 years? by Laser_47 · · Score: 1

      All laser pointers that I've seen are visible. An Infra-Red one would be pretty pointless ;-)

      Your eye is just more sensative to green at a given wattage, and is able to detect any light reflected off dust/moisture particles in the air.

    49. Re:Only 25 years? by Tassach · · Score: 5, Insightful
      This case shows exactly why the USA-PATRIOT act is such a bad idea. ANYTHING the powers-that-be don't like can be labelled "terrorism" and thereby trump ordinary due process and Constitutional protections.

      This is not saying that this sort of behavior shouldn't be punished, what it is saying is that it should be done under existing laws. There's no reason to charge someone with "terrorism" when their conduct is more accurately described as "reckless endangerment", "malicious mischeif", or "interfering with an aircrew".

      --
      Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
    50. Re:Only 25 years? by mOoZik · · Score: 1

      But early reports indicate it was some 8000 feet high and some 15 miles away. IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE, unless those reports were wrong and did not refer to this man.

    51. Re:Only 25 years? by tscholz · · Score: 1

      Here we have a plane traveling at ~800 km/t, and he is able to keep the beam point into the cockpit for more than a few milliseconds? He must have the best hand-eye coordination ever. How do you know he knew that it would crash the plane? Can you read minds? That must be it. End of story.

    52. Re:Only 25 years? by LurkerXXX · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Ok, the guy points a laser at an aircraft. It's been over the news lately that someone tried to 'take down planes' by blinding the pilots with a laser in sevaral different cities. Stupid.

      Now it's on the local news that someone has been trying to do it. The FBI is investigating.

      The next night he's out and tries to do the same thing to a helicopter. He's either deliberately trying to do harm to them, or so stupid he should never been allowed to reproduce. Either way, locking him up should be safer for the general public.

    53. Re:Only 25 years? by kronchev · · Score: 1

      You have to be joking. Anybody couldve shined a laser at a plane. Is that the "means" youre looking for? Should we just remove everyone from society because they COULD do something dangerous?

    54. Re:Only 25 years? by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 1

      Given that many passenger jets routinely carry 250 people, yeah.

    55. Re:Only 25 years? by nlindstrom · · Score: 0, Insightful
      It's a free country.
      You mispelled "Was".
    56. Re:Only 25 years? by sgant · · Score: 1

      This is true...but still, if they're nitpicking over a laser pointer possibly bringing down an airliner?

      Also, if you can shine a laser into a cockpit...couldn't you also fire a round into the same cockpit? Ok, rupturing a fuel tank isn't going to do that much damage, but a few rounds flying through the cockpit...of an airliner on approach...with pilot and co-pilot busy with the landing and not thinking "hey, we're in a combat zone, watch for ground fire" like the bombers in WWII were. I mean, that's scary stuff!

      But I doubt you'll ever see someone saying we should outlaw any guns. At least not a politician that wants to be re-elected.

      --

      "Leo Fender was in a 'state of grace' when he designed the Stratocaster." -- Paul Reed Smith
    57. Re:Only 25 years? by Nijika · · Score: 4, Insightful
      From the article:

      The jet, a chartered Cessna Citation, was coming in for a landing last Wednesday with six people aboard when a green light beam struck the windshield three times at about 3,000 feet, according to court documents. The flash temporarily blinded both the pilot and co-pilot, but they were later able to land the plane safely, authorities said.
      ...
      Then, on Friday, a helicopter carrying Port Authority detectives was hit by a laser beam as its crew surveyed the area to try to pinpoint the origin of the original beam.

      Oopsie daisy!

      kfg: Imagine trying to "bring down" a car with a laser pointer. I'll be you couldn't do it in a Godzillion years.

      I imagine it would be much easier than you imagine. A sustained laser at a drivers eyes would make them swerve if not stop dead on the road. A pilot of a passenger plane does not have that luxury.

      The guy that did this is a 38 year old asshole, not an innocently playing child, and I'm glad he's going away. If he didn't know this was going to lead to trouble he's also one of the dumbest men in the U.S.

      --
      Luck favors the prepared, darling.
    58. Re:Only 25 years? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, I don't know why the OP didn't consider all those other completely legitimate reasons for shining an industrial laser onto the cockpit of an airplane as it's making its landing approach, then into the cockpit of a police helicopter a bit later.

    59. Re:Only 25 years? by RailGunner · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Except for the fact that he's an American citizen, while the savages locked away at Gitmo are not.

      The US Constitution applies to US Citizens ONLY. Foreign nationals are granted NO constitutional protections, unless they become US Citizens.

      Illegal combatants are designated as such because they do not wear military uniforms, instead they try to blend in with the population, setting off car bombs and trying to kill as many people as possible. If the terrorists want to be treated as POW's under Geneva, then fine - just as soon as they start identifying themselves with some form of uniform or mark (which would have the added benefit of making them easier to find and kill.)

      Also, it's spelled "indefinitely".

    60. Re:Only 25 years? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since when do American sentencing guidelines ever make sense? 25 years for flashing a laser pointer at an object thousands of feet away is about right in a country where 25% of the population has seen prison time.

    61. Re:Only 25 years? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      This guy shines a commercial laser into the cockpits of two seperate aircraft, one of which was on landing approach, and you can't figure out his intent?

      Not exactly Columbo, are we?

    62. Re:Only 25 years? by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      It doesn't matter if he knew it would crash the plane. It is illegal anyway. Just because he doesn't know why it is illegal or the amount of damage his actions can cause does not excuse him from it. Ignorance of the consequence of disobeying the law is even less excuse than ignorance of the law itself.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    63. Re:Only 25 years? by Gudlyf · · Score: 1
      "Like I could really kill 100 people in a mall with only a 2-1/2 inch blade and a pair of pliers."

      A bizarro McGuyver could.

      --
      Trolls lurk everywhere. Mod them down.
    64. Re:Only 25 years? by SeaHunter · · Score: 1

      I don't fear

    65. Re:Only 25 years? by Proney · · Score: 1

      I believe those 25 years include two charges -- one of which is a no-brainer, he lied to federal officers, initially claiming it was his daughter who shone the laser at the plane.

      --
      require "something.clever";
    66. Re:Only 25 years? by Rude+Turnip · · Score: 1

      I recall Ronald Regan pressing a button to fire a green laser beam at the new torch on the Statue of Liberty during the unveiling ceremony. That beam was certainly visible.

    67. Re:Only 25 years? by artemis67 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The reason why he is so totally screwed is that the feds have to make an example of SOMEBODY. When lasers are selling for $100 on eBay, they are going to be ubiquitous, and until someone is made an example of, a lot of the people who buy them are going to aim them at airplanes for snorts and giggles, thinking that it's not a big deal. The government has to show them that YES, IT IS A BIG DEAL.

      After all, how could something so simple as shining a beam on an airplane be a criminal act? But if this guy gets 25 years, it will send one hell of a shockwave through society and most people will get the message.

      I imagine that even the prosecutors feel sorry for this guy, just some knucklehead who was goofing around with his kid, completely ignorant of how this would be interpreted. But they can't just let it go.

    68. Re:Only 25 years? by swv3752 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Heh, a bizarro Macguyver would need either a bar of chocolate or a rubber band.

      --
      Just a Tuna in the Sea of Life
    69. Re:Only 25 years? by Paco04101 · · Score: 1

      If it wasn't not under oath how can they charge him with anything ? Isn't the whole point of "freedom of speech" is that you can say whatever you want ? Besides, politicians - the very same ones who came up with the Patriot Act - lie constantly.

    70. Re:Only 25 years? by MoonBuggy · · Score: 1
      terrorism

      The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.
      According to the article he had no demands and we can therefore assume he was not doing this for the purposes of intimidation. Terrorists cause terror to further their own cause, mass murder != terrorism (and it sounds like he was stupid rather than malicious anyway, removing him even further from terrorism charges).

      The article even states that "Justice Department officials said they do not suspect terrorism in any of the cases"
    71. Re:Only 25 years? by Anne_Nonymous · · Score: 1

      Let's just hope the judge has seen Office Space.

    72. Re:Only 25 years? by Lord+Kano · · Score: 1

      It would be just as easy to charge him with Reckless Endangerment for each of the people on the plane and all of the people on the ground withing a 2 mile radius.

      I'm sure he's prefer a straight 25 years to 2000 consecutive 5 year bids.

      LK

      --
      "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
    73. Re:Only 25 years? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You failed to understand my post. I was trying to point out the difference between "everyone having a laser pointer" and "this guy having a laser pointer" (or any other potentially harmful device... which could be anything really). Anyone _can_ use them to attempt to cause harm to others, but this guy _did_ use it to attempt to cause harm to others. This is why he should be removed from society (read: sent to prison).

    74. Re:Only 25 years? by badmammajamma · · Score: 1

      Well, if you can get a laser pointer defined as an "armament" then it should have the same constitutional protections that a gun has.

      --
      Any man who afflicts the human race with ideas must be prepared to see them misunderstood. -- H. L. Mencken
    75. Re:Only 25 years? by Paco04101 · · Score: 1

      errr "was not" under oath.

    76. Re:Only 25 years? by andreMA · · Score: 1
      the laser light entered the cockpit and temporarily blinded both the pilot and the co-pilot.
      I call bullshit on that (the article, not you). I strongly doubt that the guy got that [un]lucky twice.

      Yes, he's a dumbass. But a charge that potentially carries 25 years is way too harsh, regardless of what plea he eventually cops to. I expect he'll plead guilty to first degree stupidity and get 5 years probation, a stiff fine, and a prohibition from using any laser except that in a CD player or the equivalent.

      Overcharging like this is simple dishonesty and intimidation on the part of the authorities and serves to reduce my respect for them.

    77. Re:Only 25 years? by kfg · · Score: 1

      Try going outside and waving an ordinary flashlight around at the trees and stuff and observe what happens. The only difference here is that it was a "laser."

      Oooooooooooooo.

      I've shined one on my cat, at a range of only a few feet, quite intentionally, for hours and hours over the past years. I haven't put her eye out or nothin'.

      KFG

    78. Re:Only 25 years? by bmongar · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Where in the constitution does it say that the constitution applies to us citizens only?

      --
      As x approaches total apathy I couldn't care less.
    79. Re:Only 25 years? by HeghmoH · · Score: 1

      Also, if you can shine a laser into a cockpit...couldn't you also fire a round into the same cockpit?

      It would be much harder. A laser in this situation has effectively an infinite velocity. A rifle bullet will have a velocity that's a relatively small multiple of the airliner's velocity. The shooter will have to lead the plane significantly and be very aware of the distance to the plane and how that translates into lead. It certainly could be done, but it won't be easy.

      Ok, rupturing a fuel tank isn't going to do that much damage, but a few rounds flying through the cockpit...of an airliner on approach...with pilot and co-pilot busy with the landing and not thinking "hey, we're in a combat zone, watch for ground fire" like the bombers in WWII were. I mean, that's scary stuff!

      As soon as any crazy shit starts happening, the first thing the crew will do is shove the throttles to the max and tell the tower that they missed the approach. At that point, unless the airplane is suffering serious mechanical problems, it will be headed upwards and will require minimal intervention from the crew in the short term. Longer term, they'll declare an emergency and ATC will do whatever they can to get them down safely. if the windshield is actually broken, things might get a bit noisy and hard to see in the cockpit, but I'm guessing that they'll get by.

      --
      Mod down posts with a "Free Mac Mini/iPod" sig, they're spam!
    80. Re:Only 25 years? by teg · · Score: 1

      Actually, they are granted rights by various international convents which the US has signed.

      The US just happens to be in blatant violation.

    81. Re:Only 25 years? by Mark_MF-WN · · Score: 1

      Is the whole "illegal combatant" deal based on something? Is there an international treaty that spells out how these things work? I'm not doubting you, I'm just curious.

    82. Re:Only 25 years? by ^BR · · Score: 1, Insightful
      But if this guy gets 25 years, it will send one hell of a shockwave through society and most people will get the message.

      What kind of message would that be... Time to start shooting cop on sight?

      Show me that guys victims, if he get any jail time then truely the US is not a democracy anymore...

    83. Re:Only 25 years? by techno-vampire · · Score: 1
      I'm sure he's prefer a straight 25 years to 2000 consecutive 5 year bids.

      It's very unlikely he'd be required to serve the terms consecutively, although it's a nice idea. I've never understood why most multiple-offense terms are severd concurrently, unless it's considered "cruel and unusual punishment" when there's not a very good reason for it.

      --
      Good, inexpensive web hosting
    84. Re:Only 25 years? by kkovach · · Score: 1

      While I understand your point here, I doubt the intentions of this idiot were to actually bring the plane down. I'm betting his intentions were more likely to entertain himself.

      As such, I think 25 years would be a bit harsh for being an idiot. However, if he had actually succeeded in bringing down the plane he'd be an idiot and a murder, and should be put to death.

      - Kevin

      --
      The less confident you are, the more serious you have to act.
    85. Re:Only 25 years? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no, he'd get the chocolate smeared all over his gotee

    86. Re:Only 25 years? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and as usual the law enforcement forget's that any laser guided missles look for IR laser target painting.

      thus the morons in the police and FBI helicopters can not see it unless they know exactly where to look with a IR detecting camera.

      yay another useless law. I so love america!

      (oh for the idiots here, IR = infrared which = invisible to humans. and if you are typical american law enforcement or government I suggest you using a dictionalry in looking up what invisible means.)

    87. Re:Only 25 years? by EvanED · · Score: 1

      Try going outside and waving an ordinary flashlight around at the trees and stuff and observe what happens. The only difference here is that it was a "laser."

      And it affected the vision of the pilots of TWO planes while landing. Oh, and it was an industrial LASER. Those aren't the sort of thing you should be playing with.

      Patriot Act or not, this guy is clearly guilty of at least reckless endangerment of everyone on the plane.

    88. Re:Only 25 years? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ordinary laser lights will not do much to the eyes, as far as I know. Obviously if this light is going 3k feet in the air, it's not an ordinary laser. It's obviously quite high-powered and capable of causing injury.

    89. Re:Only 25 years? by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      Interesting... Could laser be covered under the right to bare arm? Hello NRA?
      BTW hitting a plane with a bullet is probably much harder than hitting one with a laser. That whole time of flight thing.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    90. Re:Only 25 years? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      But they're talking now about outlawing lasers to the general public?!?!

      Remember kids: If laser pointers are outlawed, then only terrorists will be able to point at stuff.

    91. Re:Only 25 years? by armyofone · · Score: 1

      I respectfully disagree... Chuck Norris would still need the knife. Bruce Lee would not since he was way more of a badass than Chuck. After all, who always won when the two fought?

      Texas Ranger indeed. Norris is teh ghey.

      --
      "A revolution without dancing is... a revolution not worth having"
    92. Re:Only 25 years? by EvanED · · Score: 1

      Imagine trying to "bring down" a car with a laser pointer. I'll be you couldn't do it in a Godzillion years.

      I've been momentarily blinded by oncoming headlights. It wouldn't be difficult.

    93. Re:Only 25 years? by tomstdenis · · Score: 1

      Being stupid is no defense of the law.

      You could just as equally say "I didn't think that pistol round would go so high!" and shoot down a landing aircraft or something [well it would have to be low].

      Point is, shining a laser at a plane [specially the cockpit] is just a mean thing to do and should be criminal.

      Tom

      --
      Someday, I'll have a real sig.
    94. Re:Only 25 years? by kfg · · Score: 1

      I imagine it would be much easier than you imagine. A sustained laser at a drivers eyes. . .

      I defy you to accomplish this. It's unlikely you could manage to do it to man standing motionless in front of you 20 feet away.

      Idiots are, in fact, putting their own eyes out with lasers by shining them directly in from a foot or less away, not putting out their neighbors eyes while playing red dot from across the street. It just doesn't happen, and you can't make it happen.

      KFG

    95. Re:Only 25 years? by Squatchman · · Score: 1

      Ye olde cheape keychain laserth have trouble making a visible beam in a smokey room. Once you get above the five dollar mark they begin to improve.

    96. Re:Only 25 years? by gammoth · · Score: 2, Funny
      they do not wear military uniforms, instead they try to blend in with the population...

      It's a good thing we donned uniforms for the American Revolution so that we can take this stand on illegal combatants now without a hint of hypocrisy.

    97. Re:Only 25 years? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He didn't try to blind anyone, you dumb fuck. Read the article.

    98. Re:Only 25 years? by BurritoWarrior · · Score: 1

      Dude, your post scares me.

    99. Re:Only 25 years? by bmongar · · Score: 1

      Article XIV.

      Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


      Note that this paragraph affords a ANY person not just citizens protection from being deprived life, liberty or property without due process.

      --
      As x approaches total apathy I couldn't care less.
    100. Re:Only 25 years? by Kenja · · Score: 1

      So your claiming that the buy was looking for stars in the cockpits of passing aircraft? Ok, then why lie about it and claim it was his kid?

      --

      "Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
    101. Re:Only 25 years? by sg3000 · · Score: 1

      > Except for the fact that he's an American citizen, while the
      > savages locked away at Gitmo are not.

      What's disturbing is people have been released from Guantanamo Bay, but few (if any) were charged with any crimes. The BBC has a story talking about British citizens who were held for more than two years, but were not charged with any crime when released. That makes one wonder if they was a legal reason why they were held.

      >The US Constitution applies to US Citizens ONLY

      That is true, but holding anyone years (or even forever) for no legal reason and torturing them seems to be against the idea of human beings being endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, such as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Regardless if they are U.S. citizens or not.

      --
      Insert simplistic political, ideological, or personal proselytization here.
    102. Re:Only 25 years? by jdhutchins · · Score: 1

      Even if you're not under oath, it is illegal to lie to law enforcement officers. Your first amendment rights protect your political speech and a few other things. They do not give you liberty to say whatever you want, whenever you want.

    103. Re:Only 25 years? by plover · · Score: 1

      No, a $100 green laser is an above average laser pointer. But it's still just a laser pointer, it's not a weapons-grade "pilot blinder" like the Soviets developed and deployed in their "fishing trawlers" during the cold war.

      --
      John
    104. Re:Only 25 years? by Duke+of+URL · · Score: 1

      US Citizens can't be declared either enemy combatants.

      However, what's to stop a out of control governmental agent/body from making a false claim that you voluntairly denied/gave up your US citizen ship prior to your arrest?

    105. Re:Only 25 years? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      intefering with a police investigation. if you say "no, i didn't do it, go ask somebody else" you are diverting the police from the right man. if you tell your daughter that you were only doing so and so, conspiracy. politicians only lie to the public, not federal law enforcement; so far that's not illegal.

    106. Re:Only 25 years? by dAzED1 · · Score: 1
      sure, it generally nets less than that, for 1 person.


      Now...how many people were on the plane? So thats...100 counts of attempted murder? 25 years sounds light to me...that would only be 3 months for each count.

    107. Re:Only 25 years? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, so he was only trying to bring down an airplane for his own amusement. My bad, that's much less of a big deal.

    108. Re:Only 25 years? by 01dbs · · Score: 3, Interesting

      > But they're talking now about outlawing lasers to the general public?

      A scientific colleague of mine told me a story from when he was in grad school that went something like this. For some reason, some general legislative stupidity, the state of Wisconsin considered passing a law banning all devices that emitted electromagnetic radiation. Before the law passed, my colleague's advisor, a physics professor of some repute, was asked to testify at a hearing about the law.

      He said to the legislators on the panel, "I'm about to remove from my pocket a device that emits a great deal of electromagnetic radiation, switch it on, and point it at you." The panel was, of course, terrified. He then took out a flashlight. Needless to say, the law didn't pass.

      I suspect this laser business will be somewhat similar. Could a laser conceivably be a public danger? Yes. So could hammers, matches, fertilizer, etc. I seriously doubt there's going to be a laser ban.

    109. Re:Only 25 years? by utexaspunk · · Score: 1

      yes, the US Constitution only officially applies to US Citizens, but that doesn't give us reason to say "go to hell" to anyone else. If we are such believers in the idea that this document represents how people should be treated, or to use the Declaration of Independence's words that all men (not just Americans) are created equal and have certain inalienable rights, shouldn't we treat non-Americans just the same?

    110. Re:Only 25 years? by nolife · · Score: 1

      I've never understood why most multiple-offense terms are severd concurrently

      Does it have anything to do with when they are eligible for parole?

      --
      Bad boys rape our young girls but Violet gives willingly.
    111. Re:Only 25 years? by lucason · · Score: 1

      I hope I'm not the only one who sees the difference between shining a laser dot on a jet and "trying to blind a pilot".

      Come on!

      That's like saying, throwing a pencil at someone's head is the same as attempted murder.

      Ever tried pointing a laser at someones eyes from sereral 1000 feet. Not to mention the fact that you are standing UNDER the plane.

      The was no intent.

    112. Re:Only 25 years? by danheskett · · Score: 5, Interesting

      It does make sense.

      15 miles away and 8000 feet means that the plane needs to drop about 1000 feet per minute for each minute that the plane is in the air. Touch down speed for a big plane like that is probably in the 120-200 mph range. That means the 15 mile approach would take 7 1/2 minutes. That's not al ot of time!

      Each second of that last 7 1/2 minutes before touch down the plane has to drop at least 15 feet! Each second!

      This is a very dangerous time of the flight. For one or both pilots to be blinded at this juncture - or even imparied slighly - could lead to catrosphe. Imagine the pilot is off just slightly in his approach. The plane drop 16 feet per second, instead of his normal plane of 15 feet per second. That would mean the plane would be 450 feet below sea level when it "gets" to the runway (aka, it crashes well before the runway).

      Those 8000 feet and 15 miles numbers make perfect sense for a jumbo on approach.

    113. Re:Only 25 years? by aralin · · Score: 1

      The other possibility is that it was a stupid, stupid person who wasn't really thinking about the consequences of what they were doing at the time and there was no premeditated intent to cause a plane to crash. If that is the case, I think 25 years is a bit extreme. I don't think so. I am a big supporter of Darwinism. On the other hand, I might let him off with just vasectomy and giving up rights to be a legal guardian (parent/teacher) for anybody from now on. I mean, if you want to use the "I'm so stupid" defense in court, you should only be allowed so on the condition that you won't try to propagate this kind of condition to next generations.

      --
      If programs would be read like poetry, most programmers would be Vogons.
    114. Re:Only 25 years? by bmongar · · Score: 0, Troll

      Bush's legal staff just made it up so they didn't have to abide by any law or offer any due process. Basically 'There are all these restrictions of what we can do on us soil and all these restricions on what we can do to prisoners of war, hmm let's house them outside the us and call them something different then we can do whatever the f we want'.

      --
      As x approaches total apathy I couldn't care less.
    115. Re:Only 25 years? by chill · · Score: 1

      Well, you don't have to lead a laser whereas you'd have to be a damn good shot to hit a plane with a bullet.

      Lasers make no noise, whereas guns go "bang" and alert everyone around you and are thus easier to isolate.

      Guns leave residue on the user, lasers do not. A laser with a non-visible beam is going to be VERY hard to track.

      Actually, a couple .50 caliber rounds thru an engine would do a great deal of damage. And you can shoot those things from a mile or more away.

      Outlawing them, however, is probably a very stupid and ineffective idea.

      -Charles

      --
      Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
    116. Re:Only 25 years? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So am I the only one, who as a kid used to amuse himself causing trouble doing a similar sort of punkass shit? Even if this guy is an adult, I can't help but laugh to myself over this, the though of using a laser pointer to make a pilot fuck up. Now I guess you all are all wearing your this-is-serious that's-not-funny faces, but personally I think they're over-reacting. Charging him as a terrorist especially. Rediculous. I guess the government needs to keep making examples of people and widely publicizing it so that the populace will always be too afraid sneeze without permission for fear of incarceration. If you ask me, the USA Federal Government are the terrorists here.

    117. Re:Only 25 years? by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      Am I missing something here? Can someone please explain to me how to use a laser pointer to look at stars?

      Two ways.

      Point it at the star. The one that reflects after several decades is the one you're looking at.

      Spend several million on one of these

    118. Re:Only 25 years? by jandrese · · Score: 1

      Those $100 lasers are just the green ones. They're about 25x stronger than your average 650nm laser, but otherwise nothing special. They're expensive because they're a little harder to manufacture and sold at much lower volumes. In a few years they'll be $10 or less (assuming they're not banned).

      --

      I read the internet for the articles.
    119. Re:Only 25 years? by TheGavster · · Score: 4, Informative

      Actually, the charge was Reckless Disregard for Human Life. Its just that Terrorism and Patriot Act make for wicked headlines.

      --
      "Because Science" is one step from "Because old book". Try "Because of my experiment testing my falsifiable assertion".
    120. Re:Only 25 years? by RealAlaskan · · Score: 1
      Was he trying to blind pilots? Is there any reason to think that was his intent? Is there any reason to think that this could have succeeded, had he gotten the pilot and copilot to stare at the beam for several minutes?

      I think that just hauling him in for questioning is serious over-reaction, unless we have some good reason to believe that the answer is a definite ``yes'' to several of those questions.

      If you were to fire a SAM at an airliner, the police might reasonably assume that the answers to the equivalent set of questions were all yes: that you were able to do harm and that you intended to do harm. In this case, I don't think that the assumption of ability or intent to do harm is plausible.

    121. Re:Only 25 years? by JabberWokky · · Score: 1
      Especially given that the majority of airline pilots (in the US) are ex-USAF. I wouldn't be surprised if the airline pilots in other countries have similar career histories. You have to be young to fly a fighter, you log many many hours, and then you have to be old to fly a airliner, have many hours, and get paid quite a bit for relatively short bursts of work.

      Quite a good deal, although the limited amount of positions available for both USAF and commercial airline pilots makes it hard to get into.

      --
      Evan

      --
      "$30 for the One True Ring. $10 each additional ring!" -- JRR "Bob" Tolkien
    122. Re:Only 25 years? by Nijika · · Score: 1
      I defy you to accomplish this.

      Uhhh, how about no. See how easy that was? Now I don't have to spend the next quarter century in jail. And I'm sure all it would take would be a powerful pointer and a monocular. So maybe $150 maximum investment and some determination to be dumb.

      You don't have to put anyone's eye out, all you have to do is illuminate the eyes enough that a visual distraction is created.

      The intent of this jackhole was as I see it not to permenantly blind the pilot, but simply distract them long enough to make them react. Shits and giggles.

      --
      Luck favors the prepared, darling.
    123. Re:Only 25 years? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yes, as usual, the USA's self interest out-weighs all else.

    124. Re:Only 25 years? by gammoth · · Score: 1

      Why have the government do it when the corporate sector has been doing a great job telling us what's proper for a decade or two now?

    125. Re:Only 25 years? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Er... I don't think there is any evidence anyone tried to blind a pilot or crash an aircraft. Furthermore, you do understand that most murderers only get 15 years prison time on average. Attempted murder, which is about the worse you could conjecture being the case here (relying on poor deductive reasoning techniques and purely circumstantial evidence), is considered much less of a crime. Now, if he had sold a banned drug substance you might have an expectation of the kind of prison term you are expecting. But since the worse you might pin on him is attempted murdered without drug sales being involved you don't have a prayer in convincing any reasonable courtroom he should get the prison sentence you expect.

      You post btw is (-1, Overrated).

    126. Re:Only 25 years? by Phurd+Phlegm · · Score: 2, Insightful
      The other possibility is that it was a stupid, stupid person who wasn't really thinking about the consequences of what they were doing at the time and there was no premeditated intent to cause a plane to crash. If that is the case, I think 25 years is a bit extreme.
      If distracting someone running a vehicle is chargable under the P.A.T.R.I.O.T. (tm) act, then they should bung all the store owners with those big animated roadside signs in jail immediately. (Note: I would be in favor of this--if that's the only way they can get business, they should just quietly go bankrupt). They are a lot more distracting than a diffuse laser pointer from thousands of feet away. I can't believe you can hand-hold a pointer on target from a thousand feet away, either. And brief consideration shows that if it was hitting a pilot's eye it couldn't have been much closer than that unless they were on airport property. After all, airplanes are supposed to be a minimum of 1000 feet above a populated area unless they're landing or taking off, and you can't see even close to straight down from the cockpit.

      Likewise, they might as well arrest people for skipping rocks when there's an ocean liner passing by. "You can _kill_ somebody with a rock!" Sheesh.

      I score this as a typical application of what I call The Stupid Person's Syllogism:

      • We must do something about X.
      • Y is something.
      • Therefore, we must do Y.

      Identification of X and Y is left as an exercise for the reader. I think you'll find the SPS explains a lot about modern society.

    127. Re:Only 25 years? by Cylix · · Score: 1

      I am a representative of the NLA and I would like to speak a few words concerning the tragedy at hand. While it is true a deviant individual used a laser to attempt to blind pilots, its important to note that the laser was not the culprit... but the man beast.

      Also, please visit our sister organization... SWFL

      (Sharks With Freakin Lasers)

      --
      "You should always go to other people's funerals; otherwise, they won't come to yours." -- Yogi Berra
    128. Re:Only 25 years? by kfg · · Score: 1

      Any ordinary laser pointer is capable of going miles into the air.

      Find a dark place. Light a simple candle. Walk a mile away. If you have line of sight to the candle you will be able to see it. Camp fires have been observed from space.

      Any man who can intentionally hit a small charter jet traveling at a few hundred miles an hour 3k feet in the air has accomplished something quite remarkable.

      Although a helicopter hovering over your house at 50 feet is a piece of cake.

      KFG

    129. Re:Only 25 years? by TheGavster · · Score: 1

      Watch, now the aliens are going to come down and jail every astronomer who's ever pointed out their star just like this guy ...

      --
      "Because Science" is one step from "Because old book". Try "Because of my experiment testing my falsifiable assertion".
    130. Re:Only 25 years? by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 1

      The man was 38 years old and knew the laser in question could potentially blind people. That shows a strong amount of culpability to me. How pointing it at a piloted jet somehow makes it a prank is beyond me, because even pilots have eyes.

    131. Re:Only 25 years? by Newspimp · · Score: 1

      Have you ever sped in your car? Well, you just intentionally did something which could cause a massive pileup and several car careening off into a subdivision inhabited solely by old people and little children which are all out in the street in the path of flying wreckage. End of story. Criminal intent should be a requirement of the application of this law. I work with free-space optics systems, which directly use open-air laser systems, with beam widening lens systems, so I definitely know what laser system exposure is and means. Given our expansion lenses, we still have a maximum of a 1/3 milliradian laser beam divergance, meaning that for every 100M that the laser signal travels, the beam "widens" by 1 foot in total diameter. Now, the actual signal radiance is minimal, with the most concentrated portion of the laser being about 1/30 of a milliradian large, and that's with our expanded lens system. A concentrated or focused laser would have a much narrower beam divergance, meaning that it'll be much narrower. Let's also assume that since the plane was on approach it was 500M from the ground. This is *RIGHT* before landing. 500M = 5ft wide laser beam to travel through. Now let's assume that half of that laser beam is powerful enough to "blind" the pilot with 1 sec of exposure(negating that the likelyhood of such an event is infinitely small). That still means that the beam unless actively tracked (which is equipment not normally available and certainly not easy to operate or maintain), is still only 2.5' wide, and a jet on approach covers 2.5' in a minute fraction of a second. And that's assuming a very very very powerful laser, through a complicated lens system, with highly highly accurate precise positioning and aiming, and also assuming that the angle of reflection and incidence with the bottom-facing windows would happen to coincide perfectly. Criminal intent in this case is negligible. Any prosecutor in this case would have to rely on how much they could scare the jury into thinking this guy is an "American hating terrorist" for conviction as a terrorist. I'm not saying it should'nt be a crime, but one that caused no permanent problems, caused no physical loss, and obviously had zero criminal intent shouldn't be what they're prosecuting under.

    132. Re:Only 25 years? by acvh · · Score: 1

      A Cessna at 8000 feet, at night, will be pretty much invisible from the ground. I live on the Jersey shore, beneath flight paths for both JFK and LGA and 757s are hard enough to see at night when they're half that high, not to mention that keeping a pointer on them would be nearly impossible.

      I'm inclined to believe that the stargazing story is true, he lied out of fear, and that the PATRIOT act is wholly inappropriate in this case.

    133. Re:Only 25 years? by danheskett · · Score: 1

      It is not the job of the prosector to necessarily "over" or "under" charge. They have a degree of judgement. But generally the bigger the potential damage, the bigger the charge.

      What this person did can be read to fit the description of the acts he (is alleged) to have committed.
      br. The judge and jury all have some discretion in what they do from here on out.

    134. Re:Only 25 years? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I second the call of "bullshit", primarily because the article doesn't say that at all.

    135. Re:Only 25 years? by rogueuk · · Score: 1

      uh..wasn't the guy playing with his kid? It's not like he was intentionally trying to take down a plane

    136. Re:Only 25 years? by AstroDrabb · · Score: 1
      So why not a harsh punishment _without_ jail time? The gov can still make an example without tearing this guys family apart and denying his daughter of a father.

      How about 5 years probation, 1,000 hours of community service and maybe $5,000-$10,000 in fines? IMO, that would send the same message without breaking up this guys family. The feds can check how much this guy made last year, so if he makes a lot of money, maybe they can even up the fines to match his income?

      --
      If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land,
      it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. -James Madison
    137. Re:Only 25 years? by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      And his luck is so bad that he accidentally shone it on the I'm alright with tossing tossers in jail for shining a laser light ANYWHERE on an airplane.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    138. Re:Only 25 years? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > no, he'd get the chocolate smeared all over his gotee

      No, you've confused the bizarro McGuyver with the alternate universe McGuyver (after some thought (more than deserved), it is most likely the bad-manner/sloppy alternate universe McGuyver).

    139. Re:Only 25 years? by danheskett · · Score: 1
      To give up your US Citizenship requires more than declaration of words. There is paperwork involved.

      You have to:

      appear in person before a U.S. consular or diplomatic officer in a foreign country (normally at a U.S. Embassy or Consulate)

      sign an oath of renunciation

      not renounce your renunciation within a non-specific time limit, generally a year, but potentially longer

      It is no small thing to give up your US Citizenship!

      http://travel.state.gov/law/citizenship/citizenshi p_776.html Here is more information.

    140. Re:Only 25 years? by MoonBuggy · · Score: 1

      I didn't say it wasn't a big deal. If his intent was indeed to kill then I'm happy for him to go to prison for as long as you like if there is a law to allow that. My point is that if he isn't a terrorist (a fact that I don't think is up for debate) he shouldn't be tried as one.

    141. Re:Only 25 years? by fitten · · Score: 1

      No... only those with laser pointers who are stupid enough to point them at airplanes.

    142. Re:Only 25 years? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, according to the pilot and co-pilot government employees the laser light entered the cockpit (a very difficult task for someone on the ground using hand sighting) and according to the pilot and co-pilot government employees they feel they were both temporarily blind (and yet somehow there was no other adverse effects -- but I thought laser light blinded caused real physical damage... not just temporary damage that can't be proven other than to take someone with a conflict-of-interest's solemn word.).

    143. Re:Only 25 years? by dark_requiem · · Score: 1

      The big issue here is that this guy has been charged under provisions of the USA PATRIOT act, which means he IS being charged under anti-terrorism (and anti-freedom) laws, so he is being regarded legally as a terrorist, even though there is no reason to suspect he was endevouring to bring down the plane. He was apparently a moronic smartass, but that doesn't qualify him as a terrorist (it would qualify him for a run at the White House, though).

    144. Re:Only 25 years? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For the idiot who wrote this, I suggest you use a dictionary to learn how to spell dictionary.

      Anonymous Cop

    145. Re:Only 25 years? by jest3r · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Would driving with your highbeams on classify as Reckless Disregard for Human Life? What you if you blinded a bus driver carrying a load of passengers?

    146. Re:Only 25 years? by ktulu1115 · · Score: 1
      Overcharging like this is simple dishonesty and intimidation on the part of the authorities and serves to reduce my respect for them.
      They lost my respect a long time ago. However, that being said, I can understand their concern with the issue. I do not find fault for that, but if this man was to serve out the full term, that would be entirely overkill.

      Since the feds found (from what I read) no evidence whatsoever he was intently trying to cause harm or other terrorist-like actions, the term should be significantly reduced; little if any jail time.

      I'm curious though, I wonder if this guy is what I saw the other night in the sky - the article claims he's from Parsippany, NJ; I live in the town directly north of there. Not sure if this is where he operated his "terrorist" plans from, I would assume so if he was with his daughter.
      --
      # fuser -v /dev/attention | grep work
      #
    147. Re:Only 25 years? by terrymr · · Score: 1

      Actually the constitution applies to anybody in the united states, it's terrotories, or even in the custody of it's government.

    148. Re:Only 25 years? by saltydogdesign · · Score: 1

      OK, I can see giving him more time. He was trying to do something that could have had a very dangerous outcome if he succeeded.

      Maybe. Then again, maybe he was just fooling around. In which case he should treated like a guy that ties a shopping cart to the back of his car and takes people for a ride.

      Intent is a factor.

      --
      // This is not a sig.
    149. Re:Only 25 years? by Sporkinum · · Score: 1

      Back when my dad used to fly for Sheaffer Pen back in the '60s, he had the windshield of the Beech Queen Air break out due to static electricity in a storm. He was able land without further incident.

      So yes, they would most likely get by unless debris hit and injured the pilot.

      --
      "He's lost in a 'floyd hole"
    150. Re:Only 25 years? by AvitarX · · Score: 1

      What is the danger of crashing a plane from a laser underneath it?

      Wouldn't it require hitting the pilot and the co-pilot in the eye while simulteaneously something goes wrong on the plane that the on board computer can't fix?

      Pilots don't do particularly much now adays from what I understand.

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    151. Re:Only 25 years? by fitten · · Score: 1

      Actually, go read up on military history, particularly the use of bright lights in relation to WWII in/around Egypt.

    152. Re:Only 25 years? by erlenic · · Score: 0

      Despite what bmongar says in the other reply to your post, it's all outlined in either the Geneva Conventions or the Law of Armed Conflict. I forget which, might be both.

    153. Re:Only 25 years? by Greyfox · · Score: 1

      How about trying to kill the 200ish someones on a plane? That's technically what they're trying to do, isn't it? They really should be lining him up with 200 (Or however many passengers and crew were on the plane at the time) charges of attempted murder. I'm pretty sure that'd net more than 25 years.

      --

      I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

    154. Re:Only 25 years? by Paco04101 · · Score: 1

      That seems wrong, especially when you consider that they are trying to convict this guy using anti-terrirism laws while admittedly knowing he is not a terrorist ! That seems a lot worse than simply lying, but of course they won't be charged with anything.

    155. Re:Only 25 years? by PalmKiller · · Score: 1

      I think they charged him with training a miniature terrorist.

    156. Re:Only 25 years? by techno-vampire · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Show me that guys victims, if he get any jail time then truely the US is not a democracy anymore...

      I sympathise with you, but you're wrong. First, there have always been "victimless crimes," and people in prison for commiting them. Second, what he did could have caused a large number of deaths, and should be punished, just for that. Third, your conclusion is a non sequiter, in that the state of democracy in the USA has nothing to do with this.

      The thing most of us are overlooking is that he could receive a 25 year sentance, not that he will. That's the maximum, and there's no reason to assume he'll be sentanced to that. I'll not be surprised to hear that he receives either probation or a suspended sentance.

      --
      Good, inexpensive web hosting
    157. Re:Only 25 years? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Objection to media spin are not directly related, by default, to the US sham of an election process. Two things are obvious: 1) it is you who related disparate objections to a single function, and 2) that you are decidedly a troll.

    158. Re:Only 25 years? by nolife · · Score: 1

      I guess I've only seen the good ones then? ;)
      Is the ability to see the beam have anything to do with the "quality" of the laser itself?
      I thought the ability to see the beam was a result of reflections from particulates in the air. With nothing to reflect the light out of the path, you should see nothing in route. Or, different wavelengths of light may reflect off of particles typically found in the air but is the color of the beam define what makes a laser "better"?

      --
      Bad boys rape our young girls but Violet gives willingly.
    159. Re:Only 25 years? by cyber0ne · · Score: 1

      Should we just remove everyone from society because they COULD do something dangerous?

      No more than we should remove from society everyone who owns a gun. But we do make an effort to remove from society the people who point those guns at other people and fire them. The same should be done for people who point high-powered lasers into the eyes of other people, specifically other people who are in the middle of doing something on which lives depend (pilots, surgeons, rescue crews, fire fighters, etc.)

      --
      http://publicvoidlife.blogspot.com
    160. Re:Only 25 years? by Wolfkin · · Score: 1

      Let me get this straight, eh? You're saying that people who do not read and watch local news to decipher this week's list of forbidden activities are stupid?

      Have you noticed the police state you're describing, or is it completely transparent to you?

      --
      Property law should use #'EQ, not #'EQUAL.
    161. Re:Only 25 years? by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      >Was he trying to blind pilots?
      It doesn't matter. He did.
      >Is there any reason to think that was his intent?
      Intent is irrelevant when your action causes harm.
      >Is there any reason to think that this could have succeeded, had he gotten the pilot and copilot to stare at the beam for several minutes?
      Temporary blindness is long enough to throw the wrong switch, or not throw one that you needed to, and get you into a difficult situation in the most intense stage of flight (landing).
      You don't play games with consequences that you can't be sure of when there are so many lives at stake.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    162. Re:Only 25 years? by Lord_Dweomer · · Score: 2, Funny
      "Riiiight. Like I could really kill 100 people in a mall with only a 2-1/2 inch blade and a pair of pliers."

      Macguyver could...

      --
      Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
    163. Re:Only 25 years? by Jacer · · Score: 1

      Legalistically speaking, it isn't the jury's job to determine what the intended outcome was. That's a job for the district attorney. The jury is only supposed to determine whether or not a crime has been commited.

      --
      --fetch daddy's blue fright wig, i must be handsome when i release my rage
    164. Re:Only 25 years? by Greyfox · · Score: 1

      I suspect he's just an idiot. He'll probably get much less than the maximum sentence but I'm all for putting a few idiots away if it makes the other idiots out there stop and consider the consequences of their actions. Not that I really see it helping...

      --

      I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

    165. Re:Only 25 years? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yeah and no chance of the pilots making their shit up?

      someone please get some people with 1.2 a brain in here... a green lazer pointer after travelling through 2 miles of atmosphere will have a HUGE beamspread, we are talking basketball size dot here.. and will look more like a bright spotlight.

      if the pilot saw a tiny bright green dot then the laser was from within feet.

      the lasers used for the old Pink floyd concerts are 100 times stronger than the strongest laser a regular citizen can buy and those hit planes during their outdoor concerts.

      come on people. at least screw with a solid state laser long enough to know what we are talking about before you start making shit up.

      the pilots saw the dot in the cockpit... from 2 miles away without heavy and specific stabilization equipment that is 100% impossible.

    166. Re:Only 25 years? by danheskett · · Score: 2, Informative

      I've done a fair amount of research on the topic, but I can't find a comprehensive list of treaties the US is bound to. There may be some that I've missed, but generally:

      The US is being somewhat more than accomodating in the fact that during a time of war or even armed conflict spys, saboters, un-uniformed soliders and mercanaries who are captured are subject to summary execution without hearing, redress, trial, evidence or even a chance to speak. The famous Vietnam era video footage of a man being executed at point blank range with a shot to the head demonstrates something: the prisoner was an illegal spy. His execution was perfectly legal under all applicable international law.

      Unless you have something or some document I can't find, the US can view any captured in a war zone as either (1) a mercenary if they are from a foreign land, (2) a spy, or (3) an un-uniformed solider and execute them on the spot in compliance with international law.

      I am not arguing for the sake of argument and if you have some *first* hand reference material, please let me know so I can update my notes. There is a lot of garbage floating around about international law this and international law that. But not so much in terms of clear concise information.

    167. Re:Only 25 years? by LiquidCoooled · · Score: 1

      So the worst that happens is they fly around for another run,

      It does start getting frightening when the real terrorist is stood hundreds of metres from the runway, and planes are just seconds from landing.

      this guy was playing, if a pilot can be taken out from 15 miles away, how the fuck do they cope at dawn or dusk?
      You get worse glare from the road on sunny days.

      --
      liqbase :: faster than paper
    168. Re:Only 25 years? by artemis67 · · Score: 1

      I agree, I hope that there is no jail time involved, just probation, community service and some stiff fines.

      The guy knew he was making mischief, though, so I'm not TOTALLY sympathetic to him. Shining the laser on the police helicopter that was searching for him was a bad, bad idea.

    169. Re:Only 25 years? by vicviper · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Would driving with your highbeams on classify as Reckless Disregard for Human Life? What you if you blinded a bus driver carrying a load of passengers?

      Are you asking for a legal opinion or a moral opinion? Are you driving with your highbeams on to intentionally blind the bus driver?

    170. Re:Only 25 years? by AstroDrabb · · Score: 1
      That seems to be what the US government wants. Currently, according to the International Centre for Prison Studies at King's College London, the U.S. currently has the largest documented prison population in the world, both in absolute and proportional terms. We have a larger % of our population in jail then even China or Russia!

      For this case, this guy should get 5 years or so of probation with 1,000 hours or so of community service and a nice big fine of $5,000-$10,000. If this punishment doesn't send a message to others, _then_ you start to up the anti by adding 6 months to 1 year jail time. You don't start out with such harsh punishments.

      Whatever happened to the US government working for the people? To me a better solution than all this jail time for "criminals" would be to at least try rehabilitation programs first. Shouldn't our government want healthy and happy citizens? You don't keep happy, healthy and productive citizens by having the largest documented prison population in the world.

      --
      If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land,
      it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. -James Madison
    171. Re:Only 25 years? by kfg · · Score: 1

      Now I don't have to spend the next quarter century in jail.

      There is no law against shining a laser pointer at someone.

      And I'm sure all it would take would be a powerful pointer and a monocular.

      There is no dispute over the fact that it was an ordinary laser pointer involved. I'm not sure what sort of "powerful" laser pointer you have in mind. Go down to Best Buy and try to buy one of these "powerful" pointers.

      Let us presume, however, that you have somehow managed to get a "powerful" pointer and a monocular. You will still be unable to do anything more that pass the beam over the retina of a motionless man 20 feet away by "blind" luck, and only for a fraction of a second at a time. The feat has nothing to do with the power of the laser or any possible optical magnification.

      You don't have to put anyone's eye out, all you have to do is illuminate the eyes enough that a visual distraction is created.

      That is changing your premise. It is also much easier done with a simple Mini Mag than with a laser, since with the Mini Mag you are guarunteed a "hit," whereas with the laser a "hit" is quite unlikely.

      KFG

    172. Re:Only 25 years? by danheskett · · Score: 1

      Uhh.. no.

      Being charged under the USA PATRIOT act does mean you are accused of being a terrorist. It is nothing at all like you describe it.

      The USA PATRIOT act is a bill, just like all others, but a bit more complex. There are bits about money handling, and warrants, and air travel, and interferring with the flight crew, etc. There are numerous bits about funding, about drugs and drug controls, about interagency co-operation, and even so much more.

      Just because he is charged with a crime under this bill does not mean he is suspected of being a "terrorist". It means he is suspect of violating a bit of the USA PATRIOT act.

    173. Re:Only 25 years? by LiquidCoooled · · Score: 1

      theres also the case when a pilot needs to have a crap whilst landing.
      shit happens

      Anybody who thinks this is an act of terrorism needs their head examining.
      Talk to me when people are stood at the end of the runway when things are dangerous, until then, the sun causes more damage and distractions than any laser pointer.

      --
      liqbase :: faster than paper
    174. Re:Only 25 years? by csbruce · · Score: 2, Insightful

      After all, how could something so simple as shining a beam on an airplane be a criminal act?

      How could something so simple as removing a stop sign from an intersection be anything more than petty vandalism?

    175. Re:Only 25 years? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You misspelled "I'm a paranoid jackass who believes that I can do anything to anyone with complete disregard for their effects on others and consequences for such actions".
      You are as free as you were 3+ years ago. If you do break a law where lives are at stake, just expect harsher punishment.
      No one is monitoring you - you aren't that important. Stop believing that you are.

    176. Re:Only 25 years? by Brandybuck · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Every laser I have ever seen includes a prominent and impossible-to-ignore warning: dangerous to your eyeballs you nitwit! The accused shined this laser into the eyeballs of an airline pilot. If the jury (yes, he will get a jury) finds him willfully culpable of this act, then he deserves jail time.

      This is not different than if someone shot a BB gun at an airplane cockpit. The odds of a BB gun penetrating the windscreen of any airplane cockpit is between zero to zilch, but anyone doing so would be up on identical charges. And rightly so. I don't give a shit if he was just "goofing around". All the "goofing around" defense does is throw the crime into the category of "criminal negligence."

      --
      Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
    177. Re:Only 25 years? by Greyfox · · Score: 2, Funny
      I bet you could do it with some sort of catapult or air cannon device! We see those built from time to time on various Discovery Network shows.

      Now I want to see Mythbusters build a little girl cannon!

      --

      I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

    178. Re:Only 25 years? by SilverspurG · · Score: 1

      Shining the laser on the police helicopter that was searching for him was a bad, bad idea.


      I'm very skeptical that this is an accurate representation of the truth. The truth is probably closer to,"Yeah, we were cruising around in the police helicopter, heard on the scanner about some pilots who saw a funny light and deliberately flew in front of it, then we saw the light pointing at Orion's Belt so we figured, if we flew between Orion's Belt and the beam, we could nab the guy for deliberately trying to take us down."

      --
      fast as fast can be. you'll never catch me.
    179. Re:Only 25 years? by j0nb0y · · Score: 1

      Of course you can be permanently blinded. Lasers can cause temporary damage too. We had a few nice lasers in my high school physics class. Powerful enough to blind someone instantaneously. I took my teacher's word on this, as we never tried it out =]

      It's my understanding that getting hit in the eye with a laser can cause a number of things short of permanent blindness, scaling from a severe headache a few hours later to blurry spots in the vision to temporary blindness. I've experienced the first, you can get that one just from staring at the "dot" of a laser hiting a wall. I had a blurry spot in my vision one day in high school. I've always suspected it was from some idiot hitting me with a laser pointer.

      --
      If you had super powers, would you use them for good, or for awesome?
    180. Re:Only 25 years? by Lodragandraoidh · · Score: 1

      I went on a sky tour at the Davis Mountain Observatory of the University of Texas. The instructor used a laser pointer, just like that one, to point out features in the night sky.

      Of course, this was out in the middle of nowhere outside of congested airspace.

      I am sure they won't ban the devices - the FAA will probably put a moratorium on utilizing them within X miles/feet of controlled airspace.

      Education for people using these devices would probably help too.

      --

      Lodragan Draoidh
      The more you explain it, the more I don't understand it. - Mark Twain
    181. Re:Only 25 years? by AviLazar · · Score: 1

      Except this was a helicopter carrying 2-4 people. Not to mention, the height that a passenger jet (or any jet) flies, the speed that it moves, and the potentcy of the laser pointer --- you know how difficult it is to sucessfully hit a moving jet with a laser pointer? Here is a suggestion, next time a fruit-fly is buzzing around - try shining a laser pointer at it - see how sucessful you are - thats about what you would have to do to hit a plane that is moving hundreds of miles an hour and that is so far away from you.

      --

      I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
    182. Re:Only 25 years? by LiquidCoooled · · Score: 1

      from te article:
      She said her client was playing with his young daughter, using the laser's narrow green beam to point at stars and illuminating trees and neighbor's houses.

      Theres the biggest victim.

      --
      liqbase :: faster than paper
    183. Re:Only 25 years? by gravyfaucet · · Score: 1

      Hmmm... a few thousand partially trained/equipped civilians get together, buy uniforms, and fight the best trained, best equipped, and best funded military force in the world head on. Suicide rules! we are on their soil, asshole.

      --
      Yes! Evil rules! Good can suck it! Suck it, good!
    184. Re:Only 25 years? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well I don't know why every one is automatically saying he isn't a terrorist. He isn't from the middle east, which is what you seem to mean. But let's review. He saw on the news that there was a lot of national press about how lasers could be used to bring down airplanes. It was in all the newspapers and tv shows. He walks outside and tries it out. His actions are reported across the nation and everyone gets scared. My grandma cancelled a flight because of this. I think that is the definition of terrorism. If he saw on the news that terrorists were making pipebombs so he made one and set it off in a busy street but no one got hurt, wouldn't that be the same? He heard about something terrorists were doing. He copied them. Therefore he is a terrorist.

    185. Re:Only 25 years? by davmoo · · Score: 1

      if you walk around in fear, then the terrorists have already won

      Preach it, brother!

      --
      I want a new quote. One that won't spill. One that don't cost too much. Or come in a pill.
    186. Re:Only 25 years? by SilverspurG · · Score: 1

      It doesn't matter. He did.

      I strongly suspect that the "temporarily blinded the pilots" language was inserted by lawyers and law enforcement officials in order to turn a laughable coincidence of misguided stargazing into a news story.

      --
      fast as fast can be. you'll never catch me.
    187. Re:Only 25 years? by werfele · · Score: 1

      Tell that to Jose Padilla, who was designated an enemy combatant in 2002 and has yet to be charged with anything. Well, as the article points out, the court system may coincidently do something about that today, but if I were Jose, I wouldn't be packing my bags.

    188. Re:Only 25 years? by danheskett · · Score: 2, Informative

      The Constitution is a binding agreement between the states who ratified it, their citizens and decendants, and those who volunteer to become a citizen of the US and are therefore bound to it by oath.

      All people born into the terrority of the US are natural born US citizens, and are protected by all of our laws and the Constitution. You may renounce your citizenship at anytime by going to the US embassy, State department, or foreign consulate and swearing in writing an oath of renunication (followed by exiting US soil). Unless you do this, you are not a citizen of the United States and you therefore do not have the responsibilities or rights of US citizen.

      People born in Zaire or France or China are not descended from the ratifiers, nor have they ratified it, nor are they bound by it. If the United States Congress voted by majority to permit it and a majority of citizens of any foreign province, terrority or land voted by majority to ratify it, the US Constitution would apply fully to all of its citizens.

      There's your answer.

    189. Re:Only 25 years? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Actually, they are granted rights by various international convents which the US has signed.The US just happens to be in blatant violation.

      Which agreements? 'The' Geneva Convention (actually, do you know which one refers to the treatment of prisoners? Go read them!!!). Once you do, you'll find out the US is in compliance, and actually acts no differently than how the French government is handling illegal combatants right now in the Ivory Coast. The French handle illegal combatants no differently than the US when faced with an enemy that refuses to differentiate itself from civilians.

      Please understand there is a reason France, Germany, the US and others do this. When combatants disguise themselves as normal civilians, they cause civilian deaths. Militaries must begin shooting civilians because nothing identifies the enemy. Innocent people are lost. Civilized nations absolutely must use punitive means to make practice have a consequence. Slashdotters that oppose the treatment of these combatants are actually advocating the death of innocent civilians! Think about the consequences of your words, read the actual treaties before you profess to be an expert on it, and open your eyes to how nearly all western nations behave consistently on this issue. As a Bangolore friend of mine used to say:
      "One does not teach his grandfather how to f*ck!"

    190. Re:Only 25 years? by Prophet+of+Nixon · · Score: 1

      the National Ray-Gun Association?

    191. Re:Only 25 years? by maskedbishounen · · Score: 2, Funny

      I don't know about you, but I for one already have a "little" girl cannon. Or so the e-mails tell me.

      *ducks*

      --
      "An infinite number of monkeys typing into GNU emacs would never make a good program."
    192. Re:Only 25 years? by KevCo · · Score: 1

      perhaps you should RTFA

    193. Re:Only 25 years? by aborchers · · Score: 2, Informative
      Can someone please explain to me how to use a laser pointer to look at stars?


      It's not so much for looking at the stars, but for sharing the experience of looking at the stars. Have you ever tried to point out a specific star (other than the brightest, most obvious ones) to someone else? It usually goes something like this:

      Up there, see that one that's kind of reddish? Now go a little left and up? Got it? Now the one directly above that about twice as far away as the second was from the first? OK? Go just to the right of that about as far as the width of the full moon. That's the one...

      Needless to say, it's frequently very hard to get two people, especially if one of them is inexperienced with observing the night sky, looking at the same point on the celestial sphere.

      Now, the scenario with a green laser:

      That one, right there. [points laser directly at the object of interest]

      ---

      When this story started coming up, I was concerned because members of my astronomy club routinely use lasers for this purpose, and I for one had never considered we might inadvertantly blind a pilot!

      I have no idea if this guy is on the level or not. Just trying to answer your question...

      --
      Trouble making decisions? Just flip for it.
    194. Re:Only 25 years? by danheskett · · Score: 1

      Luckily, the court system is grinding through the issue. So far it is looking good for him. Precendent will be set. He will get out. See, now, if this was a real fascist country, do you think anything could save him from the government? Let alone another part of the government?

    195. Re:Only 25 years? by secret_squirrel_99 · · Score: 1

      Am I the only one here who thinks that's letting them off kind of easy?

      Yeah, you might be.

      I mean, if I were to shoot a SAM at an airliner and get caught, I think I'd probably be looking at more than 25 years even if it missed. In both cases, the intention and the potential outcome are the same...


      Are they? I live in NJ, and have been following this story closely in both the local and nation news. There is no evidence as yet that shows any malicious intent. This guy is clearly an idiot, let's be clear about that, but this is hardly the same as aiming a SAM at a commercial airliner.

      The other part of this whole thing that is so offensive is that the states' attorney has confirmed that there was no act of terrorism, yet they're prosecuting him under anti-terrorism laws instead of the multitude of appropriate laws that cover these kinds of actions. There are only 2 possible reasons for this. One, there are greater penalties. Two, there is far greater media coverage. I'll leave to you to decide the motive here.

      --
      If privacy had a tombstone it would read "We did it for your own good" . -- John Twelve Hawks
    196. Re:Only 25 years? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Agreed. I find it extremely annoying when half the idiots in their gi-normous SUV's and pickups drive around with their foglights on when there isn't any fog.

      Hey!! Spunkmops!!...

      if(fog > 3)
      foglights = on;
      else
      foglights = off;
      endif

      </rant>

      (Or maybe I'm just too light-sensitive and should just plan on staying in my parent's basement... :-)

    197. Re:Only 25 years? by mattOzan · · Score: 1

      Pilot/columnist Patrick Smith keeps pointing out that takeoff is really the vulnerable time for large aircraft, not approach or landing. See his last column at Salon.com (not free)

    198. Re:Only 25 years? by Brandybuck · · Score: 1

      The charge isn't "distracting someone". The entire premise of your post is thus groundless.

      --
      Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
    199. Re:Only 25 years? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just like any child with a new toy, that child will want to play with it even at inappropriate times.

    200. Re:Only 25 years? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can you track an airplane with binoculars? I believe the answer is yes.

      Can you rubber band a laser emitter to said binoculars? I believe the answer is yes.

      Look at the airplane with the laser modified binoculars, and voila, you just tracked a jet with binoculars.

    201. Re:Only 25 years? by PenguiN42 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Illegal combatants are designated as such because...

      The problem is how to distinguish between "illegal combatants" performing acts of war, and foreign nationals performing criminal acts.

      The bush administration is providing very shaky criteria with which to do this distinguishing -- a perpetual state of "war" on terrorism that may never terminate, legislation that redefines hoards of previously criminal acts as acts of "terrorism," etc. It's actually rather scary -- the scope of what constitutes an "enemy combatant" grows larger and larger without boundaries. Your "fuck 'em, they're enemy combatants" attitude demonstrates a grave lack of thoughtfulness into this (which seems to be shared with the president).

      --
      The following sentence is true. The preceding sentence was false.
    202. Re:Only 25 years? by Dehumanizer · · Score: 2, Insightful

      They voted for that act because, at the time (just after 9/11), anyone who voted against it would automatically be labeled a "terrorist supporter" and have his/her political career finished.

      Remember, people weren't exactly rational at that time.

      --
      The Tlog - a technology blog
    203. Re:Only 25 years? by bcattwoo · · Score: 1

      Not that I feel particularly sorry for the guy, but Jose Padilla, a U.S. citizen, was designated an enemy combatant and has been locked up without trial for over two years now.

    204. Re:Only 25 years? by scovetta · · Score: 1

      I thought the airplanes today are run almost totally on auto-pilot? I doubt that there's so little leeway in flying...

      --
      Wer mit Ungeheuern kämpft, mag zusehn, dass er nicht dabei zum Ungeheuer wird. --Nietzsche
    205. Re:Only 25 years? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Rather than partisan schemes, from either of the US major or any of the US minor parties, it seems that a subvert group planned the legislation and hurriedly proposed it-happening to coincide the final vote of an act with the name of "USA-PATRIOT" at a time of nationalistically elevated paranoia and pseudo-patriotism in the US legislature. It is, regardless, a bad law-but it is also an example of the huge gaps and potentials for abuse of the US legislature for allowing an act to pass through without any representative actually considering the impact of the document, much less for most even reading any of it, and as I recall none read it through before voting for it-very likely due to its ever so useful for the proposition group name.

    206. Re:Only 25 years? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I mean , you just tracked a jet with a laser.

    207. Re:Only 25 years? by kfg · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I've been momentarily blinded by oncoming headlights.

      I have that experience daily. I've yet to see a car with headlasers though. The laser part makes a world of difference. There is no dispersion pattern for a laser. That's what makes it a laser. You have to look directly into the cohesive beam of a laser to see it at all. That's why it makes a red dot instead of a red splash, like car tail lights do. A person on the other side of the street from you can only see the laser at all if that tiny red dot happens to pass directly over his retina.

      Now, take that car and toss it at a couple hundred miles an hour and several hundred feet over your head.

      Try to make that little red dot pass directly over the retina of the driver. For that matter, try to make it hit the driver at all.

      Try somthing easier, try to put out your own cat's eye with your laser pointer. You'll certainly be able to distract her, for hours on end. You'll get bored before she does.

      Her eyes will be perfectly safe. You will not be able to even momentarily blind her.

      KFG

    208. Re:Only 25 years? by OnTheFringe · · Score: 1

      What if the round actually hit the pilot? ONE shot COULD cause a disaster, but 25 years for being an idiot is ludicrous.

    209. Re:Only 25 years? by NormalVisual · · Score: 1

      The green pointers actually are not stronger at all - they're still 5mw or less, and most of them are pulsed, which brings the effective power over time down quite a bit. The human eye is more sensitive to green than to red, so they *look* brighter, but they're really not. They're expensive because they're a totally different type of laser than the average keychain pointer, and unless the YLF/YAG lasing crystals and KTP doubling crystals in them come down in price, I wouldn't count on them getting cheaper anytime too soon.

      --
      Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
    210. Re:Only 25 years? by Lord+Kano · · Score: 3, Informative

      What is the danger of crashing a plane from a laser underneath it?

      If you're directly underneath, there isn't much danger. He was not directly underneath the plane. He was able to paint the cockpit window with his laser. The diffusion of light on that window temporarily blinded the captain and copilot.

      Wouldn't it require hitting the pilot and the co-pilot in the eye while simulteaneously something goes wrong on the plane that the on board computer can't fix?

      No.

      Pilots don't do particularly much now adays from what I understand.

      They still land the plane, which is what they were doing when this idiot blinded them. They were at approx. 3000 feet as the descended for landing. The autopilot doesn't land the planes. People do.

      LK

      --
      "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
    211. Re:Only 25 years? by Moofie · · Score: 1

      Was this guy using his laser pointer to intentionally blind pilots?

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    212. Re:Only 25 years? by cyber0ne · · Score: 1

      To me a better solution than all this jail time for "criminals" would be to at least try rehabilitation programs first.

      That brings up a whole other debate, though. What would these programs be? A friend of mine once suggested to me that we replace prisons with schools so we can educate criminals and turn them into productive members of society. The appeal of simply killing my high school guidance counselor instead of taking out $25,000 in loans was immediate.

      Honestly, the best "rehabilitation" program I've ever heard of was forced military service. If a convict's sentence is, say, 10 years... well, that's more than the average contract length for enlisting in the Army. We have a draft (though we don't really need it anymore), why not use its powers to rehabilitate criminals? As an added bonus, any further criminal activity they engage in would then be punishable under the UCMJ, which is MUCH more of a deterrent. Honestly, being a prior-service myself (medical discharge, unfortunately), I can tell you that the military is a hell of a career. The pay isn't as good as the private jobs of course, but the benefits are unmatched. Instead of just being removed from society, they'd be serving it. And when their "sentence" is up, they'd have the option of staying in or taking their new valuable skills elsewhere.

      --
      http://publicvoidlife.blogspot.com
    213. Re:Only 25 years? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      except:

      "The jet, a chartered Cessna Citation, was coming in for a landing last Wednesday with six people aboard when a green light beam struck the windshield three times at about 3,000 feet"

    214. Re:Only 25 years? by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      From what my pilot friends tell me, modern planes basically land themselves. This isn't common knowledge because people aren't comfortable with the idea yet. Of course, these are Air Force pilots.. the same branch that has a/c tents in the desert with satellite TV. They're might just be more coddled than other pilots.

    215. Re:Only 25 years? by sangreal66 · · Score: 2, Informative

      How is this insightful?

      For starters, I fail to see how charging someone under a specific provision of a federal law is evidence that ANYTHING can be labeled as terrorism. Note: this case is not being labeled as terrorism. Also, please point out the due process being skipped, and the Constitutional protections being violated.

      Further, you state that the PATRIOT act shouldn't be used, instead deferring to existing laws. Well, the PATRIOT act is an existing law, so that doesn't make sense. You state that he should instead be charged with "interfering with an aircrew." Did you RTFA? "He was charged with interfering with a flight crew under the USA Patriot Act."

      As further evidence that the PATRIOT act does not mean that "ANYTHING the powers-that-be don't like" is illegal, I would like to point out the fact that the man in question was not charged in the targetting of the helicopter specifically because there is no provision in the act to allow for this.

    216. Re:Only 25 years? by gcatullus · · Score: 1

      The USA-PATRIOT act is incredibly insidious, and will be more often abused to charge people who are not terrorists per se, but just guilty of something that the government deems "wrong" A little known section of the Patriot act that is just starting to be enforced makes it illeagal to cash third party checks, unless you are a federally licensed check casher. What this means to the average person is that any side work that you may have done which you recieved a check in payment for, and not necessarily reported as income is now reported. In the name of stopping terrorism the government is just trying to line its pockets even more.

    217. Re:Only 25 years? by WhiteBandit · · Score: 1

      Would driving with your highbeams on classify as Reckless Disregard for Human Life? What you if you blinded a bus driver carrying a load of passengers?

      There's a few differences here. If someone forgets to turn their high beams off, you as a driver can still shield your eyes and prepare for it somehow. Or even look away. Those white lines on the road to the right of your car? You use those to help you see where the edge of the road is when conditions make it hard to see. Look towards that until the car passes, you'll be fine.

      A pilot who is landing a plane that is suddenly flashed with a laser can't really look away. The laser has already hit his eye. And it's quite possible that it could have caused permanent damage to his vision, which can significantly increase the chances of an accident, as well.

      Whether it causes an accident or not, your high beams aren't going to cause someone to have permanent eye damage.

    218. Re:Only 25 years? by dewke · · Score: 1

      Oh really? While I think the patriot act is horrible, I think you're way off base.

      If someone is deliberatly trying to blind a pilot to crash a plane (granted it's far fetched) I really don't think it's any different than shooting a gun or a missile at a plane which I would agree is an act of terrorism. Just because the chance of success is miniscule doesn't change the intent.

      --
      Oderint dum metuant
    219. Re:Only 25 years? by acidrain69 · · Score: 1, Troll

      First of all, you can't assume he watches the news. It is every citizens responsibility to be aware of the laws (which is arguably impossible, but I digress).

      Second, it is not proven wether people are trying to "take down planes" by blinding the pilots. Until you produce some kind of evidence, it is not proven. There are idiots out there that will just hear something on TV about this and just play around with a pocket laser because they are stupid. I call these people "dumb rednecks". And then there are people out there who are actually trying to take down planes, possibly using lasers to distract/blind the pilots. I call these people "terrorists". Terrorists don't care about the 25 year sentence. Terrorists don't even care if you kill them in the process, if they have made the decision to give their own life to their cause. They don't care about our laws, and trying to scare them by making an example of someone does nothing.

      There are no laws forcing stupid people not to reproduce, unfortunately. There would be no Bush daughters, that is a bad thing depending on how you look at it. "Safer to the general public" is a very subjective point of view. We don't lock up senior citizens because they are shitty drivers. We don't lock up kids because they don't know better and do stupid shit. Well, sometimes we do.

      --
      -- Having a Creationist Museum is like having an Atheist place of worship
    220. Re:Only 25 years? by Jerf · · Score: 1

      Where in the constitution does it say that the constitution applies to us citizens only?

      "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, ..., do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

      Certainly, as stated in the Declaration of Independance we believe that "all men are created equal", and that everyone should have the same freedoms, but people not of the United States of America are not part of the Constitution. Do you seriously think that Section 2, clause 3 discusses taxation of people not in the US? Or discusses Congressional representation of those people?

      Sure, it never comes out and says it directly that I can see, but it sure would make those charges of Imperialist America ring true if we actually tried to enforce the Constitution on non-USA citizens!

    221. Re:Only 25 years? by DogDude · · Score: 1

      Remember, people weren't exactly rational at that time.

      Unfortunately, I don't think that things are any better. The public is now completely ignorant about what the US gov't does behind closed doors, and that's now accepted as normal. I used to be angry about it, but now I'm resigned to that being normal for this country now. Personally, I'm working to make enough to retire, then I'll leave and never come back. It's already too far gone.

      --
      I don't respond to AC's.
    222. Re:Only 25 years? by rjstanford · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Unless you have something or some document I can't find, the US can view any captured in a war zone as either (1) a mercenary if they are from a foreign land, (2) a spy, or (3) an un-uniformed solider and execute them on the spot in compliance with international law.

      Oh, really? Well, you're missing a word from that sentence, so this may be a little unfair, but was that "any one" or "any soldier"? One of the issues is that right now anyone living in a "war zone" (which can be very loosely defined and includes a ton of people) can be picked up as an "enemy combatant." Anyone at all. That's the scary part.

      Now, screening people right then and there is quite difficult. This wouldn't be too bad if there was due process to separate true combatants from people who just happen to, say, be living there at the time. Most people aren't complaining about the fact that these folk can be detained, but in the fact that there's no way to decide if they should have been. Guilty until proven innocent, indeed.

      --
      You're special forces then? That's great! I just love your olympics!
    223. Re:Only 25 years? by Jtheletter · · Score: 2, Insightful
      yeah and no chance of the pilots making their shit up? [...] come on people. at least screw with a solid state laser long enough to know what we are talking about before you start making shit up. [...] the pilots saw the dot in the cockpit... from 2 miles away without heavy and specific stabilization equipment that is 100% impossible.

      First off, they found the man who was in fact shining a green laser at air vehicles, so it's doubtful that the pilots made it up, and what would they stand to gain by fabricating such a story?
      Secondly, no one said it was a solid state laser, at least not in the article that I read. His lawyer claims he bought the laser online for $100 and its intended use was for testing fiber optic cable. Granted, $100 for a green laser pointer sounds about right for a solid state job from thinkgeek, but it's possible either he or his lawyer is lying. Maybe he does have a green pen laser and that's what he turned over to police, but the one he used on the plane could have been a 500mW gas laser he bought after he decided the penlight didn't do it for him?

      Additionally, the wired article says the incident occured on approach at 3,000 feet, which - if we assume a ground angle of 30 degrees - means the beam could have travelled as little as roughly 6,000 ft, just over one mile. A 100mW laser at that distance would still be enough to flashblind someone for a few moments if it got them in the eyes.

      While I agree that all of this should be taken with a grain of salt, and that we're all arguing with too little information, this story is not impossible or even implausible.

      --
      -- I'm not a pessimist, I'm a realist. It's not my fault that life sucks so much. --
    224. Re:Only 25 years? by Ironsides · · Score: 1

      In the name of stopping terrorism the government is just trying to line its pockets even more.

      sounds to me like thay are trying to stop tax fraud with that part instead. along with money laundering which, surprise surprise, is used by organized crime and terrorist groups among other less insidious groups.

      --
      Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
    225. Re:Only 25 years? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, what your telling me is, its easier to focus a lazer beam, from hundreds of feet away, through a small opening, onto a very small target, then it is to shine a high powered spot light in a direction and blind more people at once?

      Didn't think so. I think the patriot act needs to be canned, and the civil rights of all Americans AND the rest of the world to be held in tact without some BS law telling everyone we're terrorists

    226. Re:Only 25 years? by porkUpine · · Score: 1

      Are you also aware that many of those who have been released have fallen right back into their roles as terrorists?

    227. Re:Only 25 years? by NormalVisual · · Score: 1

      I don't buy it in the least - even one of the questionable 100 mw green pointers that are available on the web wouldn't be blinding people 15 miles away - the beam divergence is going to be too much, plus the atmosphere is going to absorb a lot of the energy. I think it's quite possible that the pilot might have seen an instantaneous low-level green flash, but nothing more and certainly nothing dangerous.

      I think someone is just trying to make a point.

      --
      Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
    228. Re:Only 25 years? by Atzanteol · · Score: 1

      The difference is *intent*. The sunset does not intend to cause you harm. The guy with the laser does.

      --
      "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"

      - Charles Darwin
    229. Re:Only 25 years? by harrkev · · Score: 1

      I know that Chuck Norris could kick my butt with one hand tied behind his back. And probably yours too. And probably both of us at the same time. But I do admit that nobody could beat Bruce Lee.

      --
      "-1 Troll" is the apparently the same as "-1 I disagree with you."
    230. Re:Only 25 years? by despe666 · · Score: 1

      That's what's wrong with America. They resist outlawing guns to their deaths, yet guns have no other purpose than killing. Yet they want to outlaw laser pointers, which MAY crash an airplane by some freak bad luck. How does that make sense?

    231. Re:Only 25 years? by Raptor+CK · · Score: 1

      Man, I'd love to see Bruce Lee kick some ass ANYWHERE.

      Seriously, I bet his zombie-fu is quite strong.

      --
      Raptor
      "Procrastination is great. It gives me a lot more time to do things that I'm never going to do."
    232. Re:Only 25 years? by MasterOfMadmen · · Score: 1

      I agree. That's kinda light. I'm guessin' it's just cause they weren't using deadly force... just deadly intention. *Shrug.* Prolly somethin' like that. Of course 25 could be the min. What kind of an idiot does that though? Ya know? It's not like you wouldn't be found out.

      --
      Smile :)
    233. Re:Only 25 years? by FictionPimp · · Score: 1
      They voted for that act because, at the time (just after 9/11), anyone who voted against it would automatically be labeled a "terrorist supporter" and have his/her political career finished.

      Remember, people weren't exactly rational at that time.

      Yea, glad to know they care enough about the country to put themselves before it. Not to mention the fact that not thinking or not rational is not an excuse. I can't beat the shit out of you and say its ok because I was exactly rational at the time.

    234. Re:Only 25 years? by arivanov · · Score: 1

      Well...

      All I can say that now I am even more inclined to think that a significant proportion of the jets in the US airspace has had missile warning systems installed. Most of these have a component which detects laser illumination at the more popular wavelengths because it is used for distance/speed measurement in the newer missile launchers.

      This is the only way someone could have noticed that some idiot is shining a laser pointer. At 500+ mph there is simply no way for the dot to stay long enough in one place for someone to notice.

      --
      Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
      http://www.sigsegv.cx/
    235. Re:Only 25 years? by GreyPoopon · · Score: 1
      I seriously doubt the man had the intention of taking down an aircraft with his daughter.

      Probably not, but something doesn't seem right with his story, either. Could someone explain to me what use a laser would be in pointing out stars to his daughter? That was one of the things he said he was doing with it, but I fail to see what the laser would reflect off of that would make it useful. Also, according to the Wired article, he claimed that his daughter was the one that painted the helicopter. That might have been the lie that he told the FBI, but what kind of idiot would let a young child play with a laser? The first thing most children would do with it is shine it directly into either their eyes or those of someone else.

      --

      GreyPoopon
      --
      Why is it I can write insightful comments but can't come up with a clever signature?

    236. Re:Only 25 years? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, considering the Patriot Act was created to give our wonderful government powers to fight terrorism, powers that would otherwise be illegal/unconstitutional (as many pieces of the Act have already been found), being charged under the Patriot Act, assuming you are correct in your assessment, "insinuates" that that he is being charged under anti-terrorist laws.

      I have not looked deeply into the Patriot Act as what I have read scares the living hell out of me. I have felt for a long time that our (US) government is only here for it's benefit and the US people are being allowed to reside here to support it. All the Patriot Act has done that I can see it allowed the US Government to go after it's own citizens for not thinking/acting the way they are expected to.

      As for the laser incident, the guy is guilty of nothing more than doing something stupid. I have seen people do things that could have done more harm than this and carry on their merry way. It's enough to make you shake your head in disgust and move somewhere isolated where you don't have to deal with them. But then again, the US government could probably find something illegal with that and the next thing you know you with have the FBI, CIA, ATF and any other department with a gun pounding down your door.

    237. Re:Only 25 years? by Atzanteol · · Score: 1

      The difference between Sun glare and this is intent. If the guy was hitting the plane with intent to cause harm, he's displaying reckless disregard for human life. While not terrorism, it it still a crime. One count for each person on board.

      If I stood at the end of the runway throwing rocks at planes would you be so light on me too? After all, birds hit planes too.

      --
      "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"

      - Charles Darwin
    238. Re:Only 25 years? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They can land the planes, though. British Airways has been doing hands-off autolanding e.g. at Heathrow for at least two decades. Just the thing for fog.

      Not that that is any excuse for shining lasers at aircraft, of course.

    239. Re:Only 25 years? by Crouching+Turbo · · Score: 1
      I did RTFA and (A) the laser light entered the cockpit and temporarily blinded both the pilot and the co-pilot.

      I don't know which FA you R'd, but the USA Today article linked in the post does not say this. It says the pilots were "temporarily distracted".

    240. Re:Only 25 years? by jackbird · · Score: 2, Insightful

      We most certainly did. Nathan Halewas executed for being caught out of uniform, for example.

    241. Re:Only 25 years? by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 1
      What if the round actually hit the pilot?

      I think I said that
      "a couple through the cockpit/aircrew"

      And he hasn't gotten 25 years, yet. That is merely the max possible.

    242. Re:Only 25 years? by WIAKywbfatw · · Score: 1

      Why don't you feel sorry for him? Is it because he's not you or because you instinctively know that he's guilty?

      When you let the rights of one guy get trampled on then you've started down that slippery slope that leads to everyone's rights being trampled on. In a civilised society, people that the state believes to be criminals deserve fair trials, where the evidence against them is freely presented, not indefinite incarcaration without any proof of guilt being established.

      If someone locked you up tomorrow and didn't allow you the right to challenge your situation in any way whatsoever wouldn't you feel that was wrong? Well, if it's true for you then why isn't it true for Jose Padilla?

      --

      "Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
    243. Re:Only 25 years? by saider · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The problem is that when the sun is out, the pupil is contracted to block much of the energy. At nighttime, the pupil is dialated to allow more light in, which compounds the laser problem.

      I agree that some handheld laser briefly flashing across a cockpit is not a danger. But a laser pointer can cause damage to the eye, especially at night. There was post with a link on the previous slashdot thread which showed that a laser pointer generates a light intensity about 100 the times that of the sun on a typical eye.

      --


      Remember, You are unique...just like everyone else.
    244. Re:Only 25 years? by kfg · · Score: 1

      Here's an experiment you can try. Go get your picture taken with a camera that has a flash.

      Happened to me about 30 times Sunday evening. A few days before that someone with a camera crept up right to edge of the stage while I was looking down, and as soon as I looked up let loose a stobe right in my face. It pretty much sucked, although I was complimented afterward for not so much as missing a beat when it happened.

      But here's an experiment you can try. Take a "flash" picture with a laser pointer. What sort of image do you suppose you'll get and what are the odds that the subject was even aware you used a "flash"?

      KFG

    245. Re:Only 25 years? by armyofone · · Score: 1

      Bah. Not if one of us had a laser pointer to blind him with!! :-)

      --
      "A revolution without dancing is... a revolution not worth having"
    246. Re:Only 25 years? by Doctor_Jest · · Score: 1

      Because Guns are protected by the 2nd Amendment.

      Lasers aren't. I agree it's silly to ban the lasers, but banning guns is against the very document that puts in print our rights.

      Not privileges... rights. Rights that SHALL NOT be infringed. Ever.

      Get over the gun issue. Don't like guns? Move or stay in Europe (whatever the case may be...)

      --
      It's the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man.
    247. Re:Only 25 years? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      He was a dumbass that was pointing his laser at anything that moved, including the police helicopter that was looking for him. Sterilizing him and his children so that his line will die off would be appropriate, but not putting him in jail. He never intended to hurt anyone, he was just having some fun in a manner that could have killed a hundred people or so.

      You know, it is a good thing that I'm not a judge. I imagine that I'd recommend sterilization for most people that came before me (including the lawyers). People are dumb, and evolution has been stopped by society protecting the unfit people and encouraging them to breed.

    248. Re:Only 25 years? by LiquidCoooled · · Score: 1

      If he had intent, he wouldn't be out playing in his backyard.
      He would have driven to the airport and parked at one end of the runway.
      Once there, he would have shone the light in the pilots eyes just before it landed.
      The plane would have crashed and we would be upset.

      He was playing in his backgarden.
      He wasn't doing any of the normal things criminals do - hell, he repeated it when he saw the helicopter.

      100% aware that he was stupid, and 100% agree, he should not go unreprimanded, but 25 years is a bit steep.
      Don't you americans have something about cruel and unusual punishments, why not make the punishment fit the crime, and get him flying a plane whilst the pilots are shining lasers at him from his garden.
      Make a video of it, and if his eyes get damaged, then its a lesson for us all.

      By the way, in my youth, my dad had this mega massive ultra bright torch, I could shine it ALL the way up the mill chimney behind my house, if I could have shone it on a plane, I would have tried.

      --
      liqbase :: faster than paper
    249. Re:Only 25 years? by Atzanteol · · Score: 1

      The US constitution has always only applied to US citizens. For instance: Part of the US constitution gives the US government the right to levy taxes.

      Are you saying that the US government can tax everybody?

      --
      "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"

      - Charles Darwin
    250. Re:Only 25 years? by Ageless · · Score: 1

      A green laser pointer is a great aid in pointing out specific stars, objects and parts of the sky to an observer. It's difficult to describe, you really need to try it, but a green laser point makes a perfect green line directly at what you are pointing at. It's the difference between pointing something that is a few inches long (your finger) vaguely in the direction of an object or pointing something that is miles long (the visibility of a laser beam) directly at an object. It really helps someone you are trying to point something out to find what you are pointing at.

      As for young child / lasers. Check your favorite supermarket check out lane next time you go shopping. They sell laser pointers with little shapes you can put over the end to shape the beam. Shapes like a heart, "I love you", happy faces and so on. Those cute shapes aren't for the elderly. Kids have been playing with laser pointers since they became cheap.

    251. Re:Only 25 years? by EvanED · · Score: 1

      There is no law against shining a laser pointer at someone.

      Unless it works, in which case you'd be had for assault.

      I'm not sure what sort of "powerful" laser pointer you have in mind. Go down to Best Buy and try to buy one of these "powerful" pointers.

      Green LASERS have a much higher output power than red ones.

    252. Re:Only 25 years? by bbuR_bbuB · · Score: 1

      Was that the charge? Proof?

      Oh, no, I have your proof right here. From the Asbury Park Press:
      He is charged with one count of interfering with the operation of a mass transportation vehicle and one count of making false statements to the FBI.

      I think you should be charged with making false statements, deek!

    253. Re:Only 25 years? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      so um just how exactly have your civil rights been violated by the patriot act?

    254. Re:Only 25 years? by Jtheletter · · Score: 1
      I don't know which FA you R'd, but the USA Today article linked in the post does not say this

      Sorry, didn't have a link handy at the time, I actually read the wired article before I found this thread on /. I also remember reading something about this the day it occurred which also stated that the pilots were "temporarily blinded" though I cannot recall what source, sorry. I think by temporarily blinded they mean an effect similar to when your asshole friend sets off a camera flash in your eyes, rather than something requiring medical treatment or lasting longer than possibly a minute or two. This, at least, is how I interpret it, and given the nature of a being flashed momentarily with a laser, is probably all it amounted to.

      Unless the pilots were tripping balls, in which case the laser would have definitely provided a temporary distraction: "dude, whoa, check out that trippy light over there.... oh man, now my mouth is like, totally full of cotton." ;)

      --
      -- I'm not a pessimist, I'm a realist. It's not my fault that life sucks so much. --
    255. Re:Only 25 years? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The guy only deserves 25years if he actually believes this would be successful. He probably thought it was funny that people were getting paranoid about laser pointers blinding pilots.
      A pilot would likely only be blinded if he stared directly at the laser for several seconds. The obvious way to avoid danger is to hit the auto pilot and abort the landing, which a pilot should be able to do without seeing.

    256. Re:Only 25 years? by magnwa · · Score: 1

      Well.. the problem is, it wasn't just a laser pointer like the ones that fits on a key chain or a pen..

      It was a laser purchased for $100 on ebay that could be used to effectively test fiber optic cables.

      During questioning, the guy said to not point it at him because it could blind him.

      He hit a plane.. and then, days later, hit a low flying police helicopter.

      He flashed inside planes.. and the fact is, had he not been caught, all accounts show he'd have continued flashing planes. On approach.

      Yes, he's a moron. But he could have killed hundreds.

    257. Re:Only 25 years? by LurkerXXX · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Let's see, he warned the cop to watch out when he turned on the laser, because it could 'blind him'. But he was pointing it at the cockpit of an airplane. Yes. I'm calling him stupid. For lots of reasons.

      I don't like the patriot act, etc, at all any more than you do. But I'll work to change the law. I won't go do something moronic and then claim no one should be upset because there is also a bad law on the books.

    258. Re:Only 25 years? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, there IS a reason. Specific acts such as lasing cockpits are attempts to cause social disruption by terror. They are not something different.
      Lasing aircrew eyes is an attempt to blind them and cause the plane they pilot to crash.
      If this assh0le were a spammer Slashdotters would be screaming for crucifixion.

    259. Re:Only 25 years? by bbuR_bbuB · · Score: 1

      Yes yes, organized crime!! OH NOS!!! I hear those mob guys use guns, let's outlaw them! Oh yeah, and they use cell phones, gotta outlaw them too -- what if they were stolen and got into the wrong hands? Oops, and those mob bosses sure do like to use code words, time out outlaw any non-approved speech!

    260. Re:Only 25 years? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is exactly why we shouldn't have real people flying large aircraft any longer. We are capable of building automated aircraft now. Just pay the pilots 1/3 their pay to ride the plains in case something were to go wrong. They'd still be making plenty of money.

    261. Re:Only 25 years? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      so election = sham if other guy wins right?

    262. Re:Only 25 years? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://www.votenader.org

    263. Re:Only 25 years? by Atzanteol · · Score: 1

      I'd be interested. Do you have a collection of links or gathered documents anywhere? This seems like something that would be nice to have...

      --
      "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"

      - Charles Darwin
    264. Re:Only 25 years? by really? · · Score: 1

      IANAL, nor form the US, but wouldn't "within its jurisdiction" be of importance in this case?

      --

      "Consistency is contrary to nature, contrary to life. The only completely consistent people are the dead." A. Huxley
    265. Re:Only 25 years? by glitch! · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Personally, I'm working to make enough to retire, then I'll leave and never come back.

      Well, before you leave, you might check out Free State Project and Free State Wyoming. These are groups of people that have not given up all hope yet. You are probably right about _most_ of the people, though.

      --
      A dingo ate my sig...
    266. Re:Only 25 years? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >>Well, it's certainly hard enough to throw a little girl hard enough to bring down an airplane no matter how strong you are.

      Unless you throw her into the jet engine.

    267. Re:Only 25 years? by LiquidCoooled · · Score: 1

      No, standing at the end of the runway and shining lasers at the plane as it approaches is intent.

      Same as standing at your back yard throwing stones at a plane many thousands of feet away is just stupidity.

      All I can say is the world is a fucked up place if he gets 25 years for this.
      (I'm not saying it shouldn't go unreprimanded, but this definately seems like a total overreaction.)

      --
      liqbase :: faster than paper
    268. Re:Only 25 years? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    269. Re:Only 25 years? by Tlosk · · Score: 1

      You might have a point if the activity was innocous and one would only know that the activity should not be engaged in because someone tells you you should not.

      Don't wear orange clothing in public. You have been warned.

      Don't mention the previous administration in conversation with your neighbors.

      Don't water your lawn next week.

      I think you get the idea, shining lasers at aircraft as they approach an airport for landing shouldn't be something you have to tell someone not to do. Maybe he didn't watch the news that week, doesn't make him any less deserving of punishment, it would just make him seem like a little less of a complete fucktard.

    270. Re:Only 25 years? by EvanED · · Score: 1

      The distance would also work to your advantage however. The beam would disperse somewhat making a larger target. How much larger at that distance, I don't know. If you can aim well enough to get it on the plane itself, I think you could probably get it to hit the cockpit. Airplane approaches are pretty smooth.

      I don't have a cat, or I'd be somewhat tempted to try. But keep in mind too that green LASERs are about 50 times brighter than red ones (number from Thinkgeek page), so if you're basing this off of what you've done with a red one, you might want to think again.

    271. Re:Only 25 years? by really? · · Score: 1

      Maybe he read, and took to heart, your signature. ;-)

      --

      "Consistency is contrary to nature, contrary to life. The only completely consistent people are the dead." A. Huxley
    272. Re:Only 25 years? by TarrVetus · · Score: 1

      Are you driving with your highbeams on to intentionally blind the bus driver?

      IANAL, but I think that intentionally trying to blind the bus driver would be Malicious Intent, since you're actually trying. Wreckless Disregard would mean you have your highbeams on and you know it could be dangerous, but you do it anyway.

    273. Re:Only 25 years? by Atzanteol · · Score: 1

      So I guess war in general is illegal now? I'm sure there's an exception for it somwhere.

      --
      "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"

      - Charles Darwin
    274. Re:Only 25 years? by Dai+Vernon · · Score: 1

      What was he thinking? You don't hit a cockpit at 3000ft. by accident.
      I think they should set an example. Throw away the key on this jerk.
      Reports on at least 5 more laser incidents:

      http://cbsnews.cbsig.net/stories/2004/12/10/terr or /main660268.shtml

    275. Re:Only 25 years? by Ironsides · · Score: 1

      I'll agree that guns are made to kill. But they can be used for protection. For example. A town in Pensylvania has a law that the head of every household must own a gun. They have the lowest crime rate in the state. Washington DC has a handgun ban and has a murder rate 5 times higher than Alexandria, VA right across the river which has none. If you want another example of how stupid outlawing guns is, take a look at England and how little, if any, there handgun ban has done.

      Also tell me how a woman raped and strangled with her own pantyhose is morally superior to a dead rapist. There are three examples in Maryland in the past year where women were turned down for a handgun permit and were later killed. And they were turned down for no reason at all. Literally. The law states that the people who issue the liscenses don't need a reason to deny a handgun liscence.

      --
      Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
    276. Re:Only 25 years? by RailGunner · · Score: 1
      The people at Gitmo were captured at terrorist training camps that were run by bin Laden and his cronies. These are people in the same group that murdered over 3000 US Civilians in the 9/11 attack, not to mention the first WTC attack, the USS Cole, the Kenyan Embassy, etc.

      Al Qaeda's goal is the complete annihilation of Americans, and by wanting to extend them rights that they don't have under our constitution, you demonstrate a grave lack of thoughtfulness into this.

      And you're right about one thing - My attitude is "fuck them" because their group has killed thousands of my countrymen, civilian and military, and if given the chance, would do the same to me.

    277. Re:Only 25 years? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      if you think that a 747 or any other airplane short of a SR71 lands at 200mph then you are nuts.

      i

    278. Re:Only 25 years? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was speaking with a Boeing Pilot trainer over the holidays. He runs the simulators at Boeing. We got to talking about take-offs and landings and he said to my surprise that almost no landings are done manually any more. The pilots have to do at least one a month to stay certified, but most landings are done on auto-pilot. Blinding a pilot during landing will only affect the plane IF the pilot actually is doing one of his/her manaul landings.

    279. Re:Only 25 years? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have a gi-normous SUV, well one step down from the biggest anyway, and I agree with the AC.

    280. Re:Only 25 years? by patches · · Score: 1

      Something else I remember reading somewhere about this, if I remeber correctly the guy lied the first time he was questioned and said his daughter lased the jet, then later admitted he did....

      --
      The worst part of being athiest.... You don't have anyone to talk to during orgasm!
    281. Re:Only 25 years? by trentblase · · Score: 2, Funny

      Fair enough... I especially like this quote "Can be used for skypointing, projection on low clouds, signalling, detecting explosives" -- maybe he was just trying to detect some explosives on the plane. Also, the range is only about 2 miles. This all assumes he didn't go with a more powerful laser from a discount supplier.

    282. Re:Only 25 years? by kfg · · Score: 1

      Unless it works, in which case you'd be had for assault.

      Nonesense. I've punched people square in the face, over and over, and never been had, nor could I have been had for assualt.

      Green LASERS have a much higher output power than red ones.

      That's one of the reasons I sometimes employ them for data aquisition purposes over red ones. You're still not going to hit a pilot in the air with one, let alone cause him any harm.

      KFG

    283. Re:Only 25 years? by Ironsides · · Score: 1

      without being sarcastic, is there any legal reason for moneylaundering as opposed to the examples you just gave which have many legal uses?

      --
      Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
    284. Re:Only 25 years? by dgatwood · · Score: 4, Insightful
      On the other hand, just because someone is shining a laser in the sky doesn't mean that they were aiming at the plane. Point at a white dot that you assume is a star, then you realize it's moving. Oops. You're now guilty of a federal crime.

      The problem is that passing a law in which a particular intent is illegal means that the terrorists can get off if they can plausibly state that their intent was pointing out stars to someone, while passing a law that doesn't take into account intent means that astronomers can accidentally get charged with terrorism and have no recourse.

      Long story short, the right answer is to properly design aircraft so that this isn't an issue. An ideal design would include a handful of cameras and VR panorama glasses. Only slide the window shades out of the way if the electronic navigation fails. Even better, it could give you a 360-degree view of the area around the plane, which would have some nice advantages.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    285. Re:Only 25 years? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, that is no the complain at all. The US election process has always been a sham. It mixes power probability with platform agreement in a single election where a vote from a citizen is taken once and must be for either of the two major parties that alone have uniform representation in all subject states for any significant possibility of significance. The system is a sham because of the 50 subject states that the US Presidential election purports to represent, fewer than 20 will decidedly determine the selection and effectively the populations of 30 states are disenfranchised.

    286. Re:Only 25 years? by AvitarX · · Score: 1

      I don't know about normal conditions, but in reduced visability the pilots absolutly DO NOT land the plane.

      Of course in a sesna the situation is a little different then a commercial airliner.

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    287. Re:Only 25 years? by Atzanteol · · Score: 1

      You need to be *told* that it's illegal to attempt to blind pilots on landing???

      --
      "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"

      - Charles Darwin
    288. Re:Only 25 years? by GlassHeart · · Score: 1
      Are you saying that the US government can tax everybody?

      The US government taxes everybody who lives in the US, whether or not they are citizens (even illegal aliens pay sales tax). Since the legal basis of anything the US government is permitted to do is derived from the US Constitution, then this part of the US Constitution does certainly apply to certain non-citizens. Similarly, even non-citizens in the US generally enjoy the protection of the Bill of Rights.

      Needless to say, there are bits that apply only to citizens.

    289. Re:Only 25 years? by MoonBuggy · · Score: 1

      My reply to almost the same question from another AC who was modded down.

    290. Re:Only 25 years? by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      You have proof of that, of course?

    291. Re:Only 25 years? by mmkkbb · · Score: 1

      fromthe ground to cruising altitude. the necessary altitude would be quite a feat!

      --
      -mkb
    292. Re:Only 25 years? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ignorant fool. You have decided he is guilty of act that he claims was not his intent, and despite the fact that was conducting the act in a situation where his explanation is entirely plausible (ie. pointing out stars to his child using the most effective aid available for their designation while simply looking at stars)? Quite the ignorant, or at least easily manipulated, fool.

    293. Re:Only 25 years? by kfg · · Score: 1

      How much larger at that distance, I don't know.

      Answer, not much. In terms of significance, not at all.

      If you can aim well enough to get it on the plane itself, I think you could probably get it to hit the cockpit.

      That's like saying if you can hit an elephant with a arrow from behind you could probably get it in the eye. It's completely falacious reasoning.

      I live under the landing path of a major Air National Guard base. C130s are over my head several times a day. I could hit a fair percentage of them with a pointer if I tried (they're very low, and much, much larger than charter a small charter jet). I'd miss a few though.

      Hitting the cockpit would be a physical impossibility.

      KFG

    294. Re:Only 25 years? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://www.fas.org/nuke/control/ccw/info.htm
      Yes, they are.

    295. Re:Only 25 years? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Point at a white dot that you assume is a star

      Are you hoping to illuminate a star with a laser pointer?

    296. Re:Only 25 years? by Flower · · Score: 0
      Patriot Act was already used to trump up drug charges for someone selling crystal meth. They labeled the drug a weapon of mass destruction so they could up the charges. A couple of weeks later I noticed a news article where a senetor or congressman's son got caught dealion the same stuff. No Patriot Act charges.

      It's already known that the FBI is providing information to prosecutors on how to apply the Patriot Act to other crimes. Now whether all of this stuff will stick upon the inevitable appeals is a totally different issue. But the Feds are trying to use the Patriot Act to cast as wide a net as possible.

      --
      I don't want knowledge. I want certainty. - Law, David Bowie
    297. Re:Only 25 years? by antirename · · Score: 1

      Most modern airliners are CAPABLE of landing on autopilot. However, every pilot I knows turns the autopilot off before landing, since landing is one thing they don't trust the computer to do.

    298. Re:Only 25 years? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think it's "Right to bear arms" isn't it?

      Arms = weapons

      The gun is a weapon, as is a rifle, as is a grenade (which you can have, but the $200/grenade tax stamp and BATF auditing make it a pain to own) or rocket launcher. ...and if a laser can knock down an airplane, I'd think it'd count as a weapon also.

    299. Re:Only 25 years? by dgatwood · · Score: 1
      Mod insightful. Most large, modern aircraft can do autonomous flights, including the 757 and 767. If the parent poster is correct, then so can some of the Airbus planes, since I think that represents most of what BA uses.

      With a sufficiently competent pilot, the few thousand feet after takeoff or before landing are critical in that you might not be able to activate the autopilot in time, but beyond that, the main risk here should be injury to the pilot rather than actually bringing planes down.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    300. Re:Only 25 years? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, considering the Russians created weapons that did the very thing that is described in this article I find it odd that people on here say it's impossible.

    301. Re:Only 25 years? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hey! what a great idea!


      seems like animal farm all over again.

    302. Re:Only 25 years? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, it doesn't make sense. It's just not possible to see a specific house 15 miles away. The helicopter would have had to be a lot closer than 15 miles.

    303. Re:Only 25 years? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      people can use laser pointers such as these for use in astronomy


      Why? To illuminate stars?

    304. Re:Only 25 years? by Jzanu · · Score: 1

      No, you illuminate the sections of the water vapour or pollutants in the atmosphere in the area forming a line leading to the star you are attempting to designate. A green laser point is particularly suited to this application.

    305. Re:Only 25 years? by dgatwood · · Score: 1
      Could someone explain to me what use a laser would be in pointing out stars to his daughter? That was one of the things he said he was doing with it, but I fail to see what the laser would reflect off of that would make it useful.

      Fog, dust in the air, etc. Laser pointers are commonly used in amateur astronomy, or so I'm told. In New York, as smoggy as the air can be, it would do pretty well, I'd imagine. We used to do the same thing with highly focused ~10k candlepower spot lights, but the beam spread enough to make it less accurate than you would ideally like.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    306. Re:Only 25 years? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Both of them speaking out against something they voted for was just blind hatred against Bush and had nothing to do with the issue at all since they were obviously for it.

      It's not just blind hatred for Bush, it's just a typical liberal talking out both sides of their mouth trying to capture whatever support they can based on whatever that moments poll shows. They have no core values other than that they want to be in power - period.

    307. Re:Only 25 years? by Bloater · · Score: 1

      What is punishment and why do you want to do it to people.

      Is punishment "to cause pain and/or anguish", or is it "to stop somebody wanting to do something they shouldn't be doing". If the latter, then his punishment has already been done - I bet he is very, very scared, and I bet he will think more about the consequences of his actions now. If the former, then just find some local kid and arse-rape him so you get your pain and anguish fix.

    308. Re:Only 25 years? by rworne · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Considering the pilots in the Cessna got flashed three times, and a helicopter got flashed by the same guy, I'm pretty sure it was intentional.

      Still, pre- and post-9/11 stories are interesting to read. Post 9/11 stories abound with "terrorists using lasers to possibly down planes" whereas pre-9/11 stories are about mischief, poor planning, and training pilots not to stare at the beam. Funny how things change.

      Pre 9/11 laser-plane stories:
      Problems with Laser Light Shows
      Outdoor Laser Safety Is in the Hands of the FAA

      As another note, we had some asshat firing a pellet gun at car windows back in the 90's. Someone was caught shining a laser pointer at a vehicle and arrested as a suspect. Funny (and scary) thing was listening to the idiot talking heads on TV speculating if a common laser pointer could shatter a car windshield. Yes, they were serious about it.

      Post 9/11, they are going all out to hang some asshat out to dry for screwing with planes. The idiots who do this deserve to be punished, but what it really looks like is lasers are getting set up to be regulated and/or removed from public availability.

      What's really interesting is that there is an FAA report (April 2001) documenting at least 150 instances of cockpit illuminations between 1996 and 1999. That's about once a week. It wasn't big news then.

      I'd love to get one of those 100mW green lasers to mess around with, but now I can't. I would expect some kind of bill being introduced in Congress soon to address this issue now that they are back in session.

      --
      I tried every decent and legal way I could think of to resolve the issue w/the business before I rented the chicken suit
    309. Re:Only 25 years? by dgatwood · · Score: 1
      No, they're not more coddled. Boeing 757 and 767 can do it, too. I'm not sure whether it was present in the first ones built, but the first in that series of aircraft was introduced in 1978, so if so....

      In any case, autonomous takeoff and landing is old news, but sadly the vast majority of the general public still seems to think it's some futuristic, far-out thing....

      ROTFL.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    310. Re:Only 25 years? by Funksaw · · Score: 1

      A green laser beam is quite visible, and is very useful for sky-pointing for astronomers.

      So is aircraft at night. They tend to have blinking lights to inform air traffic control that they're in the air.

      I can understand that pointing at stars with a green light is a "non infringing use," but this is not a Sony Vs. Betamax issue. What's getting punished here is the *act* of trying to blind aircraft to make them crash. You'd have to be really stupid to shine a lazer at a plane by "accident." Even if you did, stop using the lazer pointer, pay attention to the paper to see if it's being investigated, and if it is, call in and explain to the investigators what happened.

    311. Re:Only 25 years? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I seriously doubt the man had the intention of taking down an aircraft with his daughter.

      Sure, because terrorists never involve children in their attempts to kill innocent people right?

    312. Re:Only 25 years? by Spy+der+Mann · · Score: 1

      With the pointer you just follow the beam upwards. A green lasers beam is quite visible.

      Yeah until you hit a military spy satellite by accident. Heh I can imagine.

      "Sir... we're pinpointing the location to Bin Laden".
      "Excellent. Show me the screen. ACK!!! WHAT'S THAT GREEN LIGHT!"
      "Bzzzt."
      "Hey... where's the image? Colonel, what's going on?"
      "This MUST have been a terrorist attack!"

      Lesson: DON'T point laser beams at the sky, kids. You can get a criminal record, and that could be hazardous to your health!

    313. Re:Only 25 years? by Moofie · · Score: 1

      Would you please explain to me how a hand-held laser pointer could result in the death of anybody, ever?

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    314. Re:Only 25 years? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then why did he lie and say his daughter did it? And he happened to paint a helocopter the next day or so? Just because you have a plausable excuse, doesn't mean it is true or even likely.

    315. Re:Only 25 years? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, the charge was Reckless Disregard for Human Life.

      If I can drop down an airplane with simple laser pointer.. how does that make ME Reckless instead of the person responsible for airplane safety?

      Seriously, if airplanes could be dropped that easily, don't you think that real terrorist would use the method?

    316. Re:Only 25 years? by Moofie · · Score: 1

      My question was not "Did he intentionally point his laser at an airplane", my question was "Did he intend to blind pilots?".

      I don't think it's possible to inflict any harm on any aircraft with a laser pointer.

      This was a harmless bit of mischief.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    317. Re:Only 25 years? by Spy+der+Mann · · Score: 1

      "Like I could really kill 100 people in a mall with only a 2-1/2 inch blade and a pair of pliers."

      A bizarro McGuyver could.

      Yeah. He'd use the blade and pliers to make a GREEN LASER!

    318. Re:Only 25 years? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Something else I remember reading somewhere about this, if I remeber correctly the guy lied the first time he was questioned and said his daughter lased the jet, then later admitted he did....

      Maybe he doesn't want his daughter ending up in Guantanamo. I'd change my story too.

    319. Re:Only 25 years? by gcatullus · · Score: 1

      The example of side work is admitedly bad, but there are honest reasons for accepting third party checks. If I do work for someone and they owe me $1000.00. They can't pay me with cash, but they happen to have a check for $1500.00 that a customer just gave them. Now they can deposit it, write me a check and I can wait for the whole thing to clear, OR I can take the check, give them $500.00, and everything is fine.

    320. Re:Only 25 years? by GlassHeart · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Except for the fact that he's an American citizen, while the savages locked away at Gitmo are not.

      In your hatred, you have forgotten one crucial principle behind the US legal system: innocent until proven guilty. Yes, the people locked away in Cuba might be "savages" who deserve it, but that determination is made through due process. When it is not, then what you have may not be but is indistinguishable from locking away people arbitrarily.

      The prison system at Gitmo holds people whose guilt are determined with no formal proceedings by the US military. They are held indefinitely and (before much protests) without any possibility of appeal. The administration of the prison is basically not examined by any third party or even another US government branch. For a country that rightly prides itself in a system of checks and balances, Gitmo is an embarrassment and a danger to US reputation. The US governmental system is designed to not trust any single person or agency, and that has worked very well.

      The US Constitution applies to US Citizens ONLY. Foreign nationals are granted NO constitutional protections, unless they become US Citizens.

      You are plainly wrong. Foreign nationals generally enjoy the same legal protections as US citizens when on US soil. That's why the so-called illegal combatants had to be sent to Cuba to skirt this. If you were right, then you can sue any foreigner in the US and win by default, and the cops could lock up foreigners for any reason for any length of time.

      If the terrorists want to be treated as POW's under Geneva, then fine - just as soon as they start identifying themselves with some form of uniform or mark

      Terrorism as a strategy evolves from the inability to fight a superior power head-on, so people who resort to terrorism are unlikely to revert to "civilized" nation-to-nation warfare that is common to recorded history.

      During WWII American pilots dropped incendiary bombs on various cities, and caused deaths of enemy civilians in the hundreds of thousands at a time. They did so in uniform. I'm not calling them war criminals at all, but I want to point out that we do want to be very careful what we designate as "civilized" war and otherwise. Judged by today's standards (which includes much better technology to possibly win a war without killing so many), those actions might be considered war crimes. It is therefore folly to think that the definition of civilized behavior is immobile, and in part that definition has usually considered the actual ability of a party at war.

      The main problem is, terrorism isn't going away, and as even Bush had admitted, the war on "terror" as a concept may never be won. It is better to find a real way to deal with captured terrorists, rather than hide in the legal limbo between US law and the Geneva Convention.

    321. Re:Only 25 years? by jafac · · Score: 1

      How about 5 years probation, 1,000 hours of community service and maybe $5,000-$10,000 in fines? IMO, that would send the same message without breaking up this guys family.

      Regardless of the punishment, or even the outcome of the trial, if I were his wife, his family would be broken up already.

      --

      These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
    322. Re:Only 25 years? by Lord+Kano · · Score: 1

      In the event of poor visability or bad weather, pilots use their instruments to land their planes.

      A blinded pilon can't use instruments.

      LK

      --
      "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
    323. Re:Only 25 years? by a_n_d_e_r_s · · Score: 1

      So you are saying that just because someone from their group killed some from your group - they may rot in prison ?

      Does that also means that they have the right to let any US citizen rot in their prison because US miltary killed some of them ?

      Tit for tat ?

      What happend to innocent until proven guilty ? The fact are that many has been released without any trial and no charges has been brought against them. To me it indicates that the one who sent them to prison was severly mistaken.

      --
      Just saying it like it are.
    324. Re:Only 25 years? by werfele · · Score: 1
      He will get out. See, now, if this was a real fascist country, do you think anything could save him from the government?
      I didn't claim this was a fascist country, and I'm not even sure he should get out. I'm merely pointing out that as a practical matter, there's no reason to conclude that US citizens can't be designated enemy combatants.

      I'd be in a better position to have an opinion on whether he should be released if he had been charged with a crime and information were available on the evidence against him, although I'd still expect a jury to decide. I find it hard to see this situation as a cause for optimism. Padilla won't be present at this hearing, presumably because as an enemy combatant he has no right to meet with his attorney or face his accusers. Even if everything goes as you anticipate, he'll have been denied his right to a speedy trial.

    325. Re:Only 25 years? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > US Citizens can't be declared either enemy, or illegal combatants.

      Tell that to Jose Padilla.

    326. Re:Only 25 years? by dewke · · Score: 1

      On the other hand, just because someone is shining a laser in the sky doesn't mean that they were aiming at the plane. Point at a white dot that you assume is a star, then you realize it's moving. Oops. You're now guilty of a federal crime.

      That's true. Except the dude then painted a helicopter flying over his house. That's not an accident. He was out playing with his shiny new toy.

      I dont think anyone could accurately hit a moving plane at 35000 feet with a laser and get a pilot in the eye, but if the plane was on final approach and going 150-200mph your chances of hitting the cockpit is a lot better. Either way, the chance is so remote that I think it's ridiculous to try.

      --
      Oderint dum metuant
    327. Re:Only 25 years? by dougmc · · Score: 4, Insightful
      I don't think it's possible to inflict any harm on any aircraft with a laser pointer.
      I agree. However, it would be possible (though *incredibly* unlikely) to blind the pilot or distract him long enough to cause an accident.

      Granted, a searchlight aimed at the plane or even a sufficiently large display of BOOBIES might have the same effect ...

      This was a harmless bit of mischief.
      Probably not even that. He was probably just amused that he could see his laser pointer spot on the plane. But he's probably regretting it now ...
    328. Re:Only 25 years? by EvanED · · Score: 1

      How couldn't you have been charged with assault? The only times that'd be legal is if they had provoked you and you were defending yourself, you were defending someone else, or it was the lesser of two evils.

    329. Re:Only 25 years? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > The US constitution has always only applied to US citizens.

      You are not only wrong, but precedent and the constitution itself is not on your side. The 14th amendment states that no person shall be deprived of equal protection under the law. The fifth amendment states that no person shall be deprived of due process of law.

      The courts have found numerous times that "person" means anyone within the US's jurisdiction.

    330. Re:Only 25 years? by rworne · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Sorry, I was just annoyed at all the media attention.

      Common sense tells me that while he may not have intended to blind pilots or cause harm, he was interfering with the flight crew in such a way as to cause a safety hazard. This brings up the question of why the Patriot Act was (mis)used.

      This laser pointer incident is caused by the same type of idiocy that compels people to fire guns into the air on New Year's day.

      --
      I tried every decent and legal way I could think of to resolve the issue w/the business before I rented the chicken suit
    331. Re:Only 25 years? by Atzanteol · · Score: 1

      Did you read (ha ha ha) the same story I did? Up to 25 years. They don't say what the minimum he could get. If he was purpously trying to crash the plane, I be he'd get 25. Else if he was just fscking around (or did it by accident), like you and I suspect, he'll probably get off with a fine.

      --
      "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"

      - Charles Darwin
    332. Re:Only 25 years? by mt+v2.7 · · Score: 1

      Depends on your definition of terroist.

      He was building on a growing fear of lasers being used to bring down planes. Don't you think there would be some terror if he managed to make the plan crash?

      Not all terrorists wear turbans.

    333. Re:Only 25 years? by snorklewacker · · Score: 1

      "Illegal combatant" was defined by FDR in WWII, in order to have executed some German saboteurs on US soil. He threatened to defy the Supreme Court if he was overruled, so SCOTUS declined to hear their case and they were executed.

      This is the entire scope of the precedent. It's awful convenient, isn't it, to have a war that lasts forever, where the whole world is a battleground, and everyone on the other side is an "illegal combatant". This is the forever war that the cold war hawks dreamed of, and now we have it. Enjoy.

      --
      I am no longer wasting my time with slashdot
    334. Re:Only 25 years? by Atzanteol · · Score: 1

      My assumption is that the laser may still be potent even from his back yard. My rocks, however, would not be. Thus I would need to be on the runway.

      Say I have a potato cannon then. And I shoot potatos at an airplane as it passes overhead on approach. Or I just shoot a gun at them. Something.

      My *point* is that it's not the method of attempting to take the plane down, it's the act of attempting to take the plane down that is the problem.

      And I agree, 25years is a lot, if he wasn't intentionally trying to crash a plane (it was an accident or just fscking around).

      --
      "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"

      - Charles Darwin
    335. Re:Only 25 years? by techno-vampire · · Score: 1

      This is exactly why I think he might receive either probation or a suspended sentence. What he did was foolish, but I don't think it was malicious. Certainly, he doesn't deserve the maximum sentance in a maximum security prison; if he has to serve time, it'll be in a minimum security facility. Part of any sentence is to deter others, but I doubt anybody's going to try what he did again for fun anyway, so that's already taken care of. I get the impression that you think I was in favor of the 25 years, but if so, read my post again. I'm not.

      --
      Good, inexpensive web hosting
    336. Re:Only 25 years? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The guy is a fucking idiot - send him down forever.

    337. Re:Only 25 years? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But i'm now unpatriotic for thinking so.

      No, you're simply stupid. I would think that someone capable of using a web browser would realize that maybe - just maybe - he wasn't pointing at something right above him. Angles work wonders, kiddies.

    338. Re:Only 25 years? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hell, after being tortured at Guantanamo Gulag for two years, I bet Bill O'Reilly would become a terrorist.

      ('course I figure if he weren't just a hatemongering blowhard, he probably would be a terrorist anyway. Seems he's racking up quite a hitlist after all)

    339. Re:Only 25 years? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      High Five Dude.

      Biggest point here is that he a 38 years old jerk. And to everyone that doesn't think so. The next time you are walking are driving and some kid points a laser at you, don't get mad. :)

      Where is William Shockley when you need him???

    340. Re:Only 25 years? by Atzanteol · · Score: 1

      even illegal aliens pay sales tax

      They could claim this upon re-entering their own country. But since they're *illegal* in the first place, they shouldn't even be here to pay those taxes...

      Illegals have lately fallen between the proverbial cracks. They get many benefits of society, without much of the tax burden (many work under the table, get multiple fake social security numbers, etc). But they're *here*, and are 'sorta' citizens. I'm all for their deportation myself.

      --
      "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"

      - Charles Darwin
    341. Re:Only 25 years? by Stregone · · Score: 1

      Not to mention that permanent damage could prevent the pilot from flying again.

    342. Re:Only 25 years? by raile · · Score: 1
      He wasn't even labled as a terrorist! From the article:

      "Justice Department officials said they do not suspect terrorism in any of the cases, but said Banach's arrest shows how seriously they take the matter."

      Is this an abuse of the PATRIOT act, or what?

    343. Re:Only 25 years? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, I think they should simply sterilize him, and let 'em go.

      If he does get 25 years he still has plenty of opportunity to breed. And that's what's scary.

    344. Re:Only 25 years? by Atzanteol · · Score: 1

      When did I get to a country where guilt is decided by the media? This guy will get a trial. The DA will present proof. If 12 people are convinced, he will be punished. Then they will decide how much.

      No, I do not personally have proof. I was just stating the the difference is intent. People are comparing this to the fucking Sun for crying out loud.

      --
      "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"

      - Charles Darwin
    345. Re:Only 25 years? by Winkhorst · · Score: 1

      Somehow I don't think they'd be selling these things at Paper Clip Depot if they could blind someone. "You, in the second row, yes you, the guy I'm pointing at, you had a question?"

      --
      "Is this Winkhorst a nova criminal?" "No just a technical sergeant wanted for interrogation."
    346. Re:Only 25 years? by superpulpsicle · · Score: 1

      My goodness, it's a complicated issue far beyond extending rights / I hate you / you hate me. You watch too much American-money-driven news.

    347. Re:Only 25 years? by Moofie · · Score: 0

      I'm annoyed at the media attention too. I'm even more annoyed at the fact that this guy might do hard time for something no more dangerous than spitting on the sidewalk.

      After all, somebody MIGHT slip on the loogie and fall in front of a bus and make the bus driver swerve and hit a gasoline truck and make the truck blow up and people might DIE.

      "This laser pointer incident is caused by the same type of idiocy that compels people to fire guns into the air on New Year's day"

      No. It's actually possible to harm people at long range with guns. We're talking about a FREAKIN' LASER POINTER here. I wouldn't point one at my eye, no...but I don't like looking directly at flashlights either.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    348. Re:Only 25 years? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      The guy shouldn't get 25 years, he obviously isn't a terrorist. But i'm now unpatriotic for thinking so.

      I have captured your IP address and have sent the thought police out to get you. Please enjoy the last moments of your free life before you drop off the face of the earth.

    349. Re:Only 25 years? by sonicattack · · Score: 1

      I'll not be surprised to hear that he receives either probation or a suspended sentance.

      Suspended sentance. Suspended sentance!

      They went free that very day! I stood in the courtroom like a fool.

      And those two bastards, they smiled at me.

      Then I said to my wife, 'for justice, we must go to Don Corleone.

    350. Re:Only 25 years? by kaizenfury7 · · Score: 1

      It's not as hard if you attach a laser beam to her head.

    351. Re:Only 25 years? by BCole · · Score: 1

      I agree, just like labeling things 'hate crimes' is redudant. A crime is a crime.

    352. Re:Only 25 years? by RailGunner · · Score: 1
      In your hatred, you have forgotten one crucial principle behind the US legal system: innocent until proven guilty. Yes, the people locked away in Cuba might be "savages" who deserve it, but that determination is made through due process.

      They were captured in Afghanistan, at an Al Qaeda run training camp. These are members of a group that have sworn to destroy us, and they have fired on US Military and CIA. They are not innocent.

      During WWII American pilots dropped incendiary bombs on various cities, and caused deaths of enemy civilians in the hundreds of thousands at a time. They did so in uniform.

      Not to mention nuking two cities, but unfortunately in war there is what is called "collateral damage". Yes, it's unfortunate, but it's a reality that war is a terrible thing. And, while these terrorists are locked away at Gitmo, they aren't in Afghanistan training to hijack planes or shooting at the US Military.

      It is better to find a real way to deal with captured terrorists, rather than hide in the legal limbo between US law and the Geneva Convention.

      I agree with this statement - we need to hurry up and process these people, and if found guility, execute them. If innocent, dump them back in Afghanistan. Keeping them locked up and fed 3 meals a day is just a waste of taxpayer money.

    353. Re:Only 25 years? by Khashishi · · Score: 1

      What are the chances of hitting a plane windshield 3 times by accident? 10^-10? 10^-15?? A more likely story is that he was stargazing, he saw the plane, then his stupidity overcame him.

    354. Re:Only 25 years? by danheskett · · Score: 1

      There is reasonable reason, since the courts have repeatedly held that Padilla cannot be held without charges even if designated an "enemy combatant".

      Padilla will be released or charged with a crime. Period.

      As far as a speedy trial - 3 or 4 years - while appeals are filed etc - has been held by many courts to be plenty speedy.

      The system is working very well: part of the government oversteps, is slapped down,.

    355. Re:Only 25 years? by jafac · · Score: 1

      Al Qaeda's goal is the complete annihilation of Americans,

      Al Qaeda's STATED GOALS include;
      1. Influencing America's policy of support for Israel and it's occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

      2. Elimination of US troops from Saudi Arabia (ACCOMPLISHED! Thanks to Bush).

      3. To broaden recruitment, and start a religious war of Islam vs. Infidels (ACCOMPLISHED! Thanks to Bush)

      4. Establishment of a new Caliphate (presumably with bin Laden as the Caliph), comprised of all current Muslim nations, creating an empire similar to the old Ottoman Empire, capable of economically competing with the EU, Russian Federation, and the US, and adopting traditional Arab Sharia (not to be confused with Islamic Law, they're two very different things) as it's basis of a legal system.

      . . .and by wanting to extend them rights that they don't have under our constitution, you demonstrate a grave lack of thoughtfulness into this.

      The Declaration of Independence states that these rights are granted to ALL men by Divine Providence (ie. God) (it's really the ONLY place where God is conspicuously mentioned in our Founding Fathers' documents). That's regardless of US Citizenship.

      The reason why these rights are extended to ALL men, is due to a belief in Reason. That when bad people are allowed to speak their minds, in an open and public forum, where their ideas can be discredited openly in fair debate (because bad ideas always lose), that we all benefit. The powers of logic and reasoning will always allow good ideas to triumph. People who do not believe in this principle, will seek to hide truths, or close off debate, establish authoritarian means of governing to prevent having to answer to the Consent of the Governed. Closed trials, are the hallmark of fascism and tyranny.

      Ramsi Yousef, the 1993 World Trade Center bombing mastermind had a fair and open trial. He is in jail.

      Of the thousands of "detainees" in our current "War on Terror" - given the suspension of Civil Liberties, Habeus Corpus, and everthing our Founding Fathers stood for, this Administration has accomplished exactly ZERO convictions. Every single one has been thrown out due to flimsy evidence, or procedural violations. Probably one reason why the Administration now wants to hold the detainees indefinately, that is to say, sentance them to LIFE IMPRISONMENT without establishing guilt in a trial EVEN A CLOSED MILITARY TRIBUNAL, without even formally charging them with a crime.

      My attitude is "fuck them" because their group has killed thousands of my countrymen, civilian and military, and if given the chance, would do the same to me.

      All the more reason you should want to see justice done. How do you know that these detainees aren't innocent? And if they are - then where are the guilty ones? Are they still roaming free? (Osama bin Laden sure as hell is). A fair and open trial means that the people whom you are trusting to protect you, have to PROVE that they've caught the right guys. If they don't, then they haven't earned their positions, and you'll never know if you're safe. You have to take them at their word. I for one, don't take this lying administration at it's word. For all of your tax dollars they've spent, how do you know they've done their jobs right? All the Patriot Act does, is allow these guys to spend your money, lock up suspects, and they don't have to prove to you that they're actually protecting you. It's called a "Protection Racket". It's the reason the Magna Carta was written in the first place.

      I guess those who failed to learn history are doomed to repeat it.

      --

      These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
    356. Re:Only 25 years? by theLOUDroom · · Score: 1

      Except for special circumstances (like on an airplane), you cannot kill 100 people with a pocket knife unless your name is Bruce Lee or Chuck Norris, in which case you don't even need the knife.

      I presume Chuck Norris would try to kill them by acting out a scene from "Walker: Texas Ranger"?

      .....or did you not mean the fall-over-laughing type of kill?

      --
      Life is too short to proofread.
    357. Re:Only 25 years? by megarich · · Score: 1

      I mean I would almost agree with you except I'm tired of people screwing around and not taking actions for their responsibilities.

      Unless this guy is mentally retarded he gets no sympathy for me. What do you think is gonna happen "gee in this post 9/11 paranoid world, i'll just flash this light at a nearby airplane, everyone will think its cool and funny!!!" Come on SMARTEN UP

    358. Re:Only 25 years? by rworne · · Score: 1

      Well, at least we can agree that this is overblown and the application of the Patriot Act is uncalled for in this situation.

      --
      I tried every decent and legal way I could think of to resolve the issue w/the business before I rented the chicken suit
    359. Re:Only 25 years? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Patriot Act was already used to trump up drug charges for someone selling crystal meth

      Of course you're either lying or ignorant. Care to cite a source?

      Yeah, I heard Kerry gave hot steamy monkey love to a baby seal. Ignorant fuck.

      I have no love for Republicans, but I hate this "heard it somewhere" bullshit.

      Yes, I'm (t)'ing bullshit on this one.

    360. Re:Only 25 years? by happyfrogcow · · Score: 1

      Time for a "million points of light" protest. Everyone grab your laser pointers and gather outside your town hall. At sundown we point them straight up.

    361. Re:Only 25 years? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here in Oz everyone seems to have their highbeams on all the time, so you would be looking at the side of the road all the time. And it also doesn't help when the person is right behind you blinding you in the mirror for 10 minutes. Most of the roads I've seen here (in the city, anyway) don't have lines on the side of the road.

    362. Re:Only 25 years? by valkraider · · Score: 1

      I hate crime.

      If you outlaw crime only outlaws will commit crime.

      Wait. Damn this bumper sticker mentality. I'm off to wait in traffic for the rapture...

    363. Re:Only 25 years? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      you as a driver can still shield your eyes and prepare for it somehow.
      Take your hands off the wheel?

      Or even look away
      Take your eyes off the road?

      high beams aren't going to cause someone to have permanent eye damage
      Eye doctors would disagree .. and I quote "There has been a steady increase in patients complaining about eye stress due to glaring headlights. This is something new and it is my opinion these lights are dangerous and should be banned." taken from the following thread on eye safety with xenon headlights:

      http://www.safespeed.org.uk/~dadrl/eyes.html

    364. Re:Only 25 years? by SilverspurG · · Score: 0, Troll

      Common sense tells me that while he may not have intended

      Common sense tells me that the laser never hit the plane, never hit the police chopper, and that the story was conveniently put together by prosecuters and a media which has nothing useful to report about the war or terror.

      --
      fast as fast can be. you'll never catch me.
    365. Re:Only 25 years? by megarich · · Score: 1

      I agree with you man in that they should outlaw guns. Sometimes(remember they keywork SOMETIMES not all) you have to screw a 200 year old antiquated document and do what's in the best interest for modern society. The government knows this information otherwise the "partiot act" wouldnt exist although that's not in our best interest.

      And if this guy with the pointer knew what he was doing, he def. should get the time. That's the other thing I dont get about our society. If you kill a man you get one sentence. If you try to kill a man but dont succeed you get a lessor sentence? Come on the intent was there! If anything you should get a heftier sentence because what's gonna stop you for going out trying to kill the same guy again...

    366. Re:Only 25 years? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't know very many, do you?

    367. Re:Only 25 years? by r0gue_ · · Score: 1

      ooh... ya I remember that story. Someone then died due to an accident at that intersection...

    368. Re:Only 25 years? by Moofie · · Score: 1

      I think we ought to make an example of him too. If you do something, that has no possibility whatsoever of harming anybody under any circumstances, nothing should happen to you.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    369. Re:Only 25 years? by Slashamatic · · Score: 1
      Lets rewrite this:
      The flash temporarily disabled the night vision of both the pilot and co-pilot, but they were later able to land the plane safely, authorities said.
      Still not nice, but it sounds rather different, like every time I drive down a busy highway at night.
    370. Re:Only 25 years? by happyfrogcow · · Score: 1

      What if pointing at stars or whatever he is doing is a hobby. There are a lot of hobby astronomers. I was interested in it as a kid. This guy is being busted for shining a laser in the sky, and the laser happens to go in the cockpit? Give him the benefit of the doubt, "Innocent until Proven Guilty" should still be the way our law system works.

      So he's guilty of practicing a hobby. I can think of dozens more potentially damaging things that can happen from 90% of the peoples hobbies (computer programming) on Slashdot.

      if the FBI wants to play witch hunt for laser pointer people, imagine the witch hunt for those wacky hackers turned terrorists.

      Everyone here is saying things like jail him for life if his intent was harm, castrate him or kill him off if it was stupidity. You guys are all freakin nuts. Step back for a second from your ego, step back and think of a mistake you have made in life, step back and remember a time you got in trouble for something you did by accident or didn't do at all. No imagine if you were facing 25 years of prison, and a life ruined by media abuse.

      You're all a bunch of hypocrites.

    371. Re:Only 25 years? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The guy with the laser intended harm? Wow, you must have some special knowledge of the case. I hope you contact the authorities immediately to let them know and then testify in court.

    372. Re:Only 25 years? by Stregone · · Score: 1

      He didn't say lasers were the same as guns, he said the it was the same type of idiocy that causes people to do it.

    373. Re:Only 25 years? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Remember: if you walk around in fear, then the terrorists have already won. Think long and hard about where the term "terrorist" came from. I refuse to give them the satisfaction of being afraid.

      If the people of a nation have the ability to walk around in fear like this, then they were already really screwed up to begin with.

    374. Re:Only 25 years? by Moofie · · Score: 1

      Doing something that's not dangerous is not idiotic. It might be silly. People are allowed to be silly.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    375. Re:Only 25 years? by jafac · · Score: 1

      Honestly, the best "rehabilitation" program I've ever heard of was forced military service.

      Wow. If we think just a few "Bad Apples" can cause a lot of damage of the "Abu Ghraib" sort, just think what will happen when we start sending criminals en masse into the Military.

      --

      These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
    376. Re:Only 25 years? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Blind the pilots??? Surely that would only work if the aircraft were fyling upside down, right??

    377. Re:Only 25 years? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude, this story is a couple of days old and you still haven't figured out that he was NOT using some piddly-ass laser pointer that you can buy down at Fry's??? Are you retarded? He was using a commercial industrial strength tool used to test fiber optic lines. Your little laser pen you annoy everyone in the theater with? Not it.

    378. Re:Only 25 years? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Congratulations, Score America: 100000 Terrorism: Everyone else.

    379. Re:Only 25 years? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This whole thing sounds fishy; on both ends. Besides, when is the last time you looked through a TELESCOPE to get a better view of a STAR and notice it's a plane? Sheesh.

    380. Re:Only 25 years? by danheskett · · Score: 2, Informative

      as many pieces of the Act have already been found
      That's unsubstantiated. Show it. Which sections?

      have not looked deeply into the Patriot Act as what I have read scares the living hell out of me
      I've read the entire bill.

      I have felt for a long time that our (US) government is only here for it's benefit and the US people are being allowed to reside here to support it.
      That may be true, but the patriot act has nothing to do with that.

      All the Patriot Act has done that I can see it allowed the US Government to go after it's own citizens for not thinking/acting the way they are expected to.
      You should read the bill before you go MAKING THINGS UP.

      For one thing, its main purpose was to allow various agencies the legal right to share information. If the CIA knew for a fact that an attack on the US was going to happen before the PATRIOT ACT it would have been *ILLEGAL* for them to tell the FBI, the White House, etc. That's insanity!

      As for the laser incident, the guy is guilty of nothing more than doing something stupid.
      Stupid isn't a crime. Interfering with a flight crew is - by means of stupidty or not.

      I have seen people do things that could have done more harm than this and carry on their merry way.
      So? Does that justify this bad behaviour?

      But then again, the US government could probably find something illegal with that and the next thing you know you with have the FBI, CIA, ATF and any other department with a gun pounding down your door.
      Ahh... a conspiracy nut. Should have known. The CIA? Get real.

    381. Re:Only 25 years? by txmadman · · Score: 1

      Well, there are plenty of folks who DO want to outlaw guns, even for responsible owners (read recent articles about the effort in San Francisco). Aside from the fact that gun control does not work in lowering crime, the 2d amendment clearly was intended to keep governments from disarming the populace, as a guarantor against tyranny.

      If you are a good libertarian and thus oppose the PATRIOT Act (and restrictions on laser-pointer ownership), then you ought to oppose gun control. And you ought support the mission of the NRA.

      People who abuse the right to own guns by, say, shooting at airplanes, should be locked away. Just as "guns don't kill people...", it is true that "lasers don't blind pilots...": it is the human who controls the device. If you do the wrong thing with the device, then you should be punished.

    382. Re:Only 25 years? by sgant · · Score: 1

      I never said they should outlaw guns. I was pointing out that if they were to outlaw a simple laser, yet keep something that's basically MADE to kill other things is kind of silly.

      --

      "Leo Fender was in a 'state of grace' when he designed the Stratocaster." -- Paul Reed Smith
    383. Re:Only 25 years? by RancidBeef · · Score: 1

      Absolutely! I've though I was the only one annoyed by this. Essentially these idiots (some in sports cars, too) are driving around with four headlights on. I've seen some idiots that have added two more and drive around with six. In my state (AL), it's illegal to have more than four headlights (on at the same time at least). It's probably illegal to drive around with your fog lights (or road lights) on as it would be the same as driving with brights on, but the cops are only interested in how many speeding tickets they can write.

      Some of the SUV's and pickups have fog lights that are much brighter than the headlights. I flash my lights at them, but they just flash me back as if to say, "duhhh, my lights are not on bright. Why you flashing me? (drool)."

    384. Re:Only 25 years? by danheskett · · Score: 1

      "any one".

      The military makes the determination. If the military captures a person behind enemy lines they can determine his or her status on the spot.

      Guilty until proven innocent, indeed.
      This is great in a civilian setting. But how about in a military situation? In a war zone? You want courts, judges, lawyers, media, CourtTV operating in Iraq? You wants "Cops: Baghdad"? That's absurd. If you are in a war zone, you are subject to the ravages of war. The military does screen on the spot. Those who are not involved in their view are let go or ignored or moved to another location, etc. If the person is a threat immediately, the person is dead. If the person is a uniformed enemy solider, like say an Iraqi national guardsmen in uniform and surrenders, he is afforded the full protection of the Geneva convention. If he is not wearing a uniform, and holding a weapon, he can be executed on the spot, held as a detainee, or anything in between.

    385. Re:Only 25 years? by commodoresloat · · Score: 1
      The guy who pointed the laser did not claim this was some sort of challenge to the patriot act.

      The guy was stupid as hell and potentially (but unlikely) dangerous; agreed. But 25 years? How does that protect anyone? Especially his daughter? This is a stupid prank.

    386. Re:Only 25 years? by sgant · · Score: 1

      Welcome to America. The place where they ban TOY guns, yet keep the real thing. lol.

      Not making any judgements and it's one of our rights to keep and bear arms and I certainly uphold the constitution as it's written...just so long as they're real guns and not toy ones!

      --

      "Leo Fender was in a 'state of grace' when he designed the Stratocaster." -- Paul Reed Smith
    387. Re:Only 25 years? by pilgrim23 · · Score: 1

      Government is always looking for something to ban. Seems to me there is a simple solution: ban planes. No pilots flying over your property, no chance of blinding them when engaged in artistic endeavors or whatever you are doing. We are after all talking government actions spurred on by rabid "journalists" flaming a story larger then life to better sell adverts. Ban planes and the paper gets a story, the government gets to ban something, your rights are further eroded and who knows, maybe a new department or bureaucracy might come from this. A Win all the way around.

      --
      - Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum, minutus carborata descendum pantorum.
    388. Re:Only 25 years? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Both pilots claim to have been blinded? I suspect they should also be arrested for "false reporting".

    389. Re:Only 25 years? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are no laws forcing stupid people not to reproduce, unfortunately. There would be no Bush daughters....

      Just quit being a dork. No, you don't seem clever.

    390. Re:Only 25 years? by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      You keep saying, rather defininitively, that "the difference is intent." THAT is what I was asking for proof of. People also keep saying "He was trying to kill 250 people" yet I see no such thing.

    391. Re:Only 25 years? by AstroDrabb · · Score: 1
      And that attitude is exactly what is causing the downfall of the US family structure where we have 50%+ of marriages ending in divorce. When people get married, they say "till death do us part", and it should be that way. A _family_ should work through their down-times, not split up.

      So the guy made a mistake (yes a big one), but that doesn't mean you abandon him. He is a human, and should be given another chance. Now, if he goes and does the same thing again, _than_ society should come down on him. I personally believe in the "two-strike" rule. If you mess up once (as long as it is a non-violent crime) you get a slap on the wrist. If you mess up again, then you should be locked away for a _long_, _long_ time.

      --
      If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land,
      it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. -James Madison
    392. Re:Only 25 years? by rworne · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Silly is a laser pointer in a movie theater.

      Reckless is a laser pointer lighting up an airplane. Yes it sounds like loads of fun to try, in fact my "inner redneck" is just itching to see if it really can be done. The laser pointer is pretty much harmless, but why try to annoy and/or distract people who are responsible for the safety of up to hundreds of people in the air and on the ground? Especially when at these times they are usually busy taking off or landing the plane.

      --
      I tried every decent and legal way I could think of to resolve the issue w/the business before I rented the chicken suit
    393. Re:Only 25 years? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or perhaps the pilots were lying about being blinded.

    394. Re:Only 25 years? by danheskett · · Score: 1

      You do not get blinded by road glare. I've flown planes (not big ones like jumbos, but littles ones).. 7 minutes from landing, I'd probably would have crashed if I was blinded for 2 minutes. It's just that simple.

      Being blinded like that - violently - is a bad, bad situation.

    395. Re:Only 25 years? by Xyrus · · Score: 1

      You can't be serious. Your comparing apples to minuteman missle. A SAM WILL take the aircraft down. A SAM WILL detonate on impact. A SAM WILL cause damage. A laser will...maybe possibly affect a pilot? What are going to say next? Driving with highbeams on a night is like firing a tank shell at an oncoming car? I believe it is a human instinct to avert your vision when you see something bright. I do it every night on the drive home from work. Welcome to age of paranoia. I find it an extremely dubious claim that any consumer level laser could cause any possible damage. I would be far more concerned with someone parking near a runway with a compressed air canon launching rocks as a plane taking off. Blind the pilots? For fucks sake. They have a higher risk from going blind from looking at the sun while they're flying. Only if they were staring directly into the pencil-thin beam for a significant amount of time could it cause blidness . OVERREACTIVE MEDIA HYPE, UNSCIENTIFIC NONSENSE. Terrorist = Communists 1952. ~X~

      --
      ~X~
    396. Re:Only 25 years? by AstroDrabb · · Score: 1
      Honestly, the best "rehabilitation" program I've ever heard of was forced military service.
      Well, as a former US Marine, I could not agree more! The Marines kicked my butt and whipped me into shape (physically and mentally).

      I watched a shown on Discovery or The Learning Channel about a "boot camp" like school for troubled teens. The success rate was just incredible. The boot camp actually used retired Marine Drill Instructors and retired Army Drill Sergeants.

      Even the most hardened criminals would break down and be reformed if they went through the U.S.M.C boot camp, it is no joke. Semper Fi.

      --
      If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land,
      it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. -James Madison
    397. Re:Only 25 years? by burdalane · · Score: 1
      I might let him off with just vasectomy and giving up rights to be a legal guardian (parent/teacher) for anybody from now on

      Why would you reward him? By the way, I'm also a big supporter of Darwinism. I don't think anyone should be allowed to reproduce, especially not people who want to reproduce.

    398. Re:Only 25 years? by metamatic · · Score: 1
      Unless you do this, you are not a citizen of the United States and you therefore do not have the responsibilities or rights of US citizen. [...] There's your answer.

      Yeah, pity it's wrong. In fact, the Bill of Rights is held to apply to everyone, even non-citizens. Of course, that's not what people like Ashcroft and Gonzales want you to believe.

      (I am not a lawyer, but the National Lawyer's Guild are.)

      --
      GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
    399. Re:Only 25 years? by danheskett · · Score: 1

      No one is saying very much he was trying to kill 250 people, just that he COULD have. It was a very dicey situation.

    400. Re:Only 25 years? by kfg · · Score: 1

      How couldn't you have been charged with assault?

      It isn't against the law at all to hit someone. Only to assault or batter them.

      Those words have a legal meaning that is not synonomous with hit.

      Hell, it's even perfectly legal to stab someone with a sword too, and I've done that a fair number of times. I'd like to say I've done it more often than I've been stabbed, but I think I might be deceiving myself, and thus you.

      And it isn't illegal to shine a laser on someone.

      KFG

    401. Re:Only 25 years? by HTH+NE1 · · Score: 1

      They voted for that act because, at the time (just after 9/11), anyone who voted against it would automatically be labeled a "terrorist supporter" and have his/her political career finished.

      Senator Russell Feingold voted against it. He was the only one who did.

      He was reelected.

      Remember, people weren't exactly rational at that time.

      Are they yet?

      --
      Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
    402. Re:Only 25 years? by bob+beta · · Score: 1

      You're plain crazy if you think it's a good idea to shunt criminals off into the military.

      In actual fact, the Military isn't very enthusiastic about enlisting criminals. Nor should they be.

    403. Re:Only 25 years? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Considering that he was pointing his laser pointer IN THE AIR DIRECTLY AT THE COCKPIT OF A PLANE, I would say yes, he was intentionally trying to blind the pilot... Which could lead to killing every living person on the plane. and I don't think he can say any different. He deserves far more than 25 years, patriot act or no.

    404. Re:Only 25 years? by AstroDrabb · · Score: 1
      Well, the one article says that he shined the laser on the plane while his daughter shined it on the police helicopter. Still, I agree with you that he wasn't a very good example as a father. I am a father of a 3 year old and a 9 month old. I also happen to be an amateur astronomer. I would _never_ shine a laser pointer at a person or a plane or anything but stars.

      I believe the guy was pointing it at a plane for "kicks", I don't believe he did it to be malicious and cause damage. I think the terms you or I recommended would send a message _and_ punish this guy enough to make him not be an idiot in the future.

      --
      If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land,
      it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. -James Madison
    405. Re:Only 25 years? by rawb · · Score: 1

      Not to mention crazy people out in the boonies (or just all the Texans for that matter) who fire their guns up in the air during parties, new years, etc etc. Stupid local custom... dangerous. Outlaw guns? no way! It's their right to do stupid things with guns! Just not with lazer pointers.

    406. Re:Only 25 years? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      True... but. People tend to fool around with laser pointers. Its a fact of life. I'm not saying he shouldn't be punished for his complete and utter stupidity, but think of how many people will point a laser at just about anything... a wall, a billboard, a dog (not recommended). Now compare that to the number of people you see firing a SAM at a wall, billdoard, or dog. Not too many.

      My point is this: Chances are he didn't even realize he was causing any harm. He SHOULD be fined, but not -- what is it, $250,000? -- to accompany a 25-year prison sentence! That's outrageous.

      Then again, I guess this all depends on the extent of his ignorance.

    407. Re:Only 25 years? by Flower · · Score: 1

      One cite from Google cache. I won't invest the time to recover the other one I read about on CNN which I recall citing the Patriot Act directly. Not for an abusive AC.

      --
      I don't want knowledge. I want certainty. - Law, David Bowie
    408. Re:Only 25 years? by Xyrus · · Score: 1

      That's funny, I have assholes high-beam me with their uber-bright krypton bulbs everyday on the drive home and I've neither swerved nor come to a complete stop.

      It's a magic trick. It's called focusing on the part of the road that doesn't have the obnoxiously bright lights on it.

      The keyword here is "sustained". This means you need to keep staring into the laser light. And considering a human's FOV is quite a bit wider than a pencil-thin low wattage laser, I find it highly improbable that any respectable terrorist would even consider this ludicrous idea.

      Come on people, use your thinking skills and counter-act the gross pseudo-science of the media.

      ~X~

      --
      ~X~
    409. Re:Only 25 years? by danheskett · · Score: 1

      Uhh.. you are incorrect. Also, the National Lawyers Guild is not the definitive word on rights, FYI.

      From the article you linked:

      So an immigrant, legal or illegal, prosecuted under the criminal code has the right to due process, a speedy and public trial, and other rights protected by the Fifth and Sixth Amendments.
      Prosecuted under the criminal code. Interesting. Read on.

      But immigration proceedings are matters of administrative law, not criminal law.
      So, in this case, illegal immigrants have no constitutional rights because they are not prosectued under criminal code, but rather, administrative law. Your own article contradicts your own case.

      The rights afforded to illegal immigrants and other non-citizens do not derive from the Constitution, but from case law and administrative policy which can be changed without an act of Congress. Aka, the executive branch largely dictates this law, no the courts and the Congress.

    410. Re:Only 25 years? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How do you know there aren't other "disappeared" citizens? Would you really put it past this administration?

    411. Re:Only 25 years? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      You must have forgotten about the little known 1 1/2th amendment to the Constitution, which reads as follows:

      Congress shall pass no law infringing on the freedom for morons to shine laser pointers at moving targets.

    412. Re:Only 25 years? by GlassHeart · · Score: 1
      They were captured in Afghanistan, at an Al Qaeda run training camp. These are members of a group that have sworn to destroy us, and they have fired on US Military and CIA. They are not innocent.

      Oh?

      "The US military admitted for the first time yesterday that one of the prisoners whom the Bush administration has held without charges for more than two years at Guantanamo Bay was never an Al Qaeda or Taliban fighter and should be immediately released from the interrogation camp"
      - The Boston Globe
      As of May 6, 2004, according to CNN, about 100 suspects had been released, with 600 still detained. In other words, the US military has an error margin of at least 1 in 7, assuming all 600 of the remaining ones are guilty. That's a terrible batting record when you're talking about indefinite imprisonment with no appeals.

      Yes, it's unfortunate, but it's a reality that war is a terrible thing. And, while these terrorists are locked away at Gitmo, they aren't in Afghanistan training to hijack planes or shooting at the US Military.

      I think you're missing the point, which is that if the only difference that we can think of between American pilots of WWII and terrorists today is the clothes that they happen to be wearing, we have a very big problem.

    413. Re:Only 25 years? by the_brat_king · · Score: 1

      In most places fog lights are illegal for on-road use; additionally in Minnesota, it's illegal to using "driving lights" (fog lights are yellow, driving lights are white) any time that it would be illegal to use your brights, additionally, if you have seperate lights for high/low beams, you cannot legally operate both driving lights and high beams (only 4 white lights allowed to be active on the front of a car, even with no other traffic, and two are the maximum in traffic).
      The reason that fog lights are normally NOT street legal is because they are directional lights (instead of indicator lights or marker lights, which are weak, and not focused/directional), is that headlights must be white lights. This is also why "cool blue" lights are technically illegal while HID xenon lights are not (HID lights are infact white, but the cool blues utilize a filter meaning the lights are technically not white).

    414. Re:Only 25 years? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's no such thing as an illegal combatant. They are either prisoners of war, or criminals. In either case the courts have oversight.

      Inventing a whole new category of prisoner subject only to political whims is a bad, *bad* idea.

    415. Re:Only 25 years? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know know about them, but if I wasn't enthusiastically working towards the total destruction of the United States before I was imprisoned for two years without charge I certainly would be when I got out.

    416. Re:Only 25 years? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you really believe anything China says?

      "Oh yes, Mr. American! We have onry tirty-seven people in jail!"

      Give me a break.

    417. Re:Only 25 years? by EvanED · · Score: 1

      Okay, it is illegal to knowingly or recklessly cause physical harm to someone. There's of course an exemption (though in case law rather than written into the statutes) for recognized sports when the conduct is within both the rules and customs of that sport. But if two people get into a bar fight, they can be charged with assault.

      Shining LASERs at people isn't a recognized sport, not is it any other exemption. If you did manage to blind them, you could easily be convicted of assault. If the jurisdiction has a separate charge of maiming, it's possible you'd be guilty of that too.

    418. Re:Only 25 years? by AstroDrabb · · Score: 1
      Have you ever served in the military? I have. I served in the US Marine Corps. I went in right after high school at 18. The Marines _really_ changed me. I think the Marines could also _really_ change most criminals.

      I personally would not recommend sending criminals into the Air Force, Navy or even the Army. I think the only option should be the Marines. Yes, there is that much difference between them. That is why the Marines slogan is "The few the proud". It is tough and they kick your butt. It could just be the training that a life-time criminal needs to get on the right path.

      In actual fact, the Military isn't very enthusiastic about enlisting criminals.
      Correct. The military doesn't want felons. However, we could change that to give first time felons the option of a long jail sentence or 4-8 years in the US Marine Corps. If they pick the Marines. We could have a "special" Marine boot camp for the criminals that was even harder then typical Marine boot camp. I am willing to bet that this "special" Marine boot camp could get at least a 95% conversion rate if not 100%.

      Oh, and don't forget that if they commit a crime during their 4-8 years in the Marines, they would be subject to military law vs. civilian law. You don't want to get busted for a crime while your in the military, you get some _really_ bad punishments.

      --
      If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land,
      it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. -James Madison
    419. Re:Only 25 years? by SECProto · · Score: 0

      25 years is about how much a person in canada would get for murdering three people, and he would likely have a chance for parole at 12 1/2 years. What do you want the person to get? 50 years? the death penalty? I think sitting in a prison cell for 25 years would make someone think twice before trying the same thing again...

    420. Re:Only 25 years? by Thomas+Shaddack · · Score: 1
      Each second of that last 7 1/2 minutes before touch down the plane has to drop at least 15 feet! Each second!

      "Tower to the plane! You are descending too fast!"

      The pilots aren't alone Up There.

    421. Re:Only 25 years? by burdalane · · Score: 1

      The other possibility is that it was a stupid, stupid person who wasn't really thinking about the consequences of what they were doing at the time and there was no premeditated intent to cause a plane to crash. If I had been the one with the laser, it would not have occurred to me that a laser could be that powerful over such a large distance unless the plane was already very close to the ground.

    422. Re:Only 25 years? by lew3004 · · Score: 1

      It should also be noted that the man performing the execution in the photo you referenced was NOT an American; he was a member of the South Vietnam security force (a general, I believe).

      --
      I still can't get the screen shots of Castle Wolfenstein for the Apple IIe out of my head.
    423. Re:Only 25 years? by andreMA · · Score: 1

      Damn. What's the world coming to? I can't even rely on others to RTFA for me...

    424. Re:Only 25 years? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mythbusters? Rather try Nortakotans and their potato gun expertise.

    425. Re:Only 25 years? by Moofie · · Score: 1

      IF he could hold the beam steady enough (which he couldn't) and IF the laser could blind the pilot (which it couldn't), then you might have a point.

      But you don't.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    426. Re:Only 25 years? by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      Next time use a pair of night-vision goggles and an infrared laser.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    427. Re:Only 25 years? by DM9290 · · Score: 0

      The problem is that passing a law in which a particular intent is illegal means that the terrorists can get off if they can plausibly state that their intent was pointing out stars to someone,

      It is a fundamental principle of justice, that you can't be put in prison for commiting an offense which has no mental element. (i.e. no intent)

      (or no physical mental element for that matter... it is not illegal to merely INTEND something, you must take at least some positive step towards facilitating your intent)

      You must intend to point the laser at an aircraft in order to be imprisoned for pointing a laser at an aircraft.

      It would be simple enough to make it a crime to point a laser at an aircraft, (and it probably should be).

      As far as the defendant (or terrorist as we call defendants these days) convincing the jury he didn't intend to point the laser at an aircraft, but be intended to point at something else, this is for the jury to be convinced of.

      It would be very difficult to convince a jury you accidentally painted the aircraft multiple times with a laser, or that you were pointing to multiple stars which just so happened to be directly behind the aircraft.

      You can claim this, but the jury is likely to find the story incredible.

      Of course in order to state anything you must agree to testify. And once you are agreeing to testify, you open yourself up to cross examination.

      --
      No one has a right to their *own* opinion. They have a right to the TRUTH.
    428. Re:Only 25 years? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Pilots have a clear view of the ground 50 meters in front of them from the flight deck."

      The view of the ground varies with altitude. Seven miles up one might see starting about 30 miles on out. Unless one was in a bank, I would be quite surprised to see a laser hit a windshield.

      The normal rate of descent is 3 to 1. So, at 15 n.mi. the normal pilot looks to be at about 5,000 ft.

      All a pilot has to do is to look away. Jeeze, it is not rocket science.

    429. Re:Only 25 years? by pla · · Score: 1

      I imagine it would be much easier than you imagine. A sustained laser at a drivers eyes would make them swerve if not stop dead on the road.

      You imagine wrong.

      I've had this exact scenario happen a few times, back at the peak of the "oh I have a new toy let's annoy people with it" phase of laser pointer popularity.

      The response?

      You put out your hand.

      Nothing more complicated than that. 0-0.5s, you avert your gaze. 0.5-1.5s, you move your hand from covering your eyes toward the source of the laser, to locate that source. 1.5s to 5s, you roll down the window. 5s to 15s, you lay on the horn and scream obscenties at the stupid kids trying to piss you off.

      Or rather, once I did that. Every other time, the idiot failed to do more than very briefly flash my windshield a few times (which I think describes the GP's point - Hitting a rapidly moving target from more than a few dozen feet away takes some impressive skill). And even then, I don't seriously expect I ever had a serious threat to my vision... The idiot managed to keep the beam generally pointed at my head, but it only flashed very briefly across my eyes half-a-dozen or so times.

      So did that pose a threat to me? Okay, technically I could have gotten into an accident in the first second or two. But assuming you don't drive like an asshole about six inches from the bumper of the car in front of you (tailgating counts as a serious pet peeve of mine), you simply won't see that sort of thing cause an accident.

      As for the wisdom shining it at an airplane...

      I would only want one answer - Did he know he had flashed an airplane? I can see it as entirely possible that this guy went out to do his best Luke Skywalker impression on a foggy night, and happened to attract some unwanted attention. If not, perhaps give him some community service time to remind him to think before screwing around. If so... Well, even then, I'd chalk him up as exceedingly rude, but 25 years in the federal pen? maybe a year of probation. Anything more than that just abuses the existing laws.

    430. Re:Only 25 years? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I won't invest the time to recover the other one I read about on CNN which I recall citing the Patriot Act directly. Not for an abusive AC.

      BWAAAAAAHAAHAHAHAHA!!!
      OK, so you lied. Don't hide behind that "abusive A/C" tripe... own up to your BS. Besides, everybody knows all ACs are abusive :)

      you.busted();
    431. Re:Only 25 years? by Yotsuya · · Score: 1

      Well, technically, they don't determine if a crime was commited or not. The jury in fact is supposed to decide if the defendant is guilty of the crime(s) he's being charged with.

      --
      Claude Angers
    432. Re:Only 25 years? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Congress soon to address this issue now that they are back in session.

      Back in season? Martha, get my gun. Oh?...Oops, nevermind.

    433. Re:Only 25 years? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps you should read YOUR OWN WORDS and learn to live by them.

      -(yet another) Abusive AC

    434. Re:Only 25 years? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have you noticed the degree to which you are trying to defend this stupid person's actions? Even if this hadn't been on the news, a person with half a brain could read the warning on the side of these lasers (a warning that is mandated by federal law) and realize that it could be hazardous to point any any human - especially at people who are responsible for the lives of hundreds of others.
      Yes, this jackass was a complete fool and should be held accountable. How is this a police state?
      You give the intelligent libertarians a really bad name.

    435. Re:Only 25 years? by Moofie · · Score: 1

      I think we should throw all those reckless people with windshields on their cars in jail. I mean, the sun can reflect off a windshield and the beam of photons could hit a pilot! In the EYE!

      This is a ridiculous, fear-mongering bit of legislative idiocy.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    436. Re:Only 25 years? by crankyspice · · Score: 1

      This will likely be settled and the guy will receive minimal if any jail time.



      Criminal trials don't settle, though a defendant (or prosecutor) can attempt to make a deal whereby a guilty plea nets a lower charge or a lower sentence. Federal convictions, however, are bound by the federal sentencing guidelines, which accomodates guilty pleas by reducing (slightly!) the number of 'points' a conviction carries (for "taking responsibility," and, if done early enough, for "expediting" the flow of the criminal justice system). The lower the points, the shorter the sentence and, more importantly, the lower your inmate classification (e.g., you might end up in a Federal Prison Camp rather than a Federal Pound Me In The Ass Prison)... Depends on the mood of the prosecutor at this point, really. I'd expect this guy to do some time. We seem to be in a "let this be a lesson to all of you" mentality phase...

      --
      geek. lawyer.
    437. Re:Only 25 years? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You cannot duct tape a laser to said binoculars precise enough to keep the point in sight on full zoom several kilometres away. If mounting a laser on a binocular was that easy, no one would have to spend hundreds of dollars to mount a scope on his rifle.

      (sin(a)*b)/sin(b)=b if I'm correct. A misalignment of 1 deg will put your laser dot 87 meters away from your target, if that target is 5 kilometres away. Try it sometimes on whatever "target" you may find, take a distant tree, stone, barn or whatever one cannot harm or irritate with a laserpointer and then try to mount a laser on your binoculars with nothing more than duct tape and force of will. No chance man, seriously.

      When I was younger, I once tried to mount a small laserpointer to an air gun with duct tape. The pellet gun was rather accurate, but the laser pointer couldn't be aligned even within maybe 5 deg of the barrel vector and it was useless even at a distance of 10 meters or less. Without special equipment you have no chance to hit a moving airplane with a duct taped laser binocular, I tell you.

    438. Re:Only 25 years? by SteelFist · · Score: 1

      Did anybody say we have a future Darwin Award candidate?

    439. Re:Only 25 years? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ok... Humour me for a second...

      I'm a terrorist (I'm not really, Echelon, I'm being hypothetical. HY-PO-THETIC-AL!)

      I see some guy get sent down for flashing a souped-up laser pointer at a plane.

      Do I then look back at my Russian-made laser-guided SAM and think, "Well, that's that plan out of the window." Or do I just not give a shit?

      Truth be told. If that beam was some sort of weapon, being arrested for using it wouldn't make one damn iota of a difference.

      (you might've noticed the 'u' in humour up at the top. I'm British, and we [so too the Northern Irish people] been bombed, maimed, and murdered by terrorists for nigh on 30 years. Didn't stop many 'civilised' nations funding the IRA though, did it? Thankfully, for the people of Belfast and Northern Ireland in general, those days look like they're coming to a close. Long may the UK and Eire treat eachother as friends, and may the people of Nothern Ireland be treated as equals, no matter how they worship and live their lives. No paramilitaries on either side 'won' the war. The people of both sides simply got fucking sick of it, and thankfully the politicians, murderes, fighters and thugs seem to be getting the message).

    440. Re:Only 25 years? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was thinking more along the lines of tossing out the window...

    441. Re:Only 25 years? by Moofie · · Score: 1

      "Whether it causes an accident or not, your high beams aren't going to cause someone to have permanent eye damage."

      Neither will a laser pointer a couple miles away.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    442. Re:Only 25 years? by bigberk · · Score: 1
      Banning a tool is almost always a retarded move, be it a gun, a laser, encryption software, or a dvd copier.
      You seriously consider a gun a tool? The thing is built to kill living creatures, animals or humans. That is its purpose, its design. It's not a tool, and it shouldn't be in the hands of any civilian.
    443. Re:Only 25 years? by neurojab · · Score: 1

      Except for the fact that he's an American citizen, while the savages locked away at Gitmo are not.

      Not quite true. At least one of the detainees was technically an American citizen, who needed a lot of external help to regain the right to a fair trial.

      Several of the detainees are from friendly countries in the EU.

      The US Constitution applies to US Citizens ONLY. Foreign nationals are granted NO constitutional protections, unless they become US Citizens.

      You're right about that, but they are citizens of some country, and that country may have a treaty with the U.S. regarding the treatment and extradition of prisoners. Should we throw those treaties away and lose our rights overseas?

      I'm not arguing that the constitution applies to these prisoners... and technically the Geneva convention doesn't either (though I think it should). For me the issue is due process. What is to stop person A from pointing the finger at person B and yelling "terrorist", and getting person B locked up indefinately? Clearly we must have some process and some safegards to prevent abuse. That's what the Geneva convention is for. We could just say "We're following the Geneva convention" and actually follow through, and everything would be fine.

      Unfortunately GW and Rumsfeld would rather wipe their collective asses with international goodwill than to adhere to worldwide human rights standards.

    444. Re:Only 25 years? by camzacid · · Score: 0

      i read in a diffrent article that it was not just a laser pointer it was a tool for checkin leakes in fiberoptic cables.

    445. Re:Only 25 years? by SpooForBrains · · Score: 1

      Probably not even that. He was probably just amused that he could see his laser pointer spot on the plane. But he's probably regretting it now ...
      I know I'm probably being dim here, but one assumes that the plane is in the air when this is happening and that the protagonist is on the ground. I seem to recall from my brief encounters with aeroplanes that the cockpit was situated at the front of the plane, on the top. How was the laser pointer even getting near the pilot's eyes?

      --
      "The dew has clearly fallen with a particularly sickening thud this morning"
    446. Re:Only 25 years? by Feanturi · · Score: 1

      then they should bung all the store owners with those big animated roadside signs

      I'm only sort of there.. Last summer I got distracted in a dangerous way by a bikini car wash that was happening in the neighborhood. I recognized the danger at the time, but at the same time had no desire for them to go away. :)

    447. Re:Only 25 years? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I don't think it's being misused at all. It's functioning exactly as intened. That is, a means to prosecute people for crimes without being needed to bother to prove the case.

      We can all hope that eventually the "terrorist" assumption of prosecution under the PATRIOT Act will go away, and those nasty "Activist Judges" will start requiring the same kind of proof they have traditionally required for every other crime.

    448. Re:Only 25 years? by ZB+Mowrey · · Score: 1
      Common sense tells me that the laser never hit the plane, never hit the police chopper, and that the story was conveniently put together by prosecuters and a media which has nothing useful to report about the war or terror.

      Common sense tells me that someone saw the laser in order for it to be noticed. To see such a laser requires, a) clouds nearby b) fog or c) it pointed right at your eyes.

      Will some slashdotter save me the effort of RTFA by telling me how powerful this laser was? It would have to be pretty strong to be noticeable in clouds at flight altitudes (unless he was near an airport, then he should be hanged).

      In conclusion, IIWOTJ (if I were on the jury), anyone saying the laser didn't hit the plane had better be prepared to back it up with some evidence of a good, strong laser beam.

      And yeah, I think the use of the words 'terror' and 'PATRIOT Act' in conjunction with this story deserves further investigation. I fail to understand the terrorist link, unless there are details we're not being fed (which is highly likely).

      --

      Self-referential sigs are rarely entertaining.

    449. Re:Only 25 years? by dukeisgod · · Score: 1

      Actually, that seems to mainly be a problem with your minorities in the inner cities. Fireworks are legal in the boonies, and are much more fun. Or shoot into the dirt so you can have fun digging up mangled bullets the next day. And often times the guy shooting the gun into the air in the city (where there's a much denser population to hit) is a convicted felon, so yeah, he shouldn't have that gun in the first place.

    450. Re:Only 25 years? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As a pilot, I find this preposterous. Whether you're flying a prop, a jet, or a helicopter, even the autopilot can't keep you within a few feet of assigned altitude. Thus, a person on the ground from thousands or even hundreds of feet away will never be able to keep a laser pointed at a pilot's eyes, particularly if that pilot is moving at 70 knots! Absolutely absurd.

      Incidentally, have you ever tried to keep a laser dot centered on a spot even fifty feet away? It's harder than hell to keep it centered within a few inch diameter, let alone a moving target five hundred feet away.

    451. Re:Only 25 years? by norwoodites · · Score: 1

      For one thing, its main purpose was to allow various agencies the legal right to share information. If the CIA knew for a fact that an attack on the US was going to happen before the PATRIOT ACT it would have been *ILLEGAL* for them to tell the FBI, the White House, etc. That's insanity!

      Considering that the CIA is run by the white house and not the congress (just like the FBI), this is just plainly wrong. Remember the Executive branch is suposed to execute the law and not make it, this is even more wrong.

    452. Re:Only 25 years? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is spitting on a moving car with the intention of making it crash should be severly punish?

    453. Re:Only 25 years? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Common sense tells me that someone saw the laser in order for it to be noticed

      If you've been following the discussion you'll note at least two dozen posts which provide links to sites which tell about these green lasers whose beams are distinct enough to leave a trail. So the neighbors could probably see it, but they weren't blinded or even targetted.

    454. Re:Only 25 years? by dnoyeb · · Score: 1

      The computers are doing most of the flying. Pilots dont need to look out the window to fly the plane, else they would never leave the ground at night.

      Yes, the guy is stupid. I don't know what he thought would happen...

    455. Re:Only 25 years? by rjstanford · · Score: 1

      This is great in a civilian setting. But how about in a military situation? In a war zone? You want courts, judges, lawyers, media, CourtTV operating in Iraq? You wants "Cops: Baghdad"? That's absurd. If you are in a war zone, you are subject to the ravages of war. The military does screen on the spot.

      Which is fine. I have - as I said - absolutely no problems with that. As long as, when there's some time, there is a full review. That's why if you have that kind of situation, with people being picked up for suspicion, you need some kind of review after the fact - not permanent detention without trial.

      --
      You're special forces then? That's great! I just love your olympics!
    456. Re:Only 25 years? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The US is not a democracy. It is a republic. Take some time and educate yourself on the difference so you won't look like a moron. If you read some of the writings of our founding fathers you will see that they considered democracy to be a form of tyranny. A republic is based on laws, democracy is mob rule. If 50% +1 want people with red hair to be imprisoned and used as slave labor, no problem in a democracy.

    457. Re:Only 25 years? by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      You must read at a higher threshold than I do.

      Says he was out to cause a crash
      And another
      And the poster I was responding to as well
      etc... Theres plenty more

      All state rather unequivically and with no evidence that they've presented, that there the intention was to do harm. The guy wasn't stupid and didn't think of the possible harm. The guy wasn't just thrilled that he could see his new toy make a dot 3000 feet away. No. The guy WANTED to hurt people. No question about it. Fry the bastard!!

      *THAT* is what I am calling bullshit on.

    458. Re:Only 25 years? by surprise_audit · · Score: 1
      the man in question was not charged in the targetting of the helicopter specifically because there is no provision in the act to allow for this

      Wouldn't that come under the same heading as "interfering with a flight crew"?? Or don't helicopter pilots count as flight crew? Or doesn't the USA Patriot act consider helicopters dangerous??

    459. Re:Only 25 years? by pentalive · · Score: 1

      Ok, so a guy plans to bring down a plane, he really wants to bring it down. but he never says anything about it, he just tries.

      When they pick him up, all he says is "Im sorry I was just play'en around with the laser I didn't mean to shine it in the plane"

      If the danger is the same, shouldn't the punishment be the same? It's easy to lie about intent.

    460. Re:Only 25 years? by MMaestro · · Score: 1
      The problem is "reckless endangerment", "malicious mischief", and "interfering with an aircrew" are still broad charges. If I suddenly run out of the woods waving a flashlight at a car possibly causing the driver to panic and crash, is that "reckless endangerment"? Is writing the word 'anthrax' on a paper bag full of sugar and leaving it outside a retirement home "malicious mischief"? Does complaining so loudly that the flight crew onboard an airplane can hear me count as "interfering with an aircrew"?

      Ultimately this comes down to the judge to decide, but at face value, yes this can count as "terrorism". If I did "reckless endangerment" to a truck full of explosive materials, you bet I'd get the book slammed at me. Bag of 'anthrax' outside a courthouse? Definately. Complaining on an airplane? Well, this is more grey but you get the idea.

    461. Re:Only 25 years? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      The plane drop 16 feet per second, instead of his normal plane of 15 feet per second. That would mean the plane would be 450 feet below sea level when it "gets" to the runway (aka, it crashes well before the runway).


      Yeah, too bad planes cant pull up to avert this.
    462. Re:Only 25 years? by nigelc · · Score: 1
      Two comments.

      A laser beam in the 5-20 mW range firing at a distance of (let us say) two miles is exceedingly unlikely to blind both pilots nor to cause permanent damage to the retina. I'm figuring the following as the scenario:
      plane is on final approach to land (close to the ground, moderately slow moving, on the glidepath/on the glideslope)
      fuckwit with laser pointer (or terrorist with suspected anti-aircraft weapon if you prefer) is most likely at the far end of the active runway plus a little bit further

      So we have a couple of cases:
      (a) commercial aircraft coming in to land, pilot flying gets a green flash across his eyes, loses his visual acuity/situational awareness for a moment, utters a plea to the nameless god and most likely presses the TOGA button or causes the co-pilot to ram the throttles forward and take over the aircraft, executes a "missed approach" and goes back up into the air and orbits a while while the crew figure out what the fuck just happened.
      (b)private plane, same situation. Either the pilot continues to land (in something like a small Cessna C172 or the like, the plane is more or less flying itself if it is established on the final approach -- flare back as you feel the ground effect and wait for the mighty thump as the wheels hit the runway) or the pilot pushes the throttle all the way back in, executes a missed approach and goes back up into the air while the dots in front of his eyes clear out.

      In all cases, pilot is discussing his actions with the tower/unicom/WATCH frequency and figuring out whether to divert, try again or whatever.

      Worst case, most towers/controllers can talk the plane down to the ground as long as the pilot is able to still turn the handles and press the little pedals and stuff.

      So I figure the guy should be done for felony stupid, but not shipped off to Gitmo just yet.

      --


      Cthulhu Barata Nikto
    463. Re:Only 25 years? by Nikker · · Score: 1

      So trying to blind pilots in order to cause their aircraft to crash

      God dam man where did you pull that from? Where did you find out his intentions? Not in the article, maybe did you ask him your self?

      Buddy thats scary this guy has a family and a daughter and your spewing crap that makes this man sound like Manson. Do you feel better about your self now?

      Take a break, breathe and apologize because the crack is starting to wear off.

      --
      A loop, by its nature, continues. If that didn't make sense, start reading this sentence again.
    464. Re:Only 25 years? by putaro · · Score: 1

      (again, another Tom Clancy scenario in a book about using an ultra bright light to bring down an approaching airliner...just like in the same book a 747 pilot crashed his plane into the Capital building in Washington...but I digress......)

      Maybe we should outlaw Tom Clancy books instead! Seems like they're just chock full of naughty ideas.

    465. Re:Only 25 years? by kayditty · · Score: 1

      "Like I could really kill 100 people in a mall with only a 2-1/2 inch blade and a pair of pliers." All the terrorists needed was three Saudis and a box cutter to scare off a 747 full.

    466. Re:Only 25 years? by kfg · · Score: 1

      Okay, it is illegal to knowingly or recklessly cause physical harm to someone.

      That is only partially correct.

      There's of course an exemption (though in case law rather than written into the statutes) for recognized sports when the conduct is within both the rules and customs of that sport.

      That is incorrect. There is simply no law against hitting anyone. However, it is correct to say that in certain cases violence in a sport may not excede certain levels. The "exemption" is not for the sport, but for the particular incident. This case law is also brand new, only a matter of a few years old.

      Shining LASERs at people isn't a recognized sport, not is it any other exemption.

      Again, sport has nothing to do with it, there is no legal authority for "recognizing" what is and isn't a sport and there is no law against shining lasers on people. People do it every day.

      Some of them even pay for the priviledge, as it happens, in a sport.

      You have missed the key issue entirely with your concept of "exemption," because the issue is consent. It is perfectly legal to permanantly mutilate another person if they consent. You can have it done at any mall.

      If you did manage to blind them, you could easily be convicted of assault.

      Assault is a crime of intent. With no intent, there is no assault. Criminal Negligence, perhaps.

      If the jurisdiction has a separate charge of maiming. . .

      So far as I know such a criminal charge does not exist in any American jurisdiction (severity of injury simply affects the class of battery, assault is not battery, and vice versa), although it is grounds for a civil suit.

      KFG

    467. Re:Only 25 years? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      If he didn't know this was going to lead to trouble he's also one of the dumbest men in the U.S.
      I wouldn't say dumb so much as ignorant. You and I understand that a laser is coherent light and as such all of its energy is contained in a very small frequency band, hence it's very destructive to eyesight. But Billy Bob Asshat thinks it's a cute flashlight and treats it accordingly -- it's not like this moron read the directions which came with the laser, i.e. do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    468. Re:Only 25 years? by dbIII · · Score: 1
      So trying to blind pilots in order to cause their aircraft to crash will only net you 25 years?
      While killing a kid spraying his name on a wall doesn't carry a sentence at all in New York apparently - though perhaps it was just lack of evidence.

      This is an entirely inappropriate use of anti-terror laws, you could just as easily say a punch in the face is an attempt to blind - while a charge of assault makes far more sense.

      It looks like we now have the stupid situation where nearly anything is terrorism and demands a military response - it wasn't appropriate for DVD encryption and it is not appropriate for some idiot with a laser pointer.

      We already have the situation where you can be hauled off to Cuba and held for years without charge despite even the intervention of the supreme court - things like this patriot act may look like laws but they are really creating a lawless situation where people can dodge responsibility. That's the last thing you want amataur law enforcement to be doing - after all those guy were only trained to watch and think due process and accountability is for others. Since the guys who were doing the torturing in central America in the 1970s are still unknown, they are confident they can get away with anything. Even after Ollie North was caught selling weapons to a declared ememy and skimming money off the top for himself was given another position of responsibility to stuff up. Those idiots who sold nerve gas to Saddam are the beauracrats that are in charge of enforcing the patriot act.

      Don't let your uncontrolled intelligence agencies have anything at all to do with domestic law enforcement - the patriot act was just a grab for power by poeple seeing an advantage in all those deaths in New York. You have the FBI to handle federal stuff - people who are used to behaving like Bond villans in the third world have no place in law enforcement other than to provide intelligence of much higher quality than it appears that they are currently capable of doing.

    469. Re:Only 25 years? by Joel+from+Sydney · · Score: 1

      So true. I wonder what ever happened to "the only thing we have to fear is fear itself."

    470. Re:Only 25 years? by Mudcathi · · Score: 1
      I was agreeing with everything you said, right up to this point:

      "I'd love to get one of those 100mW green lasers to mess around with, but now I can't."

      Ummm... and just what would you do with one of those? (Admit it, you'd like to make a houseful of popcorn, wouldn't you? Well, actually, so would I, come to think of it :)

      --

      "He who throws mud, loses ground." - proverb

    471. Re:Only 25 years? by Phurd+Phlegm · · Score: 1
      The plane was on approach to a nearby airport and was at very low altitude.
      The report I saw said the plane was on an approach to Teterboro. At 3000 feet. According to my sources, KTEB is at elevation 9 feet. That means, if the guy stretched his hand over his head, the plane was still pretty far above him.

      Most instrument approaches start on the order of ten miles from the airport at up to 5000 feet AGL. I doubt that you can see down more than 30 degrees from the horizontal out the side of a Citation cockpit without sticking your head over. The slant range was probably at least a mile if they were at 3000 feet. Note: I can't find an authoritative report of the altitude, but one report states the citation was 11 miles out, so they certainly wouldn't be at "a very low altitude."

    472. Re:Only 25 years? by kurzweilfreak · · Score: 0
      Are they yet?

      Have they ever really been much during the course of human history?

      --

      kurzweil_freak

      5th Kyu Genbukan Ninpo/KJJR student

      Be the darkness that allows the light to shine.

    473. Re:Only 25 years? by Thing+1 · · Score: 1
      If I stood at the end of the runway throwing rocks at planes would you be so light on me too? After all, birds hit planes too.

      Because you throw them, too? (You bastard.)

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
    474. Re:Only 25 years? by jc42 · · Score: 1

      Post 9/11 stories abound with "terrorists using lasers to possibly down planes" whereas pre-9/11 stories are about mischief, poor planning, and training pilots not to stare at the beam.

      Not entirely true. If you dig out news coverage of the wars in Bosnia and Kosovo, you'll find a number of reports of lasers being used against military aircraft. This was invariably reported as a likely attempt to blind the pilot. I don't remember reading of any successful attempts, though.

      There were also hypothetical discussions of the topic around the time that the first commercial lasers started appearing on the market. But it took a few years for actual reports to appear.

      --
      Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
    475. Re:Only 25 years? by Headcase88 · · Score: 1

      "I'm off to wait in traffic for the rapture..."

      Okay, but don't turn on your highbeams on any other drivers.

      --
      "When the atomic bomb goes off there's devastation...but when the atomic bong goes off there's celebraaaaation!"
    476. Re:Only 25 years? by iocat · · Score: 1
      I agree. It does suck if you're Jose Padilla, but the wheels of justice are grinding forward.

      Frankly, I hope once the precedent is set and he can't be held as an enemy combatent, he is then properly charged and ground to a pulp under those same wheels of justice, because he doesn't seem like a very nice guy.

      That's no excuse to not give him due process though. And that's why our system is so great, if it even protects scumbags like him, you can have a reasonable assurance it will protect you more or less.

      --

      Dude, I think I can see my house from here.

    477. Re:Only 25 years? by dougmc · · Score: 1
      Pilots dont need to look out the window to fly the plane
      Eh? Sure, an IFR rated pilot and plane could fly without looking out the window, but if it's a nice clear day out, you don't do it that way -- you look out the window. If you suddenly lost visibilty, you might not have time to switch to IFR flight if you're landing. And if you were blinded, you won't be able to see your instruments either.

      (Not that a standard laser pointer will blind you from hundreds of feet away, but ...)

      else they would never leave the ground at night.
      Bull. Pilots and planes not equipped for IFR flight do night flights all the time. It's even part of the training program -- you need so many hours of night flight to get your private pilot's license.

      It's no big deal -- you can see around you quite well.

    478. Re:Only 25 years? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OK... just to clarify things for you:

      You were driving a car.

      They were flying a plane.

      You expect to be dazzled by headlights.

      They do not expect to be distracted by a laser.

      You can stop.

      They can't stop.

      If you think driving a vehicle on a road and being dazzled by oncoming headlights is the same as being intentionally distracted whilst flying a plane you're just not that bright.

    479. Re:Only 25 years? by Alsee · · Score: 1

      even a sufficiently large display of BOOBIES might have the same effect

      Dude! Not even Zena Fulsome a sufficiently large display to take down an overhead aircraft!

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    480. Re:Only 25 years? by rworne · · Score: 1

      Haha, there's plenty of toys I have or want just for the sake of having them or messing with them, that is the essential part of being a geek, no?

      I've always wanted a laser you could see in a non-smoke filled room, especially one that can burn a hole in plastic cups.

      --
      I tried every decent and legal way I could think of to resolve the issue w/the business before I rented the chicken suit
    481. Re:Only 25 years? by xmundt · · Score: 1

      Greetings and Salutations...
      Ok...I have to say that I think this whole thing is a crock, and, nothing more than the government waving its "power" around in order to test how far they can limit the actions of the citizens.
      I also think that the guy did do a very foolish thing by shining a laser at the aircraft. While the likelihood of actually causing serious problems was so close to zero as to make a lightning strike MORE likely, it was an inappropriate lesson for his kid.
      I DO wonder what sort of laser he had, though. I see a bunch of posts here saying "high Power" and in some cases wandering off into such a fantasy world about how "powerful" lasers are that I wonder if it is not time to start drug testing posters here. Any laser powerful enough to cut metal or cause serious blindness is STILL going to be so big and expensive that one is really unlikely to find it anywhere it might be used to target airplanes. Oak Ridge labs might well have some, and, I know there are a bunch of folks out there doing custom machining with CO2 lasers that have a chunk of power. However, NONE of these
      can be hand held (and most would require a couple of fairly big guys to lift and move). So...how powerful WAS this laser? A few Milliwatts?
      I do find it more of a concern about the increased use of the Patriot Act in what should be ordinary criminal prosecutions. Those powers are dangerous, and, I suspect that as the next few years pass, there are going to be more and more folks who look back at their support for giving the government these powers with great regret. However, it is likely that by that time, it will be too late.
      Pleasant dreams.
      Dave Mundt

      --
      YAB - http://blog.beemandave.com/
    482. Re:Only 25 years? by Nikker · · Score: 1

      Now ask yourself is the Gov smart enough to add some type of tint or protection to the glass or do you think they will just sit back and quote the patriot act?

      --
      A loop, by its nature, continues. If that didn't make sense, start reading this sentence again.
    483. Re:Only 25 years? by WKSGene · · Score: 1

      First. It would be a safe bet that most of us could not easily, if at all, hold a laser pointer (with your hand) on the stop sign at the end of your block much less one 3000 feet away that was moving 150-200 mph. You could illuminate the cockpit with a pass over the window if you were lucky, perhaps, but it would be tricky to cause any real damage intentionally. Second, although this laser was a bit more than the average "toy" laser pointer, it was still, I think, an unregulated device and not especially dangerous. The landing lights from another plane or the stobe from the tower could easily be as dangerous to an approaching pilot. Pilots are routinely reminded of the dangers of bright light sources during night flying. This is just not a good way to bring down a plane. People routinely drive 100 mph on the freeway in my area of the world. The penalty...almost none. Not even a misdemenor in most cases. I would submit that, at times, they are a heck of alot more dangerous than this geek.

      Bottom line, the guy shouldn't have intentionally pointed his "toy" at a pilot or anyone else, but it is simply just annoying. There was, likely, no intent to do any harm at all. Being rude is not a crime and shouldn't be.

    484. Re:Only 25 years? by m3rr · · Score: 1

      I think I like it. It's very "1984"

    485. Re:Only 25 years? by Nikker · · Score: 1

      Don't for get this driver was flying at an altitude of 8000 feet. Not too many people would assume that their actions would result in such a maner. Most people point the lasers in the sky any way out of astonishment of the effect of the laser in the sky. Should we send those people to jail if a plane crusing at 14000 feet (well above audible range) get painted by accident? Hell just jail em all? Until its your friend of course ;)

      --
      A loop, by its nature, continues. If that didn't make sense, start reading this sentence again.
    486. Re:Only 25 years? by Sinner · · Score: 1
      Remember: if you walk around in fear, then the terrorists have already won.
      Also, if you walk around in your underpants, they get a free sports watch. Sweet!
      --
      fish and pipes
    487. Re:Only 25 years? by fucksl4shd0t · · Score: 1

      You must intend to point the laser at an aircraft in order to be imprisoned for pointing a laser at an aircraft.

      While you're right, mostly, this part isn't entirely accurate. It may be possible to be imprisoned for pointing a laser at an aircraft even if that's not your intent. Let's work by analogy, because that's always fun. :)

      Say you intend to make a left turn and you don't intend to hurt anybody. But you don't look as closely as you could have and you maul some old lady pushing her grandchild around in a stroller, killing them both. You're guilty as sin of killing the old lady and her granchild, regardless of what your intent is.

      When your defense attorney proves you didn't mean to do it, you get a lesser sentence.

      So, now you're out of jail and you're pointing your laser pointer around in the sky to show your daughter all the beautiful stars. You don't intend to blind the pilot of the airliner making it's final approach causing the subsequent plane crash and the death of 200+ passengers. But you're still guilty as sin of doing it.

      You're fucked, dude. Shouldn't have run over the old lady.

      --
      Like what I said? You might like my music
    488. Re:Only 25 years? by CountBrass · · Score: 1

      Frankly I doubt you could hit the airliner at all at that range with the kind of pocket laser you use to point out stars.

      --
      Bad analogies are like waxing a monkey with a rainbow.
    489. Re:Only 25 years? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you think indefinite jail for anyone is acceptable as an administrative policy? That's fucked up.

      Why not allow them to have a real court trial?

    490. Re:Only 25 years? by evilviper · · Score: 1
      So trying to blind pilots in order to cause their aircraft to crash will only net you 25 years?

      Yes... TRYING can only get you up to 25 years under the Patriot act. You might have run afoul of other laws as well though.

      Now, as for SUCCEEDING, you may face all kinds of additional charges, possibly including several hundred counts of murder.
      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    491. Re:Only 25 years? by nathanh · · Score: 1
      Some of the SUV's and pickups have fog lights that are much brighter than the headlights. I flash my lights at them, but they just flash me back as if to say, "duhhh, my lights are not on bright. Why you flashing me? (drool)."

      Flash your foglights at them instead. That does work occasionally. I'm also annoyed by the dweebs who drive around with their foglights on when it's not even slightly foggy.

    492. Re:Only 25 years? by danheskett · · Score: 1

      So you think indefinite jail for anyone is acceptable as an administrative policy? That's fucked up. Why not allow them to have a real court trial?
      I do not think its okay for "anyone". However, I don't think that international terrorism is a criminal problem, like some others do. International terrorism is a national security, a national defense issue. If the military or CIA or some such agency apprehends a terrorist, a terrorist plotters, financier, etc in a foreign land that person should be interrogated and then put before a military tribunal, and put into a military jail and/or executed. They do not qualify for the geneva convention protections, they do not belong in an American court room, they do not belong in front of the camera's.

    493. Re:Only 25 years? by danheskett · · Score: 1

      . As long as, when there's some time, there is a full review. That's why if you have that kind of situation, with people being picked up for suspicion, you need some kind of review after the fact - not permanent detention without trial.
      Okay, then, you should be fine with the people at Gitmo and other prisons. Each of them went through four (4) reviews before boarding a plane to Gitmo each by military personell. At Gitmo each has been assessed a number of times (with a number more being released, by the way).

      There are never going to be televised American civil court room style procedures. In a war zone there is no crime scene unit, there is no cop to take witness statements, there is no physical evidence collected. Army breaks down the door, see's you working on a roadside bomb, captures you - you get life with "no trial" or prompt execution. That's all there is to it. That person is not a solider - he's not uniformed, paid by a nation, or even a person. That person is not a criminal - there are no laws in this country, no civil justice system. That person is not an American.

      What many are arguing for is completely absurd. They want American style or in-America-criminal-court trials for these individuals. With lawyers and witnesses and miranda and CourtTV and all the dressings.

    494. Re:Only 25 years? by danheskett · · Score: 1

      this is just plainly wrong
      I am 100% correct. Before the Patriot Act any information the CIA learned via means that the FBI could not employ - signals interception, internatonal wiretaps, paid snitches, interrogaton, plain out infilitration, etc could not be divulged to the Justice Department or other domestic agency.

      The CIA or DIA could not reveal certain elements of international operations or information gathering to the White House - including names, dates, locations, or certain other specifics - without a special administration order or an act of Congress. An intentional wall was errected. Information had to go up the chain through the military apparatus, to the commander-in-chief (or office) and then back down the civilian apparatus. It was extremely top heavy. And as a result it meant that only the most solid, most decisive, most reliable information made the trip. From the DIA operatives to their handlers to the brass to the Joint Chiefs to the office of the President to the Attorny General to the Director of the FBI to the agents in charge to the agents in the field. It's a fucked up version of events.

      You should read the USA PATRIOT ACT before making things up about it. 98-99% of it is completely necessary, completely good changes in law and policy. 2% or less is upsetting to some people.

    495. Re:Only 25 years? by andywhit · · Score: 1

      Is 'asshat' a real word in murica ?

    496. Re:Only 25 years? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or just do like the russians... Put the windows on the upper side of the plane, and the floor on the bottom side.

    497. Re:Only 25 years? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      wow i guess i did forget about that one, but thankfully the 18.9th amendment is being protected...you know the one where idiots must have access to post on the interweb

    498. Re:Only 25 years? by RancidBeef · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately none of my vehicles have fog lights.

    499. Re:Only 25 years? by dougmc · · Score: 1
      [has] a sufficiently large display to take down an overhead aircraft!
      You could have at least picked an _attractive_ example ...

      Seriously though, anything that can distract the pilot at the wrong time could cause a crash, though a good pilot should avoid being distracted and stay on the task at hand.

      And it doesn't have to be a plane. Car crashes have been caused by flashing women before.

    500. Re:Only 25 years? by rworne · · Score: 1

      It is a colloquialism used by people who read and participate at fark.com. It's used here too on occasion.

      I loved the term so much I adopted it as a synonym for "idiot".

      Urban Dictionary

      --
      I tried every decent and legal way I could think of to resolve the issue w/the business before I rented the chicken suit
    501. Re:Only 25 years? by Alsee · · Score: 1

      You could have at least picked an _attractive_ example

      The joke was a ground-based display visible from an aircraft. I'm not aware of any example that beats Xena Fulsome on that criteria. If you can find a better example I'd be rather amused.

      Attractiveness in generally a moot point when looking at people on the ground from an aircraft several thousand feet up.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    502. Re:Only 25 years? by bbuR_bbuB · · Score: 1

      I've done this with coworkers back when I was a student employee at a university. Some students come from far away, and as such, don't have access to their local bank. And of course, in its infinite wisdom, the University picked a payroll bank does not have a branch within walking distance of the university. To save my coworker time and INKING (the bank requires a thumbprint -- yuck!), I got my coworker to endorse his check to me, and I gave him cash. It worked out well, and my bank didn't seem to mind... There are legitimate uses, but like anything else, it can be used for good or evil.

    503. Re:Only 25 years? by EvanED · · Score: 1

      I don't know if you're entirely correct about consent. Consent isn't an absolute absolution of any legal requirements. You can't consent to being murdered, for instance. (Well, you can, but it's no defense to the person who does it.) But I do concede that it's probably closer than the limited exceptions I was trying to get at.

      In any case, consent isn't at play in the particular example of shining a LASER at someone.

      Assault is a crime of intent. With no intent, there is no assault. Criminal Negligence, perhaps.

      This isn't true. Read the laws in New York (it's the first one listed, 120.00, then 120.05 and 120.10; all three degrees of assault have provisions that don't require intent), Pennsylvania (again, both simple and aggrivated assult have provisions for at least reckless injury under some conditions), Texas, North Dakota (PDF file; simple assault has negligent assault), and New Jersey. I can't link to NJ's because it's in a subscription service (Westlaw), but the relevant portions are the same as PA.

      There are jurisdictions where this isn't true (California and Georga (warning: very large and slow-loading version of the entire penal code), the latter of which doesn't even have a crime called assault), but since the Model Penal Code and subsequent revisions of most states' criminal law, they are a minority.

    504. Re:Only 25 years? by theVP · · Score: 1

      a good point, and I can only compound it with: If we've changed this much because of a single act of terrorism, can we really say that they didn't win the day? The whole point of terrorism is to TERRORIZE PEOPLE. Seems to me that they terrorized enough people that we're doing shit like this to make people feel safe when they fly......

      --
      "No one is more miserable than the person who wills everything and can do nothing." -Emperor Claudius 10 BC - AD 54
    505. Re:Only 25 years? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Its "Wreckless Disregard" if the bus doesn't crash? and Reckless Disregard if it does?

    506. Re:Only 25 years? by kfg · · Score: 1

      But I do concede that it's probably closer than the limited exceptions I was trying to get at.

      This is what I was trying to get at. The "exceptions" run the opposite of what you suggested. There is a definition of assault and a definition of battery. If an act does not meet those defintions there is not crime. "Sport" does not need and "exception" because it does not meet the definition of either assault or battery. It is certain acts of excesive violence beyond what might be normal in a sport that can cause a sporting activity to result in a criminal charge.

      This isn't true. Read the laws in New York (it's the first one listed, 120.00, then 120.05 and 120.10; all three degrees of assault have provisions that don't require intent). . .

      The very first degree specifically requires intent. The rest require actual injury through neglegence or recklessness.

      Shining a laser on someone does not cause injury. I just walked up to my cat, laser in hand, and "drilled" the sucker right into her head at point blank range for a over a minute.

      She purred and licked my nose, completely unaware that she was being "assualted."

      Then I "drilled" myself right in the forehead. Without looking in a mirror I couldn't even tell where the dot was. It doesn't even cause sensation, let alone injury.

      Laser doesn't mean "death ray." It's just a frickin' light. I can injure myself much easier with a common, 60 watt lightbulb. In fact, I have injured myself with one of those, and even caused temporary blindness, which I have never done with a laser, even though I spend far more time handling lasers than lightbulbs.

      In any case, consent isn't at play in the particular example of shining a LASER at someone.

      It most certainly is. That's why I brought it up in the first place, and why you won't go to jail for trying my proposed experiment.

      You will use a subject who consents, and who will suffer no legally actionable injury from the activities.

      And it isn't illegal to shine a laser on someone. Only to assault them. Shining a laser on someone doesn't meet the defintion of assault, anymore than shining a flashlight on them does (and if that person is driving a car the flashlight is far, far more likely to cause them injury).

      Lasers are not boogeymen.

      KFG

    507. Re:Only 25 years? by gammoth · · Score: 1

      Ok, point taken. However, the colonists didn't fight in a European fashion but often employed guerrilla tactics as required to take on a stronger force. At least, that's what the school books claim.

      So, bad example. My point is, the colonists didn't taken on the British in the manner they counted on. They innovated and jerry-rigged. They skirmished and ran. They did, up to a point, what they had to.

      The tactics and actions of Al Qaeda and the Iraqi insurgents are gross beyond words. However, as bad as they are, we cannot allow ourselves to compromise our standards. We've been rounding up young men and torturing them to get information. We cast a wide net, under the excuse that we're not fighting a legimate force (it's true, we're not, but that's beside the point). It reminds me of the witch hunts where the test was to subject the victum to a horror that they were unlikely to survive because only a witch could survive it!

      BTW, thanks for (politely) calling me on my example. I presented a convenient guess as fact. Kudos.

    508. Re:Only 25 years? by EvanED · · Score: 1

      The very first degree specifically requires intent

      Or extreme recklessness under circumstances manifesting depraved indifference (par. 3). (Or something that looks to be similar to the felony-murder rule for assault.)

      Shining a laser on someone does not cause injury. I just walked up to my cat, laser in hand, and "drilled" the sucker right into her head at point blank range for a over a minute.

      Then I "drilled" myself right in the forehead. Without looking in a mirror I couldn't even tell where the dot was. It doesn't even cause sensation, let alone injury.


      In her eye? That's what we're talking about... if you could blind someone with one of these things. See Alexo's response to you earlier; he seems to indicate that you'll do it if you can hit their eye.

      As for consent, I took you to mean earlier to go out and try it on a random person.

    509. Re:Only 25 years? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lots of people speculating that don't know what they're talking about. I don't, but as it happens my dad retired just before christmas after ending his career as a 747 captain.

      From what I know (and the countless times i acused him of just presssing the autopilot button) planes DO NOT LAND THEMSELVES everywhere as people seem to think. They can someplaces, but only where the airport is equipped for it, which most are not. As someone mentioned, even when the landings are automatic, the landings are a lot harder.

      This is partly because the plane will stop faster if its planted hard on the ground to get more traction, and partly to save on tire wear. The tires are changed a hell of a lot more often than you'd expect.

      danheskett's judgements show incredibly poor understanding of what it's like on landing... things are busy, but if a momentary msitake is made its easy to correct it and get back on course fairly quickly. Again, I'm no commercial pilot, but I've sat in the jumpseats on heaps of my dad's flights, and am a competent glider pilot. Approaches are easily modified... and in worse case scenario, even if a pilot were to be shot instead of just blinded, there's always the co-pilot, or more likely the co-pilot will be flying to get up experience, and the captain can take over.

    510. Re:Only 25 years? by OnTheFringe · · Score: 1

      "And he hasn't gotten 25 years, yet. That is merely the max possible." Ok then, even the POSSIBILITY of getting 25 years is ludicrous, I don't think the word "merely" is appropriate here.

    511. Re:Only 25 years? by eyeball · · Score: 1

      Why have the government do it when the corporate sector has been doing a great job telling us what's proper for a decade or two now?

      Oh, I though these days when you say "government" it was assumed to include (almost exclusive) corporate control.

      --

      _______
      2B1ASK1
    512. Re:Only 25 years? by gammoth · · Score: 1

      Exactly! Nice one.

    513. Re:Only 25 years? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "but be careful what you shop for...

      Check back daily for changes to the list of permitted goods."

  3. Typo in story line by awacs · · Score: 0

    "Painting" should be "pointing."

    1. Re:Typo in story line by ScruffyScrode · · Score: 1

      Especially since laser painting is usually a reference to "painting" a target with an infra-red beam, so that it may be accurately bombed.

    2. Re:Typo in story line by FerretFrottage · · Score: 1

      No necessarily....many times when you shine a laser at a target it is refered to as "painting the target"

      --
      "Look Lois, the two symbols of the Republican Party: an elephant, and a fat white guy who is threatened by change."
    3. Re:Typo in story line by DigitalCrackPipe · · Score: 1

      "Painting" should be "pointing."

      Nope. "Painting" is the term used for 'painting a target', such as used with smart bombs and sniper rifles. It's used for targeting, and considering the anti-terrorism topic this use of the word is still fairly relevant.

    4. Re:Typo in story line by lucabrasi999 · · Score: 1
      "Painting" should be "pointing."

      Phew. That clears it up for me. A few years ago, I saw some video from the process car manufacturers use to paint their cars. They use lasers to guide large spray painting machines over the body of the unfinished car. I guess it helps in defining how much of each color to spray the car.

      That incorrect headline gave me the visual of someone using 10 or 12 lasers around the outside of their house in order to guide some massive spray painting machine.

    5. Re:Typo in story line by awacs · · Score: 0

      "Painting" should be "pointing." Nope. "Painting" is the term used for 'painting a target', such as used with smart bombs and sniper rifles. It's used for targeting, and considering the anti-terrorism topic this use of the word is still fairly relevant. Except that he wasn't painting the target. Had he used a laser scope attached to a rifle or SAM, say, this would not be such a scary article - from the right point of view.

    6. Re:Typo in story line by Wizzy+Wig · · Score: 1

      Nope. "Painting" is the term used for 'painting a target',

      I'm sure the prosecutor will agree with you, but it's still an irrelevant term here. Yeah... it's called "painting the target" when explosive ordnance is intended as a follow-up. But, in this case, the word "pointing" applies. This is a clear case of a thoughtless knucklehead wreaking havoc. A five figure fine? I'd be all for that. But 25 years of FPMITAP? I think not.

  4. RTFA? by defMan · · Score: 4, Funny

    I know we don't read the articles but to stop linking to them is not making it easier.

  5. 25 years? by CypherXero · · Score: 0

    Wow, that...is not right.

    1. Re:25 years? by ConceptJunkie · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Seems to me you have to try pretty hard to laser an airplane cockpit from the ground. I find it hard to believe he wasn't trying to do exactly that. 25 years might be harsh, but stupidity is expensive. You should avoid it.

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
    2. Re:25 years? by I8TheWorm · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The case hasn't even appeared in court. It's just that this action seems to fall under the Patriot Act, according to the prosecutors. The beauty of our judicial system (though not infallible) is that he gets his day in court. If the judge is a reasonable person, this man will either be acquited or get probation to be made an example of.

      --
      Saying Android is a family of phones is akin to saying Linux is a family of PCs.
    3. Re:25 years? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Blinding an aircraft pilot is tantamount to attempting to crash the aircraft. That translates into multiple counts of attempted murder at worst. If the charge were that severe, he'd be looking at a lot more than 25 years. As it stands, he's getting off light for his blatant attempt to cause serious harm to others.

      And please don't start going on about how he was just playing around and it was a harmless prank. Sure, it's all fun and games until a plane full of people comes careening to the ground at 600mph. A harmless prank that kills people is a crime. So is a harmless prank that attempts to kill people, albeit a less severe one.

    4. Re:25 years? by olewis · · Score: 1

      Why should the judge be leniant? What if this person had blinded someone and caused the plane or helicopter to crash, possibly killing many people? This is no different than if this person had been aiming a gun, rocket launcher, whatever, at the aircraft. He probably thought he was being funny or 'just joking', but this is serious. Stupidity has no limits and should be stopped.

    5. Re:25 years? by MarkGriz · · Score: 1

      Yes, 25 years does seem a bit harsh.

      The Feds arrested him after he flashed a police helicopter searching for the source of the beam.

      Besides, one would imagine going through life being *that* stupid should be punishment enough.

      --
      Beauty is in the eye of the beerholder.
    6. Re:25 years? by RealAlaskan · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Seems to me you have to try pretty hard to laser an airplane cockpit from the ground.

      I think you'd have to try pretty hard to do it on purpose, but if you wave a laser around from the right spot on the ground (maybe a mile or two off the approach to a big airport?), I think you'd have to try pretty hard to not do it by accident.

      I don't think that anyone has suggested that these laser-pointer-illuminations have the potential to do physical harm, and we've let little kids buy them and play with them for years now. If these laser pointers were likely to do any harm, we would already be seeing many thousands of blind kids.

      My take on this is that a Federal prosecutor in New Jersey needs to get a life.

    7. Re:25 years? by Netdoctor · · Score: 1
      Seems to me you have to try pretty hard to laser an airplane cockpit from the ground.

      You have to realize that even though lasers don't diverge (expand) much as they travel, they do.

      So what starts out as a small circle of light at 3 feet ends up -3000 feet later- being maybe a 30 foot circle of light. At that range it's hard to *miss* aircraft.

    8. Re:25 years? by Paco04101 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Hmm you see no difference between aiming a rocket launcher at an aircraft vs. aiming a laser ? Besides, is this how fragile airplanes are now, that a laser pointer can bring them down ?? And to think all this time terrorists have been wasting their money on aquiring explosives.

    9. Re:25 years? by SilverspurG · · Score: 0

      What if this person had blinded someone and caused the plane or helicopter to crash, possibly killing many people?

      What if, at the very moment he was shining his laser at the constellation of Leo, a burst of wind turbulence took the pilots by surprise and caused the plane to careen out of the sky.

      I think both are equally likely.

      --
      fast as fast can be. you'll never catch me.
    10. Re:25 years? by olewis · · Score: 1

      Correct. As both are weapons and both can bring the aircraft down, although in different ways. In the case of the laser, it's not the plane in jeopardy, but the eyes of the pilot/copilot (and once they are blinded, the plane is blinded).

    11. Re:25 years? by HeghmoH · · Score: 1

      25 years might be harsh, but stupidity is expensive. You should avoid it.

      Forget the guy for a second, and look at society. There are very good reasons to provide a sensible, graduated punishment system.

      Imagine you're an amoral guy who's been pointing lasers at airplanes for fun. You hear sirens. You know that if they catch you, you'll go away for 25 years. There is very little incentive for you not to flee the cops and put lots of people in danger along the way, because your punishment is already about as high as it will go. In order to be reasonably sure that minor crimes won't turn into major high-speed chases or hostage standoffs, you need to make sure that minor criminals have an incentive not to cause them.

      --
      Mod down posts with a "Free Mac Mini/iPod" sig, they're spam!
    12. Re:25 years? by Paco04101 · · Score: 1

      Well maybe they should think about that and at least fix the potential laser problem on the airplane end so this cannot happen.

      Putting this guy away will not forever secure all airplanes, and it seems kind of a joke that almost anyone form anywhere can bring down a $50,000,000 plane with a $100 astronomy tool.

      And just how wide was this laser that it blinded ALL of the pilots ? Was it like the bat-sign over Gotham city ?

    13. Re:25 years? by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      I disagree. At any given moment, within 5 miles of a busy airport, assuming 5 large airplanes are aloft in that range (very unlikely) with a cross sectional area of 400 square feet each, the chances of randomly hitting one of the airplanes instead of empty space is a little less than 1 in one million. The chance of hitting the cockpit window is several hundred times less. The chance of hitting the cockpit window twice (randomly) is 1 in nearly 12 quadrillion. Of course if you do it for a period of time, the chances go up.
      But if you do it in purpose the chances are more like 1 in 1.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    14. Re:25 years? by Paco04101 · · Score: 1

      In order to be reasonably sure that minor crimes won't turn into major high-speed chases or hostage standoffs, you need to make sure that minor criminals have an incentive not to cause them. ]

      Agreed, but I get the feeling that some of our law enforcement actually enjoys turning relatively minor crimes into major once, so that in addition to charging the suspect with the original minor crime they can also charge with speeding, wreckless driving, resisting arrest, 27 counts of property damage, etc... BTW it is also quite ridiculous how they frequently charge with 8 different things for a single crime, and they can all potentially stick and the penalties add up. They should only be able to charge with the most serious one the crime qualifies for.

    15. Re:25 years? by Paco04101 · · Score: 1

      once --> ones

    16. Re:25 years? by SilverspurG · · Score: 1

      The chance of hitting the cockpit window twice (randomly) is 1 in nearly 12 quadrillion

      Which is precisely why I find the whole story suspect. I've already heard the air traffic control record for that night, have you?

      Pilot: "Traffic control. We're approaching landing and see a green laser light shining around the sky. Know anything about it?"
      ATC: "Not a thing. Is it pointing at you?"
      Pilot: "Not really. We were just checking on it."
      ATC: "Probably my neighbor looking at stars with his little girl again. You know that little girl punched my son at school 'cuz he tried to kiss her? Tell you what. Just say that the beam hit you twice and nearly blinded you. Don't forget the nearly blinded part. We'll get the police over there to do the same thing."

      --
      fast as fast can be. you'll never catch me.
    17. Re:25 years? by deadlinegrunt · · Score: 1

      "BTW it is also quite ridiculous how they frequently charge with 8 different things for a single crime, and they can all potentially stick and the penalties add up.They should only be able to charge with the most serious one the crime qualifies for."

      You do not truly under the nature of the criminal system, the D.A., and kick-back funding plus political aspirations. They all combine to make a pretty effective machine that does not care about you as a person in the least bit.

      It's a machine that works well for the purpose it is being used for; not for the reasons it was intended to address.

      --
      BSD is designed. Linux is grown. C++ libs
    18. Re:25 years? by ConceptJunkie · · Score: 1

      Well, first off, it's a green laser which is orders of magnitude more powerful than the $5 red keychain laser I (and maybe you, too) have in my pocket.

      The stories I've read didn't say, but if it were an instantaneous flash vs. something steady or repeated that would make a big difference as well.

      I still think it would take some determination to actually flash a cockpit, even if the airport was nearby.

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
    19. Re:25 years? by ConceptJunkie · · Score: 1

      And how much light energy could you possibly be receiving at that point? ( 1/4 inch / 30 feet ) ^ 2? That comes to 1/14400.

      Even if you could see it I sincerely believe that would not be enough to blind you or even affect your vision, even it was a green laser, which is much more powerful than a red one (and more likely to harm the eye since it's more sensitive to that color).

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
    20. Re:25 years? by winwar · · Score: 1

      "What if, at the very moment he was shining his laser at the constellation of Leo, a burst of wind turbulence took the pilots by surprise and caused the plane to careen out of the sky.

      I think both are equally likely."

      Actually, as turbulence HAS caused crashes and is often considered an Act of God, I say we should arrest God for terrorism :)

  6. That's federal pound me in the ass prison. by glrotate · · Score: 2, Funny

    Doesn't sound like fun anymore, does it?

    1. Re:That's federal pound me in the ass prison. by lucabrasi999 · · Score: 1
      Doesn't sound like fun anymore, does it?

      Rocco: I'm in prison for kidnapping, murder and armed robbery. What are you in for?
      Laser Guy: Well, I pointed a laser at a plane.

    2. Re:That's federal pound me in the ass prison. by pthisis · · Score: 1

      He said, "What were you arrested for, kid?" and I said, "Litterin'"' . . . . And they all moved away from me on the bench there, with the hairy eyeball and all kinds of mean, nasty things, till I said, "And creatin' a nuisance . . . " And they all came back, shook my hand, and we had a great time on the bench talkin' about crime, mother-stabbin', father-rapin', . . . all kinds of groovy things that we was talkin' about on the bench, and everything was fine.

      (Arlo Guthrie, Alice's Restaurant).

      --
      rage, rage against the dying of the light
    3. Re:That's federal pound me in the ass prison. by Squatchman · · Score: 1

      You can get anything you want.. ...at Alice's Restaurant.

    4. Re:That's federal pound me in the ass prison. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds like fun for Leroy his cellmate.

    5. Re:That's federal pound me in the ass prison. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Rocco: I'm in prison for kidnapping, murder and armed robbery. What are you in for?
      Laser Guy: Well, I pointed a laser at a plane.


      "....And they all moved away from me on the bench, there."

  7. Hmmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So are laserlight shows considered terrorist acts now?

    1. Re:Hmmmm by Foxxe · · Score: 0

      Weapons are often aimed/sighted by lasers. If I pointed my laser-sighted 9mm at your head would you feel terrorized? It is all a matter of context. Hello, we are talking about aircraft here.

  8. RTFA by justforaday · · Score: 3, Funny

    For once, everyone will have an excuse for not RTFA.

    --
    I'll turn into a supernova and burn up everything. Well I'll turn into a black little hole and you'll turn into string.
  9. well.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Why was he doing this in the first place? If he had malicious intent then he deserves to go to jail but if he was just screwing around I think a small fine and some community service is in order

    1. Re:well.. by nuclear305 · · Score: 1

      "Why was he doing this in the first place? If he had malicious intent then he deserves to go to jail but if he was just screwing around I think a small fine and some community service is in order"

      Explain to me exactly how pointing such a device at an aircraft in flight is NOT malicious?

      Yes, laser pointers are fun to play with. The thing is, they're only fun to play with when you get to see the results of your actions. In this case, i can't see any proof of "success" other than abrubt deviation by the aircraft--or worse.

      We're not exactly talking about shining a laser into the headlights of a parked car to see the pretty red glow of the reflection.

      I just don't accept that his intent was not malicious--even if he was too stupid to realize it at the time.

    2. Re:well.. by SilverspurG · · Score: 1

      I'm mostly surprised that people are such sheep and eat this up. The questioning probably went something like this:

      FBI: "What the heck were you doing out there?"
      Guy (frightened out of his pants): "I... we... my daughter and I..."
      FBI: "Don't try to blame this on your daughter!"
      Guy: "I'm not blaming it on her"
      FBI: "So you lied! Good, that's another count we have on you."
      Guy: "I didn't lie. My daughter and I were looking at stars."
      FBI: "What makes you think we're gonna believe that you were looking at stars?"
      Guy: "It was night?"
      FBI: "Don't get smart with us. Why were you pointing at the plane?"
      Guy: "It was night. I didn't see any plane."
      FBI: "So you deny that your green laser pointer was the one the pilots saw?"
      Guy: "No... I don't deny it..."
      FBI: "Then you admit it?"
      Guy: "We were looking at stars."
      FBI: "You were deliberately trying to hit an airplane with a laser pointer, that's what you were trying to do. And shame on you for lying to us to try and blame it on your daughter."
      Guy: "But... but..."
      FBI: "And you know what we're gonna tell the media, and you KNOW how gullible your fellow Americans are. Look at the story we've got everyone believing about the events over stock market and terrorist events of the last 10 years."

      --
      fast as fast can be. you'll never catch me.
    3. Re:well.. by Hawke666 · · Score: 1

      dude...do you even know the definition of "malicious"?

      You can't be malicious without knowing it....

      or are you suggesting that this guy intended to hurt people without realizing that he intended to do so? sounds more like insanity than stupidity to me.

    4. Re:well.. by Paco04101 · · Score: 1

      Ha ha I bet you're actually not that far from the truth...

    5. Re:well.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, I am well aware of the meaning of the word malicious, which makes me wonder if you even read my comment correctly. (dude)

      My point was: 25 years is a long time to pay for a stupid trick. Was his intent to kill 200+ passengers and bring down a jetliner (i.e. malicious)??

      (dude)

  10. no link? by Ransak · · Score: 1

    The post mentions a USA Today story, but where's the link?

    --
    "Powers. I have them."
  11. Paranoia? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bah

    bah

  12. Motive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I would really like to know what he was thinking.

    1. Re:Motive by deadlinegrunt · · Score: 5, Funny

      " I would really like to know what he was thinking."

      I'm pretty sure he wasn't.

      --
      BSD is designed. Linux is grown. C++ libs
    2. Re:Motive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      According to the stories that I read, he claimed that he was stargazing with his daughter.

      This story is completely plausible to me, as green lasers are commonly used by amateur astronomers as an instructional aid to point out objects in the night sky. It entirely possible that his daughter asked about an object, and he used the laser to point at it to see if that that's what she was asking about. Also, in the case of the helicopter, he claimed at one point that it was his daughter who pointed the laser. Again, this is very plausible if she were asking what the object in the sky was and used the laser to point at it.

      Even before this story, I have been wondering how many of these incidents could be attributed to green lasers being used to point out celestial objects.

    3. Re:Motive by deadlinegrunt · · Score: 1

      Of course that argument falls on its face when you are later found guilty of lying about such events to the FBI.

      YMMV of course.

      --
      BSD is designed. Linux is grown. C++ libs
    4. Re:Motive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's become obvious to me over the years that if you ever hear someone say "what was he thinking?" bet on "he wasn't"

    5. Re:Motive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Standard Redneck saying:
      "Hey, watch this..."

    6. Re:Motive by razmaspaz · · Score: 1

      he flashed a police helicopter searching for the source of the beam.

      This is about the dumbest thing I have ever seen. There is ABSOLUTELY no way this guy was going to get caught, and if he was caught, there was no way he was going to be convicted. Then he goes and reveals his position, his identity and his guilt. All I can say is: WTF?

      --
      I tried for 5 years to come up with a clever sig...only to realize that I am not clever.
    7. Re:Motive by zenneth · · Score: 0

      " I would really like to know what he was thinking."

      I'm pretty sure he wasn't."

      ...and if he was then I can bet you it wasn't "oh, I am so gonna get busted and sent to prison for 25 years!"

      --
      The Chronic *WHAT* les of Narnia!
  13. RTFM by fembots · · Score: 4, Informative
    1. Re:RTFM by Dr+Caleb · · Score: 2, Funny
      RTFM? What Fucking Manual?

      Thanks for the link BTW.

      --
      "History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme." Mark Twain
    2. Re:RTFM by Elwood+P+Dowd · · Score: 2, Funny

      After being taken to an FBI office and given a lie-detector test, Banach said he had hit the jet with the beam, court documents say.

      Ok, weird. I would like way, way more information than was provided in this sentence.

      During questioning by the FBI, Banach showed an agent his laser. After the agent switched it on, Banach warned him "not to shine the laser in his eyes because it could blind him," the court documents say.

      MY GOD, STRING HIM UP AND FRY HIM!

      --

      There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
    3. Re:RTFM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      God, it took me a second to remember what the "M" stood for in RTFM. I'm so used to RTFA these days.

    4. Re:RTFM by EnronHaliburton2004 · · Score: 3, Funny

      Thanks for the link BTW

      You got that wrong, it's "Thanks for the Fucking Link BTW"... sheesh. Some people.

    5. Re:RTFM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What Fucking Manual?

      Americans wait for CNN and USA Today to tell them how to think. So in a sense, USA Today is a fucking manual.

    6. Re:RTFM by jc42 · · Score: 1

      A significant part of the story might be:

      Lasers have become increasingly cheap and commonplace in recent years. Thousands of inexpensive lasers used for home repair jobs were sold before Christmas, some for as little as $15.

      I did notice a big display of laser-based home-contruction and repair equipment at the local Home Depot before Christmas. It seems that a likely scenario now is: Joe Smith is doing some repairs on his patio this spring, and is using that fancy new laser leveller that his wife got him for Christmas. He doesn't realize that the leveler's beam is aimed toward the airport 15 miles away. He blinds a pilot in the middle of a landing, and causes a crash.

      If he spends enough time doing careful measuring, maybe he'll be caught. More likely, he'll finish the measuring in a few minutes, and nobody will ever know he was the culprit. Meanwhile, around suburbia, hundreds of others have also bought this fancy new equipment.

      It'll be interesting to see how the courts assign blame here. Lots of people are going to be lured into such things, now that the equipment is cheap and is being pushed by retailers.

      There's also a good chance that a lot of people just walking (or driving) down the street are going to be passing through this sort of laser beam now. So be careful where you glance if you're driving around on sunny weekends days ...

      --
      Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
  14. Oh hell... by beacher · · Score: 1

    Now my lazer tag equipment is criminal and my AOL CDRom chainmail can get me in trouble too!

    When lasers are outlawed.. only outlaws will have .. sharks.. with frickin laser beams on their head!

  15. Shades of Tom Clancy by DrXym · · Score: 1
    Something similar happened in one of his later books (Debt of Honor IIRC) except it was an extremely bright flash light that blinded pilots just as they were landing.

    Shit book, but a plausible idea nonetheless.

    1. Re:Shades of Tom Clancy by grunherz · · Score: 1

      It was in the book where the USA was at war with Japan. American agents hiding in Japan used high-intensity lights to blind the Japanese AWACS aircraft pilots just before landing. Thus causing them to crash and thus making them tactically blind.

      This is the same book that ends with a JAL 747 suicide crashing into the US Capitol.

      That Tom Clancy is a pisser.

      --
      Four weeks, Twenty papers, that's two dollars ... plus tip.
    2. Re:Shades of Tom Clancy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah...as was the ending, in which someone crashed a 747 into the capitol building during the State of the Union speech.

    3. Re:Shades of Tom Clancy by markjx · · Score: 1

      What's the name of that book? I'm just starting Executive Orders, which is the book that starts with the plane crashed into the Capital Buliding. I'd love to know the name of the book that's right before this one!

      MJ

    4. Re:Shades of Tom Clancy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Debt of Honor

    5. Re:Shades of Tom Clancy by grunherz · · Score: 1

      Debt of Honor (1994)

      I remembered that book only after all the folks were proclaiming Clancy prophesied 9-11-01 (re: the airliner as a weapon thing ...)

      --
      Four weeks, Twenty papers, that's two dollars ... plus tip.
    6. Re:Shades of Tom Clancy by TheGavster · · Score: 1

      I was really waiting for the super bowl to get nuked after the monica lewinsky thing ... Sum of All Fears looked to be mighty accurate.

      --
      "Because Science" is one step from "Because old book". Try "Because of my experiment testing my falsifiable assertion".
    7. Re:Shades of Tom Clancy by PedanticSpellingTrol · · Score: 1

      I can't wait for Iraq to get taken over by the Iranians and become the United Islamic Republic once we pull our troops out. Clancy is a fucking prophet. That said, Teeth of the Tiger is the first half of the worst book of all time.

  16. if a kid do(play) that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    what gov will do?

  17. Laser Painting? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes, trying to crash a plane can lead to 25 years in jail. IMHO it should lead to 100 years in jail.

    1. Re:Laser Painting? by dr_dank · · Score: 1

      Not harsh enough. If he likes lasers so much, a ten year sentence of back-to-back viewings of the Laser Pink Floyd show at the local planetarium will straighen him out.

      --
      Where does the school board find them and why do they keep sending them to ME?
  18. Here's the missing story link by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative
  19. blink by NthDegree256 · · Score: 1

    I initially misread the title as "Laser Printing Could Lead to 25-Year Prison Term."

    Needless to say, I was more than a little bewildered.

    1. Re:blink by Derekloffin · · Score: 1

      Lol, at least I wasn't the only one to read it that way.

    2. Re:blink by Janitha · · Score: 1

      Your not the only one, took me a while to realize it was not printing as well.

    3. Re:blink by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      me three

  20. sonu - call me by jsidhu · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    .Sonu, call kar de yar...please...

    1. Re:sonu - call me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You Funny - yar de kar kar...

  21. How appropiate . . . by Kaimelar · · Score: 2, Funny
    Nothing for you to see here. Please move along.

    "Hmmm . . . new article on Slashdot, think I'll check the comments . . . Argggh! My eyes! I can't see anything!!"

    1. Re:How appropiate . . . by viktor · · Score: 1
      "Hmmm . . . new article on Slashdot, think I'll check the comments . . . Argggh! My eyes! I can't see anything!!"

      Oh, stop whining... Nobody has even mentioned how the pilots wouldn't have been blinded, the laser owner not found, and, if he was, not arrested, had only everybody been running Linux.

      Yet.

    2. Re:How appropiate . . . by Kaimelar · · Score: 1
      Oh, stop whining... Nobody has even mentioned how the pilots wouldn't have been blinded, the laser owner not found, and, if he was, not arrested, had only everybody been running Linux.

      Oh, stop overreacting. I was simply making a lame joke on my lunch break, not spouting off about how much I know (or don't) about lasers, aircraft, or Linux. You are reading far more into the comment than I put into it.

    3. Re:How appropiate . . . by geekboy642 · · Score: 0

      /me karma whores...

      Ya know, if his laser pointer had been running linux, there's no way the cops coulda found him! Also, a plane running a linux-based operating system would never fall prey to such an obvious and script-kiddie-esque attack as a laser pointer.

      Linux is God. QED.

      --
      Just another "DOJ fascist authoritarian totalitarian bootlicker" -- Zeio
    4. Re:How appropiate . . . by viktor · · Score: 1
      Oh, stop overreacting. I was simply making a lame joke on my lunch break [...]

      I apologize. My only intent was to, well, make a lame joke on my lunch break... (Because if it's something you learn reading comments on Slashdot, it is how Linux will not only solve everybody's every computing problem, but also solve overpopulation, psychological problems and remove AIDS. And don't forget that Linux' source code contains a hidden message about who killed Kennedy! ;-)

      It was not my intention for you (or anybody else) to take it seriously, so there I've learned that smileys have a role to fulfil. I'll try to be clearer next time.

      No hard feelings?

    5. Re:How appropiate . . . by Kaimelar · · Score: 1
      It was not my intention for you (or anybody else) to take it seriously, so there I've learned that smileys have a role to fulfil. I'll try to be clearer next time.

      No hard feelings?

      Of course not. Though I might fall over from the shock of seeing someone on Slashdot be so courteous. :-)

      See you around.

  22. You mean this article? by thegrommit · · Score: 4, Informative

    The slashdot story is missing the link. No comment about the editor who posted it.

    1. Re:You mean this article? by Bri3D · · Score: 1

      [pointlessrageagainstmods]I'm sorry...mods, please do your jobs. This post is about 1 of 60. Please dont give it +3 so I think it's relavant when it should be -1 Redundant. Why do you think that's there?[/pointlessrageagainstmods]

      Yes I know I have the brackets wrong.

  23. This article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    According to this USA Today article

    Is this as in "man, I was like reading this article, and like, the laser thing, you know..."

  24. Moronic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Laser printing != shining laser at aircraft

    Moronic title for post...

    1. Re:Moronic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      RTFT:

      Laser Painting...

      Moronic comment for thread.

  25. USA Today article? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Where's the USA Today article you speak of?
    Not that anyone will RTFA, but at least include the option...

  26. Here's the link... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...since the story omitted it.

    NJ Man Charged with Aiming Laser at Aircraft

  27. hard to believe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Apparently this guy had a little more than a standard pen laser.

    But I was thinking, how easy is it to aim from 11 i away, 3000 feet up and have the intensity still be enough to "temporarily blind".

    Plus the angle from the ground up, especially if landing, seems even more impossible. Something odd about these reports.

    1. Re:hard to believe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The article says he was charged with "distracting" the pilots. I have a friend who's father is an airline pilot, if its against the law to "distract" the pilot then the pilots themselves should all be in jail from his stories of cockpit goings on.

  28. Eh by cube00 · · Score: 0

    So what actually happened? Was he purposefully shining the laser at the aircraft or was he making some picture in the sky with the laser. Laser painting. Batmans new symbol generator.

    1. Re:Eh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So what actually happened?

      Nobody will ever really know, except maybe the frickin' shark, who is still at large.

  29. where is the link to the article? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and this first post thing is ridiculous. how can you form an opinion when you haven't read the article?

  30. Link to article... by mszeto · · Score: 1

    For those who need a link to the article since the story doesn't seem to have it, here it is:

    USA Today Story

  31. Burn by Janitha · · Score: 1

    On the bright side, so many more things to do with a laser than pointing at air planes and stuff. Strange how you wont be put into 25 years of prison if you point it straight at someone's eye. Now back to pointing at people and burning them from a distant.

    1. Re:Burn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just to play devils advocate,

      Case 1: Shining laser pointer into someone's eye
      Result: Possibility of person being blinded in that eye.

      Case 2: Shining laser pointer into pilots eye, in charge of a 700 seater plane filled with fuel over a populated area.
      Result: Possibility of a crash.. carnage.. generally good TV news fodder.

      Now, the chances of this guys laser pointer actually making it into the cockpit of the aircraft... maybe he bounced it off the moon in a feat of cunning. End result, guy will hopefully just get his wrists slapped and worst case just get some community service. 25 years is only the upper end of the scale (one hopes)

    2. Re:Burn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow... Talk about embelishment.

      700 seats on a plane? You have to be fucking kidding me.

  32. confused by Zims+Manson · · Score: 0

    a New Jersey man was charged under federal anti-terrorism laws with shining a laser beam at a jet

    The Feds arrested him after he flashed a police helicopter

    So was it a jet or a helicopter?

    1. Re:confused by arose · · Score: 1

      Maybe he showed them his bare ass when they came looking who was pointing a laser at the jet?

      --
      Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
    2. Re:confused by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      FOR THE LAST FSCKING TIME READ THE ARTICLE.

      You MORONS just read the headline and bark here...

    3. Re: Confused by Physics+Dude · · Score: 1
      Laser pointers over 15 miles away - or even nearly 2 miles away - lose a lot of their energy and are no brighter than dim LED bulbs at those distances.

      I'm sorry but this is wrong. Have you ever been on the receiving end of a laser that's 15 miles away? In highschool we took the science department's low power helium neon laser and shot it accross the valley (about 20+ miles) then photographed it's relative brightness against the city lights (Salt Lake City). It was extremely bright and dwarfed the light output of the entire city by several orders of magnitude. One of the newer green pointers is probably at least 100 times brighter in appearance than that crappy HeNe laser!

      I have no doubt that you could temporarily blind someone easily with a green laser pointer from 15 miles or more away, especially at night.

    4. Re: Confused by Slashamatic · · Score: 1
      How many mW? Normal pointers are >5mW, a bright star if that at a few clicks away (if it could even be aimed propery). Your HeNe was probably around 20mW or better. The 200mW green monsters that have been talked about here before would be scary close up, but again they aren't going to do much at that range.

      Ironically, the higher power green monsters are promoted as sky pointers (visible beam and so on) for astronomy education.

    5. Re: Confused by stuffman64 · · Score: 1

      Wow, this story and discussion must have the most mis-information of any story I've read on /. in a while...

      I completely agree with what you have to say. Lasers do not follow the inverse square law when in a "beam," even if that "beam" spreads out. Instead, the radiant intensity decreases proportionately with the spread. For instance, if you shine a 1W laser at a target a distance away which produces a 1cm^2 spot, its intensity would be nearly 12.5kW/m^2. At a much further distance, its beam will be 1m^2, and now its intensity is 1W/m^2. Note that the total energy of the beam stays constant - 1W throughout.

      This, of course, assumes everything is perfect. As noted in numerous other posts, the beam is not perfectly coherent, etc. etc. etc., but the laser the guy was using was a high quality communications-spec laser, NOT a laser pointer. The main loss of energy in this case would be atmospheric absorbtion, which is quite low but not insignificant.

      Let's assume this guy's laser was 500mW with a beam dispersion of 0.001 (e.g., the beam will diverge 1mm every meter). Let's also assume the aircraft were about 2km from the laser source. Over this distance, lets say the beam loses 30% of its intensity to atmospheric absorbtion. That gives us an intensity of .175W/m^2. Assuming a 1cm^2 retinal area of the pilot's eye, there would be a total of about .0175mW of energy on the pilot's retinas. Compare this to a 100W high-beam of a car at 100m, which is around .00024mW of energy on the retina (about 1/100th of the energy). Also keep in mind the fact that when looking into a wide laser beam, you do not perceive it as just a spot in your vision- rather, your entire retina is stimulated, in effect completely filling your vision with the laser light. Though the flash may have been brief, it is hard not to notice when everything goes green for an instant and suddenly your eye is struggling to convert all-trans-retinal into 11-cis retinal - in effect, you are blinded for a short time.

      But then again, I could be wrong.

      --
      --- At my sig, unleash hell.
    6. Re: Confused by Physics+Dude · · Score: 1
      The 200mW green monsters that have been talked about here before would be scary close up, but again they aren't going to do much at that range.

      That's a common misconception. With a laser, it really depends on the beam convergenge. Lasers have a linear power falloff rather than the geometric one we're used to. While ordinary lights get much dimmer as you get further away, a laser with perfect convergence would be just as bright 10000 meters away as 1 meter away (except for relatively small atmospheric losses). Moderately good lasers have an angular divergence of only a fraction of a milliradian.

      Also, the HeNe laser we used in highschool was an el-cheapo late 1970s Meteorologic and I doubt it was anywhere close to 10mW. We couldn't even get it to laze half the time. If you decide to try the same experimant out for yourself with a higer power green laser, you'll have to take responsibility for any permanent retinal damage that may occur. ;)

    7. Re: Confused by Slashamatic · · Score: 1

      Yes, but the atmosphere is full of crap, welll technically particles that will scatter and diffuse the beam. I have looked back at a sub 5mw laser pointer from 200m and it is just a bright dot. It doesn't even screw your night vision.

  33. Movies by kannibal_klown · · Score: 1

    Hopefully this is the same for jerks doing it at movie theaters. God that's annoying.

    Seriously though, I'm kind of glad. IF someone is aiming anything stronger than a laser pointer at plains and trying to interfere with the landing, they deserve more than a slap on the wrist.

    If it's one thing the idiot should know is that we're not going to screw around with our airplanes anymore. Mess with them, and find yourself in pound-me-in-the-ass prison.

    1. Re:Movies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have to agree with the parent on the obviousness of not messing around with any form of airplane. But recently there was a couple in Philadelphia, who actually thought it was a good idea to call in a bomb scare at the Philadelphia International Airport because the woman was going to miss the flight... that speaks volumes towards the our collective intellect.

    2. Re:Movies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      they deserve more than a slap on the wrist

      At first I was a bit perplexed and angered at the use of the Patriot Act for a domestic incident. It seems like an abuse of the law to chase after fools with laser pens. However, if this guy really is a fiber tech with a high-powered laser, then he knows he's got a tool that's a weapon if misused. It's not very different at taking my nail gun, modifying it a bit, and then firing it at passing cars in the spirit of trying to hit birds.

      I don't know if the Europeans or Asians have this problem, but we USA citizens seem to have an increasing problem of "second chance" attitude. This is a rationalizing perspective that everyone gets a second chance, so the first time should yield a warning. My law enforcement buddies talk about dealing with it all the time. Caught with a meth lab? Hey, it's just my first time - give me a warning! Going 95 mph in a 55 zone? I deserve a warning the first time you catch me. Hell, we had a bozo bulldozer driver tear down a communication tower tell the court in his deposition that he couldn't have done it (cause he's so damn good), and even if he did, he's never done it before so e should get off with a warning. Never mind the $750K he cost everyone else. I guess we're supposed to absorb the damage from his stupidity?

      Is this just an American thing, or do other cultures have to deal with this strange attitude?

    3. Re:Movies by Dr.+Evil · · Score: 1

      "...pound-me-in-the-ass prison..."

      While I'm sure the wardens appreciate your enthusiasm in the penal system, conjugal visits are not your civic duty.

    4. Re:Movies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've always wondered why Americans are so proud of their prison rape culture. But then, there are rapes within and by your military, so no wonder.

    5. Re:Movies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      thats true i saw it on bbc.com

    6. Re:Movies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The way I understand it, this appeasement crap spread here from other places in the world, particularly Europe.

    7. Re:Movies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We're extremely repressed here in the States. If something offends our delicate sexual sensibilities, we pretend it doesn't exist. What, you guys didn't know that?

  34. What a moron by rlthomps-1 · · Score: 2, Funny

    I like how he lit up the police helicopter which led to his arrest. I mean, with all the flap about this, he HAD to know that police were looking for the guy doing it.

    I wonder if just finished a grand theft auto marathon before going to "look at the stars"

    1. Re:What a moron by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I love GTA's presentation of the police. One time I'd just been subdued by the police after a series of crimes, and as the screen faded to black, one of the officers wondered, "Should we give 'im a beating?"

  35. Blame the media.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    they are the ones who "broke" this idiotic story about laser beams in cockpits. What did they expect?? Now every uncreative wingnut has a new idea to try out. I wish the FBI and the Media had a bit more common sense about these "omg! terrist!" warnings.

  36. "Laser printing could lead to 25-year prison term" by g0at · · Score: 3, Funny

    and I'm thinking wtf, the pro-collusion bent of American law is really getting out of hand here; now they're forcing people to buy overpriced ink cartridges?

    ...oops.

    -b

  37. A bit harsh, but by beforewisdom · · Score: 2, Insightful

    25 years is a bit harsh, but OTOH I don't want people distracting aircraft pilots as the article I read said this guy did.

    Fine the hell out of him and give him a year in jail

    1. Re:A bit harsh, but by Shadowlore · · Score: 1



      So stick him with massive fines he can't pay, leading to a lower standard of living for his family as the government starts taking 80%+ of his paycheck ... oh wait his year in jail cost him his job so now he doesn't have a paycheck meaning the government confiscates his cars, house, bank account, etc..

      Yeah that's a brilliant thing to do. Destroy his family, yeah that'll teach him to play with toys. Terrorism at it's finest.

      A small fine relative to his income (make it a bit painful but not something he can not pay), *maybe* some community service and call it done. Don't ruin his family's life by fining him to hell and back, and causing the loss of his job, and then his posessions.

      I find it a curious bit of irony that the poster with the name of "before wisdom" demonstrates the lack of wisdom in the post. ;)

      --
      My Suburban burns less gasoline than your Prius.
  38. Not terrorism.... by multriha · · Score: 1

    "The Feds arrested him after he flashed a police helicopter searching for the source of the beam."

    The guy should get life for stupidity. After all the news about the Feds trying to track down the people pointing laser pointers at planes, he goes and points one at a police helicopter. How stupid can you get?

    1. Re:Not terrorism.... by SilverspurG · · Score: 1

      "The Feds arrested him after he flashed a police helicopter searching for the source of the beam."

      I think that part is inserted by the media to instigate disdain for the guy. He probably never pointed it at any police helicopter, but the feds know that Americans don't ever question what they read in the papers.

      If the news story read,"Guy pointing at stars accidentally hits plane, nearby police helicopter spots the kilometer long beam and identifies the man's residence" then the public would probably have an outcry of remorse.

      Upon further questioning, one police officer was heard to say,"Well, no, he didn't point the beam directly at us but, when we flew the helicopter over towards Ursa Major, it was close enough that we figured we could make a case for probable cause."

      --
      fast as fast can be. you'll never catch me.
    2. Re:Not terrorism.... by LPetrazickis · · Score: 1

      I haven't heard any of those news.

      The thing about planes and helicopters is that you forget they have people inside when you don't think about the matter too hard. They are just a kind of solid cloud.

      --
      Is this a sigs-optional kind of place? 'Cause I am totally down with that if you know what I mean.
  39. Okay. by Raven42rac · · Score: 1

    Before all the contrarians come out. It's just a huge coincidence that he flashed airplanes and then a helicopter? It's very assy of him, but I'm not sure if it's 25 years in prison assy.

    --
    I hate sigs.
  40. Sensationalism at its finest! by garcia · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I would have copy/pasted from the USA Today article but at the time I read it the link was unavailable on the main page so from this article at the Detroit Free Press:

    On Friday, a helicopter carrying Port Authority detectives was hit by a laser beam as its crew surveyed the area to try to pinpoint the origin of the first beam.

    I just love the wording they chose to describe the stupidity... "hit by a laser beam". They make it seem like the dude was firing a laser gun at them and harming the helicopter. Ugh. Yeah, pointing a laser pointer at a flying aircraft is dumb and it's unnecessary but to attempt to make it sound like some physical damage could have been done by the laser is just sensationalism.

    1. Re:Sensationalism at its finest! by prisoner-of-enigma · · Score: 0

      Yeah, pointing a laser pointer at a flying aircraft is dumb and it's unnecessary but to attempt to make it sound like some physical damage could have been done by the laser is just sensationalism.

      Perhaps you're unaware of the fact that lasers can blind people. Blind pilots don't fly very well, do they? Blind a pilot while he's on final approach to land and you could end up with a big, flaming crater full of toasty bodies just in time for the evening use.

      This guy was an ass. Whether he was a malevolent ass or just a stupid ass is irrelevant. You should (a) know better than to laser-illuminate a commercial aircraft and (b) you should damn well know better than to laser-illuminate a fucking police chopper looking for the asshat who flashed the airliner.

      Twenty five years for being either dangerously dangerous or dangerously stupid? Sounds about right to me. I wouldn't want this guy operating a gumball dispenser if this is his sterling claim to intellect.

      --
      In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
    2. Re:Sensationalism at its finest! by NullProg · · Score: 1

      it's unnecessary but to attempt to make it sound like some physical damage could have been done by the laser is just sensationalism.

      I believe they were trying to convey that law enforcement personel didn't know that it was just a moron with a laser pointer. There was the possiblity of some El-Al-nutjob with an RPG/SFM/SAM painting his target.

      Enjoy,

      --
      It's just the normal noises in here.
  41. Some of you think... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    that 25 years is not enough time.
    Suppose that one of your loved ones was on a plane that crashed due to idiots like this guys shining laser beams at planes? You'd want the death penalty, as would I, but only after 10 years of chain-gang labor and being told that you will be executed every day.

    1. Re:Some of you think... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, I wouldn't.

    2. Re:Some of you think... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then you are in the minority, I assure you.
      If someone killed my wife and kid, I would be out for blood. Shining any light at an aircraft is insanity and shows complete disrespect for the pilot and the people on board... no, it shouws complete disregard for life...
      I would push for the death penalty, and under federal law, I would probably get my wish. No lethal injection, either. I want the bastard gassed or hung, but only after severe punishment.

    3. Re:Some of you think... by Paco04101 · · Score: 1

      How did we get from the original article's
      " temporarily distracting the pilots"
      to your
      "blinding the pilots and causing the plane to crash" ??
      Distracting is a very generic term. Anything and everything can be "distracting". This article is distracting from other stuff I would be doing. Even if they just say a little green light out there and paid attention to it for a second they can say they were temporarily distracted by it.

    4. Re:Some of you think... by WillerZ · · Score: 1

      Never!

      This is slashdot.

      --
      I guess today is a passable day to die.
  42. Your Rights Online? by Matt+-+Duke+'05 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I think it is high-time that the "Your Rights Online" section be renamed to "Paranoid Rantings About The Eeeevilness Of Organized Government By Slashdot's Editors." Although michael is almost always the culprit behind such stories, I guess timothy is now just as guilty.

    It is amazing how often the stories in this section have little, if anything, to do with rights "online." What's even more interesting is how incredibly infrequently the alleged "rights" being violated in these stories are ever anything of the sort - namely "rights."

    If you truly believe that you have some sort of God-given/Constitutionally-mandated right to shine a high-powered laser into the cockpit of a 747, then you truly need a reality check.

    --
    -Matt
    Duke '05
    1. Re:Your Rights Online? by k4_pacific · · Score: 1

      Nah, that name'll never catch on. The acronym PRATEOOGBSE just doesn't roll off the tongue.

      --
      Unknown host pong.
    2. Re:Your Rights Online? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you truly believe that you have some sort of God-given/Constitutionally-mandated right to shine a high-powered laser into the cockpit of a 747, then you truly need a reality check.

      Where is this "high-powered laser" of which you speak? The guy likely had one of those green pen lasers that you can buy on eBay for $10. Furthermore, he was several thousand feet below the plane, not on the nose shining it directly in the pilot's eyes. Yes, clearly the man is a terrorist.

      But hey, take out your trollish beef with the editors anyway!

    3. Re:Your Rights Online? by StarsAreAlsoFire · · Score: 2, Informative

      He had a 100 dollar Fiber testing laser.

    4. Re:Your Rights Online? by wibskey · · Score: 1

      Actually, the plane was preparing to land at a local airport, so I doubt it was several thousand feet.

      I've also had one of those green laser pointers, and they are considerably brighter than the red lasers most people are familiar with.

      Hell, here's a quote from the article:
      During questioning by the FBI, Banach showed an agent his laser. After the agent switched it on, Banach warned him "not to shine the laser in his eyes because it could blind him," the court documents say.

      Too bad he didn't give the pilots the same consideration.

    5. Re:Your Rights Online? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Regarding the section name, it long ago became about law in general.

    6. Re:Your Rights Online? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      And pointed it at the cockpit of an airliner, then at a police helicopter. A Delta pilot suffered an eye injury from just this thing back in September near Salt Lake City.

      http://www.kpvi.com/index.cfm?page=nbcheadlines. cf m&ID=22743

    7. Re:Your Rights Online? by Brandybuck · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I can also buy a gun for $100. Does that give me the right to shoot it into the cockpit of a 747 or police helicopter?

      --
      Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
    8. Re:Your Rights Online? by spywarearcata.com · · Score: 1

      Hey don't blame me! I submitted the story last night with URLs and everything, but it was rejected. And I did not submit it to Rights Online. I submitted to Englightenment.

    9. Re:Your Rights Online? by SmokeHalo · · Score: 0

      Hmm...why shouldn't this section be about general rights? If it was only about the "online" universe, wouldn't it be called "your online rights"? Rather, put the emphasis in a different spot: "your rights -- online".

      However, I do agree with your assessment that not all of the stories posted here are specifically about individuals' rights. Perhaps instead this section should be called "The Law".

      --
      I'm not good in groups. It's difficult to work in a group when you're omnipotent. - Q
    10. Re:Your Rights Online? by Lord_Dweomer · · Score: 5, Insightful
      While I agree that this is hardly "Your Rights Online", I do think it is relevant to Slashdot since it deals with geek toys possibly becoming illegal, as well as solving a mystery that was most certainly appropriate for Slashdot (the original laser pointer hitting planes story).

      So, I agree this is a bit hyped up, but its nice to have some closure on the story.

      --
      Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
    11. Re:Your Rights Online? by Warskull · · Score: 2, Informative

      What he did was stupid, yes. However does that warrant prosecuting him so severely? First of all when the Patriot Act was created it was deemed as an attack on our civil liberties. However they promised it wouldn't be used against our own people (a promise I personally didn't believe and has been broken time and time again.) On top of this there is a legal concept known as culpable mental states. There are four culpable mental states, intentionally, knowingly, recklessly, negligently. Prosecution under the correct mental state is important. Intentionally would be if he aimed the laser pointer with the intention of blinding the pilots and causing some sort of accident to occur. In this case a harsh penalty probably should be applied. However in this even in this case application of the Patriot Act would not be appropriate. Knowingly means he realized the possibility of blinding the pilots, but did not have the goal of blinding the pilots and causing an accident. This would invoke a lesser penalty than intentionally attempting to blind the pilots. Recklessly would be around the realm of a stupid prank for this and probably the most realistic scenario. Some people think it is funny to point at things with laser pointers. He would be pointing at the plane for his own amusement (or whatever reason) with no thought as to the possible consequences. This again has a less harsh punishment that the previous two. Finally, negligently would be in the realm of somehow accidentally blinding the pilot through a dumb oversight. It is pretty far off in this case, but something like a laser light show not taking into account a nearby airport would fall into this realm. Negligently pointing a laser at an airplane is pretty difficult. However negligence carries the most lenient penalty. This is similar to murder. There are different penalties for if you plan the murder in advance, shoot the victim in a fit or rage, threaten them with a gun that accidentally goes off, or are hunting and a stray bullet kills someone. This seems like a blatent case of overprosecution (especially the use of the Patriot Act) and is against what a lot of our justice system is meant for. No one thinks they have a right to shine lasers at planes. However many people like to think we still have the right to a fair trial in this country. Imagine you were driving and ran a red light (through either inattention or being in a hurry( when it changed at the last minute. You cause someone else to slam on their break and the police pull you over. However instead of giving you a traffic ticket and maybe telling you that you were doing something stupid they charge you with premeditated, attempted murder. In addition they prosecute you as a terrorist. Sadly, this is what this event is akin to. This is what the problem is. I think everyone can agree that he was a dumbass and probably should be prosecuted under the reckless mental state.

    12. Re:Your Rights Online? by Z0mb1eman · · Score: 1

      Shrug... they should just call the section 1984 and be done with it.

      --
      ClutterMe.com - easiest site creation on the Net. Just click and type.
    13. Re:Your Rights Online? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      a high-powered laser

      Amazingly the laser didn't blow the aircraft from the sky. We've got to get those high-powered lasers our of the hands of common people. We won't be safe on the streets until all high-powered lasers are removed from all 747 airspace. You are a typical slashdot lamer, go crawl back into your hole.

    14. Re:Your Rights Online? by bani · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I guess /. editors believe we have a constitutional right to blind pilots of aircraft.

    15. Re:Your Rights Online? by lowy · · Score: 1

      FWIW when I submitted this article I did so under the "United States" category. Not sure why the editor (Timothy?) changed it.

    16. Re:Your Rights Online? by adam613 · · Score: 0

      If you truly believe that you have some sort of God-given/Constitutionally-mandated right to shine a high-powered laser into the cockpit of a 747, then you truly need a reality check.

      I hate to break this to you, but it was a Cessna Citation, not a 747.

    17. Re:Your Rights Online? by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And yet... what type of plane does not change the story at all whatsoever. Your correction misses the forest for the trees.

    18. Re:Your Rights Online? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "What he did was stupid, yes. However does that warrant prosecuting him so severely? First of all when the Patriot Act was created it was deemed as an attack on our civil liberties. However they promised it wouldn't be used against our own people"

      Erm, it's US law. Who else would it be used on?

    19. Re:Your Rights Online? by Souffle · · Score: 1

      Telling the agent not to shine the laser in his eyes doesn't imply that he understands the laser and the danger to pilots. He could be thinking of it as a really powerful flashlight -- dangerous to shine in your eyes, but becoming much safer after a relatively short distance.

    20. Re:Your Rights Online? by ajs · · Score: 2, Informative
      If you truly believe that you have some sort of God-given/Constitutionally-mandated right to shine a high-powered laser into the cockpit of a 747, then you truly need a reality check.

      Well, I truly believe that that's not the true reason that this was truly in the YRO section. Does that count? ;-)

      Seriously, read the article. Among other things, it states:
      "We need to send a clear message to the public that there is no harmless mischief when it comes to airplanes," said Christopher Christie, the U.S. attorney for New Jersey.
      This is the kind of reaction that people feared in September and moreso in October of 2001 as it became clear that the US government would spare no time in taking advantage of the bombing of the WTC and pentagon in order to clamp down on the freedom of its citizens.

      So, let's tick off the concerns:
      • This is a crime, and one which should be considered serious. It is not a crime which compares to the sort for which people spend 25 years in prison. This is a simple matter of applying the wrong laws to the criminal, and violates the criminal's rights under the 8th amendment, IMHO. This is backed up on FindLaw where the annotation suggests:
        English history which led to the inclusion of a predecessor provision in the Bill of Rights of 1689 indicates additional concern with arbitrary and disproportionate punishments.
        IANAL, but the idea of trying to hold a man to an anti-terrorism law with a 25 year prison-term for painting an airplane with a laser seems to me to be a clear-cut example of disproportionate, which is sad because it gives this guy (who deserves at LEAST a serious fine, if not some amount of prison time), a legitimate reason to get off, though possibly only through appeal.
      • The quote from the U.S. attorney above is clearly wrong. There certainly is "harmless mischief when it comes to airplanes", but this isn't it. When you endanger the safety of passengers on an airplane or turn the airplane into a danger to others, that is not harmless mischief. When you don't, then it is harmless by definition. I know, for example, that hobbiest and non-commercial pilots are being brought under increasing restrictions and scrutiny for no particular reason of safety these days (restricting airspace around major cities was an unfortunate, but reasonable precaution, and there it should have stayed).
      • Such an over-reaction serves to muddy an important issue: lasers (especially those that are more powerful than the garden-variety pointers) are not toys, and people who (ab)use them as such should expect to face law enforcement.
      Hope that helps to clear up the position of at least some of those who feel that this is most certainly an issue of "rights", though clearly you are correct in that YRO is more "Your Rights, Discussed Online" rather than "Your Rights Online".
    21. Re:Your Rights Online? by Leo+McGarry · · Score: 1

      Hear hear.

      Best comment I've seen since I started reading this site.

    22. Re:Your Rights Online? by Leo+McGarry · · Score: 1, Insightful

      It is not a crime which compares to the sort for which people spend 25 years in prison.

      Calmly and patiently carrying out an act which any reasonable person could foresee would have the potential consequence of bringing down an airplane isn't a crime for which people spend 25 years in prison?

      Sounds an awful lot like attempted murder in the second degree to me.

    23. Re:Your Rights Online? by jasonbowen · · Score: 1

      Maybe not a terrorist, but an asshole that needs both retinas burned out with a LASER.

    24. Re:Your Rights Online? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For all your long-winded pretence at knowing about the law (even with IANAL) you come off looking pretty stupid when you fail to remember that 25 years is the maximum (That means "the biggest amount of time" in this case) jail time he could get. And if you look further you will find that fines are also a possible consequence.

      Oooh look, you went and typed all that stuff to look clever without thinking too hard. Oh well!

    25. Re:Your Rights Online? by ajs · · Score: 1

      Calmly and patiently carrying out an act which any reasonable person could foresee would have the potential consequence of bringing down an airplane

      Doing anything introduces potential risk, and I'll grant you that this introduced more risk than most actions people take with respect to airplanes. What I will not grant is that any plane has ever been grounded as a result of such an action, much less crashed. Please find a counter-example. This should be treated as a case of battery against the cabin crew, and a violation of aviation safety rules (if you're going to shine a laser up in the sky, the FAA has very strict rules about how you go about clearing it, which active adaptive optics astronomers will know all about). Those two will net you some very serious reprecussions. On the FAA side you could face fines and prison and on the battery side, you can easily face prison.

      I'm just saying that this isn't a case of terrorism, and should not be approached in that way.

    26. Re:Your Rights Online? by Feztaa · · Score: 1
      I guess /. editors believe we have a constitutional right to blind pilots of aircraft.
      ... online!
    27. Re:Your Rights Online? by Leo+McGarry · · Score: 1

      What I will not grant is that any plane has ever been grounded as a result of such an action, much less crashed. Please find a counter-example.

      What? What are you talking about? Nobody has ever alleged that. But that's not the point. The point is that any reasonable person can see that shining a bright light into the cockpit of a plane in mid-flight is a bad idea. That's the legal standard at play here.

      This should be treated as a case of battery against the cabin crew

      If the plane were on the ground, sure. ("Battery?" No. Assault.) But it wasn't. It was in mid-flight, making it attempted murder in the second degree. ("Depraved indifference to human life" in my jurisdiction.)

      I'm just saying that this isn't a case of terrorism, and should not be approached in that way.

      Nobody said it was. Well, except for the idiot journalists and editors who wrote things like "charged under the Patriot Act," a characterization that not only isn't true, but that couldn't possibly be true. (We don't charge people under Acts in this country. We charge them under provisions of the United States Code and of the laws of the several states. But apparently many Americans slept through government class.)

    28. Re:Your Rights Online? by ethereal · · Score: 1

      Bwahaha!!

      --

      Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and

    29. Re:Your Rights Online? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "shining a bright light into the cockpit"

      So, like, um... the Sun?

      Woah! God's a Terrorist. Must be Allah.

      Look, maybe the bloke was painting the craft with the pointer and going "Hey, cool! I Wonder if I can track it all the way down?" Now, how steady is your hand? waver +/- 1 degee? At a distance of 6000 feet, that means your point is flailing about 200 feet of track. Longer than the cessna (?) plane he was painting. Real easy to hit the cockpit for a moment fairly often in the track.

      So

      1) Dumb
      2) Thoughtless
      3) NOT a terrorist
      4) NOT a murderer
      5) Being charged as #3 and #4.

      Also, the provisions they are using to prosecute are ones enacted by the Patriot Act, so that is why this has been shorthanded to "under the Patriod Act". How many times to we see "RIAA accused John Doe under the DMCA" (DMC *ACT*).

      Sigh

    30. Re:Your Rights Online? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He changed it becase YOU ARE A RETARD idoit thx 4 playing bye bye

    31. Re:Your Rights Online? by jnhtx · · Score: 1

      25 years is way too much unless the goverment can show intent to harm the people on the airplane. A lot of people get much less for murder.

      On the other hand, this is serious business.

      Just suppose that you were driving down the interstate at 70mph and some dolt on an overpass shined a green laser into your eyes.

      Would it be an act of tyranny to charge the laser operator with a crime, even it was "just a prank"?

    32. Re:Your Rights Online? by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      Actually ... we have a Constitutional right to do pretty much anything. Once.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    33. Re:Your Rights Online? by SetupWeasel · · Score: 1

      Yes, but you are missing something important in your example. Nowhere in the article does it say that the light actually hit anyone's eyes.

      If there were no intent AND no damage, anything more than a small fine and a warning never to do it again would be tyranny.

    34. Re:Your Rights Online? by Fishstick · · Score: 1

      hmmm, reminds me of the story years ago where a couple guys with nothing better to do decided to head down to the freeway to drop chunks of concrete from an overpass onto oncoming cars. One chunk dropped right through a windshield and killed a 34 year old woman (her two kids in the backseat were "unharmed").

      These guys were caught and charged with manslaughter. Reportedly, they were asked if they had intended to kill someone by dropping a 20 pound chunk of concrete down onto a car travelling 60 mph. No, of course they didn't mean to kill anyone, they were just bored and looking for a little excitement. They hadn't even thought about what would happen if the concrete hit a car. Anyone with two brain cells would have to realize the potential for severe injury or death -- but they didn't stop to think.

      --

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

    35. Re:Your Rights Online? by SparklingClearWit · · Score: 1

      So let me get this straight - you're going to charge a guy with a laser pointer with the same crime as someone who ran another person over with a car in anger?

      <sarcasm>Yup, that seems reasonable.</sarcasm>

      Attempted second degree murder?!?! It's attitudes like this that are _why_ our traitorous politicians haven't been ousted. You're their constituency.

    36. Re:Your Rights Online? by SilverspurG · · Score: 1

      Interesting differences about the nature of the confession.

      After being taken to an FBI office and given a lie-detector test, Banach said he had hit the jet with the beam, court documents say

      This fits with the claim that he was stargazing with his daughter and that contact with the plane was completely coincidental.

      Banach, 38, of Parsippany, New Jersey, admitted to federal agents that he pointed the light beam at a jet

      That paints a different light which can be interpreted to mean that he was deliberately pointing out the jet. Both articles you cite use this language. I think the public opinion is being swayed by language which deliberately skews the story. I wouldn't be surprised if all subsequent articles stick exclusively with the second wording and will probably never quote the lie detector questioning directly.

      As for the police helicopter also being hit with the beam I'm still suspicious. Police reports are always skewed to justify the actions of the officers. No one wants to be found guilty of misconduct and spend time off without pay. The police helicopter reportedly was attempting to scout the area with the plane's pilot. Wouldn't they be doing that in the day? Wouldn't it be a little difficult to see a 5 mW green light during the daytime? Wouldn't it be even more difficult to see the light making contact with the outside of the chopper while looking at the ground? The goal wasn't to "fly the chopper around like a target to see if the terrorist comes back". The goal was to fly the chopper around and see if the pilot could recognize and identify the area from which the light had been coming.

      Too many ifs for me to believe, rank and file, that this guy was even recklessly endangering anything. With this much reasonable doubt I'd want the Cessna pilots to give a lie detector testimony to back up their claims of being blinded or even seeing the light make contact with the windshield.

      --
      fast as fast can be. you'll never catch me.
    37. Re:Your Rights Online? by SetupWeasel · · Score: 1

      I went by the article linked in the post where it said the pilots were "temporarily distracted."

      I said "nowhere in the article." I didn't bother researching further, because I read the fucking article, and I'm not going to get into a debate over which news source is more likely to exaggurate.

      Still the "no damage" argument holds. Everyone is fine.

    38. Re:Your Rights Online? by jrockway · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No, but feel free to send some photons their way. Photons != Bullets.

      --
      My other car is first.
    39. Re:Your Rights Online? by Brandybuck · · Score: 1

      That $100 laser is powerful enough to permanently blind someone. Granted, it's probably useless at the range used in this case. However, so would a .22 caliber pistol. There's not a chance in heck of a .22 pistol puncturing the cockpit windshield of a 747 a few miles overhead.

      But should I still point a pistol at a 747 and pull the trigger, any observing policemen would be well within their rights to haul my ass off to jail.

      --
      Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
    40. Re:Your Rights Online? by bani · · Score: 1

      You said:

      Wouldn't they be doing that in the day?

      and

      Wouldn't it be a little difficult to see a 5 mW green light during the daytime?

      Given the latter, why do you think they would be checking during the daytime...?

      And why would banach be pointing out stars during the daytime? Duh?

      As for trying to identify the origin of the laser. You're flying a jet at night (because as you stated, 5mw lasers dont work too well during the day). Do you see buildings and streets? No. You see a pattern of city lights.

      So next day you fly around in the helicopter trying to determine the source of the laser. Do you fly during the day? No? Why not? Because you cant see the city lights during the day, so you can't identify the location. So you fly during the night, so you can see the pattern of city lights and identify the location.

      Seems pretty logical to me?

      But you go on defending him with easily punctured excuses. It's fun to shoot them down easily.

    41. Re:Your Rights Online? by SilverspurG · · Score: 1

      Purely logical then... how is it logical that a man deliberately points a laser at a plane and a helicopter? It's not, so then the police and pilots must be making their story up. Is it logical that the pilots were blinded? No, not by a 5 mW laser. I have one here. You can't even see it down the block. Is it logical to take a man in for a lie detector test when the pilots and the police didn't have to give their statement under lie detector monitoring? No. That's a recipe for witch hunting.

      --
      fast as fast can be. you'll never catch me.
    42. Re:Your Rights Online? by bani · · Score: 1

      I can shine my 5mw laser across the freaking city and illuminate the side of a building miles away. Yours must be broken.

    43. Re:Your Rights Online? by ajs · · Score: 1

      you come off looking pretty stupid when you fail to remember that 25 years is the maximum

      First off, being condescending doesn't help your case any.

      Second, you say "For all your long-winded pretence at knowing about the law (even with IANAL)"... no, you see "IANAL" means, "I am not a lawyer," which in turn is how I tell you that I do not "know about the law". If you find my mode of speech long-winded... well, perhaps you need to get used to people who don't say things like "Oooh look, you went and typed all that stuff..."

      As for the specifics, yes I understand that that's the maximum sentence of 25 years in prison, and I'm saying that having a maximum sentence for what amounts to simple battery is not just absurd, but unconstitutionally disproportionate. If you disagree, please speak up, but if you simply think that I hadn't read what I typed then please don't bother.

    44. Re:Your Rights Online? by ajs · · Score: 1

      I think your hyperbolic lead-in was a bit too sarcastic to make your point, but the rest of your points I agree with completely. Good job.

      Specifically, making the point that this is a case of the PATRIOT Act being applied to a stupid, inconsiderate and yet entirely non-terrorism-related act is important. This alone vindicates all of the people who were called "tinfoil hat wearers" when they said that the PATRIOT Act was going to be used against citizens of the United States who had nothing to do with terrorism. For the record, I wear a teflon-coated copper mesh to ensure conductivity, not some lame-ass tin foil ;-)

    45. Re:Your Rights Online? by ajs · · Score: 1

      "Battery?" No. Assault.

      You could argue that there's assault involved (in legal terms assault is the threat of violence), but I would consider shining a medium powered laser in someone's eye to be outright battery.

    46. Re:Your Rights Online? by danila · · Score: 1

      But perhaps there is a right to a punishment that fits the crime? There would be no complains if he was facing 6 month sentence or a year, and a $10000 fine. But 25 years and half a million dollars is perhaps a bit stiff.

      --
      Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
    47. Re:Your Rights Online? by SilverspurG · · Score: 1

      Six pilots have already reported being blinded by laser light reflecting off of a building. You didn't know? A likely excuse. We can't have terrorists using cheap trigonometry tricks just to get out from the charges. It's nothing short of flat out stupid to be laser painting a building with a reflective surface halfway across the city. Only a moron would do such a thing without any regard for the path of the reflected beams. I hope you get all 25 years just to make an example of you.

      --
      fast as fast can be. you'll never catch me.
    48. Re:Your Rights Online? by jrockway · · Score: 1

      > But should I still point a pistol at a 747 and pull the trigger, any observing policemen would be well within their rights to haul my ass off to jail.

      And you would be within your rights to sue them for false arrest.

      --
      My other car is first.
    49. Re:Your Rights Online? by Shadowlore · · Score: 1

      I think it is high-time that the "Your Rights Online" section be renamed to

      Your Rights, Online. Of course it isn't named "Your OnLine Rights" which would semantically imply rights that exist online.

      But adding the comma to show people it's an online discussion of rights would be simpler than trying to educate the /. masses.

      --
      My Suburban burns less gasoline than your Prius.
    50. Re:Your Rights Online? by Shadowlore · · Score: 1

      I guess /. editors believe we have a constitutional right to blind pilots of aircraft.

      I guess you don't believe we have a right, constitutional or otherwise, to not get saddled with ridiculous and cruel punishments in relation to the "crime" committed?

      Is a 5 year sentence for jaywalking a reasonable response to jaywalking? Is it not a right to have reasonable "punishments" to fit the crime?

      Now as to why they use the patriot act provisions, I've some ideas.

      They need to have numbers of people put away under the act. Never mind that none of them were actually doing terrorist related activities, congress won't know that and the mainstream press won't say it either.

      There is already a criminal statute covering shining lasers into cockpits. Why not charge him under that? Well, the standard criminal statutes nearly always require malicious intent. They've already admitted he had no malicious intent so they've shot that opportunity down (no pun intended). Further, they made a big deal about it maybe being terrorism related so now they have to "back it up" with a terrorism charge.

      On the optimism side, maybe the person who filed the charges knows the P.A.T.R.I.O.T.A.C.T. to be bogus, and the charges to be bogus, but do to possible federal mandates on sentences knows they can't get a conviction on this and it's the only way to "let the guy go", for he's suffered enough.. Mmmm runon sentences.

      --
      My Suburban burns less gasoline than your Prius.
  43. Is he a terrorist? by cyberguyd · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I think the government has gone too far with this terrorism thing. I think that in order to be charged under the Patriot Act, the intent of committing terrorism should be proven. This does not mean that I don't think he should be punished for what he did, but this law is so broad that a bank robber could be charged under the Patriot Act for terrorizing the customers and employees. Terrorism is performed on mass scale, not on handfull of people.

    1. Re:Is he a terrorist? by deadlinegrunt · · Score: 1

      "Terrorism is performed on mass scale..."

      And a commercial jetliner is considered a vehicle for mass transportation* therefore covered under these guidelines.

      *Note that the helicopter [which was used to locate him] is not considered and also not used as a charge against him.

      --
      BSD is designed. Linux is grown. C++ libs
    2. Re:Is he a terrorist? by DroppedPacket · · Score: 1
      "I think that in order to be charged under the Patriot Act, the intent of committing terrorism should be proven."

      Run that one by me again? I think you just said you need to prove motive before you can charge with a crime. So you do you have a pre-trial trial to decide if you are going to have the trial?

      --
      I am not a resource! I am a free man!
    3. Re:Is he a terrorist? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      By "handful of people", do you mean the 150-300 people on board the airplane, the thousands of airline pilots who worry they might be next and kill 150-300 people or at least have their eyes burned like that Delta pilot, do you mean the entire airline industry worried that this has to be stopped before someone actually brings down an airplane, or do you mean the hundred million people who would be terrified of airplanes if they thought someone could make it crash just by pointing a glorified flashlight at it.

      I suppose the alternative could be 150-300 counts of attempted murder. Then when they can't prove the "attempted" part, he gets off. What do you think he should be charged with? Or do you suggest that lasers should be regulated like assault rifles?

      People weren't convinced not to make bomb jokes at airport security because they read about "non-terrorists" getting the charges dropped.

    4. Re:Is he a terrorist? by Paco04101 · · Score: 1

      Well whoopidy doo, how wonderfully kind of them not to charge him for distracting the helicopter that was flying around in his own yard.

  44. The sentence sounds about right. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Isn't that about what you'd get if you used a laser to burn pirated CDs? I'm sure that bringing down a jet is very nearly as bad.

    1. Re:The sentence sounds about right. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apparently this was a green laser and we're going to have to wait for that technology to burn CD's.

  45. If.... by csmacd · · Score: 1

    Maybe, if you were printing $100 bills.

    --
    Don't pick up the pho*(@)$*@&@!@ NO CARRIER
  46. And... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Here's the reason that Your Rights Online has lost all credibility. The headline (aside from the mispelling) is very misleading. This is a laser pointer being shined in the eyes of a pilot, which could lead to the loss of hundreds of lives. The prison term might be slighlty too long, but it should be punished. Also, he did it at least twice and lied to federal authorities about it.

    It's a shame that Slashdot has ruined a great subject such online rights. It's an important subject, but Slashdot's treatment of it has caused me to not take any of these postings seriously.

    1. Re:And... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      well, considering it was at a cesna, I don't think it's hundreds of lives....

  47. My rights online? by brunes69 · · Score: 4, Insightful
    And this relate sto my rights online how?

    Was this guy using a laptop while pointing a laser at the plane, or what?

    Aside from that - I could care less what this guy gets. Even if I agree with the posters claiming that the pilot could obviously not see the laser - anyone who is flashing a laser pointer off at a POLICE HELICOPTER these days is obviously a complete idiot/jackass. To me this is natural selection in action.

    1. Re:My rights online? by SkankinMonkey · · Score: 0

      Unless he had high powered binoculars to go with that high powered laser, I doubt the police helicopter looked any different from any other helicoptor from the ground.

    2. Re:My rights online? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      According to /. everyone who is in the IT biz is automatically heavily into anime, gaming, and techo toys like these handheld lasers. They'll have to add being a moron to that list I guess.

    3. Re:My rights online? by shawn(at)fsu · · Score: 1

      I've never really had much of a problem telling the difference between a plane on final approach to that of a helicopter before. There are several different guides you can use. A plane does not sound like a helicopter. A plane usually moves faster and more linier than a helicopter. Planes can't hover over a location like a helicopter can.

      I'm sure there are times when a helicopter can be confused with a plane if they are far enough out, but I'm guess that this wasn't the case. That's just MHO.

      --
      500 dollar reward for tip(s) leading to the arrest of the person(s) who stole my sig.
    4. Re:My rights online? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      plane?

      plain idiot

    5. Re:My rights online? by gstoddart · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Aside from that - I could care less what this guy gets. Even if I agree with the posters claiming that the pilot could obviously not see the laser - anyone who is flashing a laser pointer off at a POLICE HELICOPTER these days is obviously a complete idiot/jackass. To me this is natural selection in action.


      If it's dark, how can you tell it's a police helicopter??

      Given how cheap and easy laser pointers are to get, it's also completely possible that the average person may simply have no clue of their range.

      My initial reaction was to RTFA to see at what altitude the plane was at -- because if it was at 30,000 feet, who cares if you point a laser at it?

      If you were pointing at the bottom of the aircraft, most aircraft don't have any bottom visibility, so it would get missed completely.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    6. Re:My rights online? by wintermute740 · · Score: 1

      " And this relate sto my rights online how?"

      You misread the topic. It's "Your right airline." ;)

    7. Re:My rights online? by chris_morgan47 · · Score: 1

      I could care less what this guy gets

      so you do care some then?

    8. Re:My rights online? by shawn(at)fsu · · Score: 1

      I obviously misread your post. I thought you were talking about the palne vs helicopter, not helicopter vs police helicopter.

      I apologize.

      --
      500 dollar reward for tip(s) leading to the arrest of the person(s) who stole my sig.
    9. Re:My rights online? by SkankinMonkey · · Score: 0

      It's alright. Accidents happen, wars start, it's all good.

    10. Re:My rights online? by cheese_wallet · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Naturally there is a difference between "Your Rights Online" and "Your Online Rights"

    11. Re:My rights online? by magnwa · · Score: 1

      This was not a cheap laser pointer.

      It was an industrial laser. He knew the power of it in the interrogation, and had flashed a plane and a helicopter.

      He knew what he was doing.

      And for those talking about planes landing themselves.. No.. this wasn't a 747 heavy, this was a Cessna. They don't land themselves. Trust me. The passengers on that plane were in VERY real danger from this man.

    12. Re:My rights online? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ignoring for a minute the spastic parent poster who does not realize that "could care less" indicates that he does care, and is happy to parrot what he hears people say on MTV...

      You may be defending the right of Americans to act like the idiots they so obviously are - but there's no need to join the club. A police helicopter flies lower than 30,000 feet. Much, much lower. There's a great chance that in the dark a helicopter is full of police, not the WKRQ traffic reporter. And why would you do it anyway?

      Let the fat fuck go to jail, he might wake from his stupid coma.

    13. Re:My rights online? by Slashamatic · · Score: 1

      Do not aint with laser, use ground to air missle target acquisition radar instead to illuminate. Press trigger, launch missle and problem solved.

    14. Re: My rights online? by gidds · · Score: 1
      If it's dark, how can you tell it's a police helicopter??

      Oh, that's easy: you just light it up by shining a... er, hang on...

      --

      Ceterum censeo subscriptionem esse delendam.

    15. Re:My rights online? by Flower · · Score: 1

      He obviously cares a lot because we all know less is more.

      --
      I don't want knowledge. I want certainty. - Law, David Bowie
    16. Re:My rights online? by pellis23 · · Score: 1

      Actually, it should be renamed to "You Rights, Online".

    17. Re:My rights online? by ratsnapple+tea · · Score: 1

      Regarding "could care less": it makes sense as cheap sarcasm. Though I agree with the rest of your post.

    18. Re:My rights online? by Splab · · Score: 1

      Stick to what is actually being said.
      Nowhere in the article does it say he was using industrial laser.

    19. Re:My rights online? by gstoddart · · Score: 1
      Regarding "could care less": it makes sense as cheap sarcasm. Though I agree with the rest of your post.


      Actually, I was referring to that fact that had it been a lower-power laser pointed at a high altitude plane, it would have been irrelevant since it probably wouldn't have reached the aircraft anyway.

      I certainly don't take plane safety lightly as I've been periphially associated with the industry in a past life.

      As has been pointed out in this thread, it was a higher power laser and a smaller/lower altitude plane. The original story was thin on that detail. Seeing that clarification, I'm forced to conclude it was a collosaly stupid thing to do.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    20. Re:My rights online? by magnwa · · Score: 1

      Yes it does.

      He was using a laser that could be calibrated for testing fiber op cables , that qualifies as an industrial use.

      Besides, in another article on this it states it was a high powered industrial laser.

  48. Does not feel right. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    25 years seems like the poor chmo get's hammered for
    freaking out the pilot without causing any real damage.
    They might just buy 19.95 laser protective gogles at Home Depot.

  49. Is this a good trend? by redwoodtree · · Score: 4, Insightful

    We're basically now arresting and locking up stupid people. Maybe this is a good trend, but honestly, before "terrorism" this guy would just get a slap on the wrist.

    Now, because we're at war a simple act of (admitedly dangerous) stupidity will get you facing the patriot act.

    Hmm.. maybe this isn't such a bad thing. I wonder if they can arrest the guy who weaves down the freeway lane-hopping and tail gaiting under the patriot act too, he treathens my life every day.

    1. Re:Is this a good trend? by Spl0it · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I always find it interesting how if driving through traffic and both lanes are going slow as crap, and you proceed to pass a few people (with blinker on, checking blind spots, etc... ) and (obviously not in heavy traffic where you can't get anywhere anyways) that your weaving and risking peoples lives. Driving the speeed limit or 5-10km over, and making safe lane changes IS not threatening anyones life. The people who consistantly drive 20-30km under the speed limit in good weather are the ones who can cause deadly accidents. Accidents are up every year for senior citizens and most of them are caused by them being soo scared, and going so slow... ugh..

      --

      No, this is
    2. Re:Is this a good trend? by oliphaunt · · Score: 4, Funny
      We're basically now arresting and locking up stupid people. Maybe this is a good trend

      Only if we also castrate them so that they can't breed and make MORE stupid people. Locking people up is a bad idea in general, because you have to then worry about feeding them, sheltering them, etc. Wouldn't it be much better to just kill them outright?

      My solution to the prison problem in the US: Stop locking people up locally- instead just put up a big fence around Texas, and let's send all of our criminals there, like the British used to do with Australia. Give them NOTHING. Let them kill each other and steal from each other and defraud each other and shoot lasers at each other as much as they want- I would volunteer to sit on the other side of the fence and shoot anyone who tries to get across. I'm sure I'm not the only one who would proudly serve his country this way.

      And all the people who already live in Texas? Well, life's a bitch sometimes, ain't it? Stay on your side of the fence.

      After several generations, perhaps Texas could transform itself from the barren wasteland and breeding ground of theives and traitors that it is today into a nation of proud citizens, working for the good of the world, just like Australia. And if that doesn't work, we can just salt the earth, pave the whole state and use it as a parking lot for Mexico.

      --




      Humpty Dumpty was pushed.
    3. Re:Is this a good trend? by redwoodtree · · Score: 1

      I like your "modest proposal" there ;-)

      Actually there are a lot of good people in Texas. Maybe we can build an island out of landfill off the coast of Texas and use that instead.

    4. Re:Is this a good trend? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On your first idea of castrating the stupid so they can't breed, this is not sound from a genetic perspective.

      There is no evidence that "stupid genes", if they even exist, are [b]dominant[/b]. Many of these stupid people may in fact have recessive "genius genes". We simply need to ensure that stupid people do not breed with each other. ;)

    5. Re:Is this a good trend? by mks180 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I generally don't agree with the Patriot Act. I would rather have the guy prosecuted under charges other than terrorism. It will be interesting to see how they plan on making the terrorism charges stick. I'm sure you can easily get him on reckless endangerment of all on board, or probably something worse for trying to maim the pilots. Most of the articles that I read on the subject say that you could "temporarily blind" the pilots. Working around lasers, I know it doesn't take much for it to be much worse than just temporary blindness, depending on the power and proximity. Based on the altitude, the lasers must have a fair bit of power, just don't know whether they're still in range to do serious, long term damage.

    6. Re:Is this a good trend? by blair1q · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      I wish they'd arrest the guys who lied to start a Terror --er, "Shock and Awe" campaign in Baghdad in March of 2003.

      They really messed up the Middle East with that one.

    7. Re:Is this a good trend? by redwoodtree · · Score: 1

      It would be interesting if someone posted the stats on this industrial laser thingie. Supposedly used to test fibre optic lines.

      I agree with you, the use of the patriot act to go after stupidity is an erosion of our constitutional rights as US citizens.

    8. Re:Is this a good trend? by Le+Marteau · · Score: 1

      Hmm.. maybe this isn't such a bad thing. I wonder if they can arrest the guy who weaves down the freeway lane-hopping and tail gaiting under the patriot act too, he treathens my life every

      No, it won't happen. They only trot out the Patriot Act when someone does something which threatens the powers-that-be.

      The powers-that-be either fly in personal 747's, Lears, and very rarely by highway. If by highway, it's in an armored limo. The dangerous motorists only threatens the safety of other proles and wage slaves like yourself and do not affect the overlords which is why they slip under the 'terrorist' radar.

      --
      Mod down people who tell people how to mod in their sigs
    9. Re:Is this a good trend? by cburley · · Score: 1

      If there was a big fence to be built around Texas, I might decide to move back!

      --
      Practice random senselessness and act kind of beautiful.
    10. Re:Is this a good trend? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Be careful with what you say. 50% of the population is below a certain curve. How do we know you are not in that lower half?

    11. Re:Is this a good trend? by payndz · · Score: 1

      Hmm... 'Escape From Texas'. I think that no matter what toxic shit you injected Snake Plissken with to rescue the President *this* time, he'd still tell you to fuck off!

      --
      You must think in Russian.
    12. Re:Is this a good trend? by oliphaunt · · Score: 1

      50% of the population is below a certain curve. How do we know you are not in that lower half?

      I think I've shown conclusively that I'm below any curve you care to draw.

      --




      Humpty Dumpty was pushed.
    13. Re:Is this a good trend? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How stupid is he? If you R the FA, you see that he told the police officer "don't shine the laser in my eyes, it will blind me". He knows a laser can damage a person's vision.

      I guess he thought the laser would not be dangerous far away, even though it makes a visible dot far away. Is that a good enough excuse?

      Will we let drunk drivers off the hook if they figured they probably weren't too drunk to drive?

      Wait and see if he gets locked up, anyway. I'll bet they suspend the sentence and if he keeps his nose clean he need not spend any years in prison.

      And if they suspend the sentence and he lights up more aircraft, send him away for a few dozen years.

    14. Re:Is this a good trend? by commodoresloat · · Score: 1
      Maybe we can build an island out of landfill off the coast of Texas and use that instead.

      Nah, we can just limit it to an area of Texas where there aren't a lot of good people. Like Crawford.

    15. Re:Is this a good trend? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I say give Texas back to the mexicans, what a mistake fighting for that piece of inbred land. By the way what does texas supply that makes us need them so much. Aint much oil left, you are being lied to if you believe anything else.

    16. Re:Is this a good trend? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Welcome to the concentration camp, man. You just created one. Who is eligible to be sent there is decided by our good authorities, of course.

      Don't ask what the Nazis were thinking, think for yourself!
      Don't ask why Germans voted for them, vote for yourself!

      DUMBASS

    17. Re:Is this a good trend? by lew3004 · · Score: 1

      And so are those people who feel it's their responsibilty to take up that 1½ car length to cut me off during mean driving periods of 5 over. GOD that pisses me off! Yes, I left that space between me and the forward driver open for YOU. ONLY YOU. My mistake; I should have tailgated at 70 mph. Those are the assholes endangering lives. They are always the people who have somewhere more important to go than you and they don't care who they piss off or take out to get there. The ironic part is they never really save any time. Now that's a crime.

      --
      I still can't get the screen shots of Castle Wolfenstein for the Apple IIe out of my head.
    18. Re:Is this a good trend? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Think bigger.

      We already have border controls in place (admitedly not very good ones, but thats not the point). So instead of a fencing in an area, why not figuativly wall off the area we are occupying.

      Now before this gets dismessed as isonlationist or even imperialist by those can figure our the logical next steps...lets get to the point....

      Rather than punish the stupid people lets reward them. So your to much of an idiot/jackass to be a productive member of socity ok, fine heres your reward. A one-way ticket to anywhere in the world. Pack your things your outta here...

    19. Re:Is this a good trend? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Give them NOTHING. Let them kill each other and steal from each other and defraud each other and shoot lasers at each other as much as they want- I would volunteer to sit on the other side of the fence and shoot anyone who tries to get across. I'm sure I'm not the only one who would proudly serve his country this way."

      Sounds like you are proposing giving laser pointers to our inner cities.

    20. Re:Is this a good trend? by dbIII · · Score: 2, Interesting
      like the British used to do with Australia
      It amazes me how many Americans know so little US history - you really must all think the early immigrants were all Amish chasing turkeys around or something, and not large numbers of transported criminals from England and France.
    21. Re:Is this a good trend? by Spl0it · · Score: 1

      Did you not listen to me at all? I said not in heavy traffic... ie. 2 lanes, 5kms, say 20cars.. I don't have to drive 20kms under the speed limit because someone can't learn to drive the appropriate speeds. What your talking about is heavy traffic, and in heavy traffic weaving is retarded and unsafe (BECAUSE you get NO WHERE FAST and you are too close when making lane changes!).

      Next time read and UNDERSTAND my comment before you bash it.

      --

      No, this is
    22. Re:Is this a good trend? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Personal experience dictates there's more of the kind you mention as being in Texas around the tri-state area. Generally, you won't get mugged in Texas just going somewhere. But you most probably would in NY or NJ or some other places up north or north east.

      Oh wait, this is your seemingly intellectual attack and certain leaders not doing certain things your way because let's all admit it, you would handle this situation so much better. Because you actually know a thing or two about the world politics.

      I bet you would now also want to know what state I'm in to make an additional parking lot....

      Never mind.

    23. Re:Is this a good trend? by scottgfx · · Score: 1

      Oh sure. We're not supposed to drill for oil in the Gulf, but it's ok to build an island of garbage there?

      --
      It's mandatory to wash your hands before returning to the land of Dairy Queen.
    24. Re:Is this a good trend? by redwoodtree · · Score: 1

      hahahahahhahaha LOL

  50. Any Excuse to Say "We're Tough on Terror" by DigitalSorceress · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This says it all::

    Justice Department officials said they do not suspect terrorism in any of the cases, but said Banach's arrest shows how seriously they take the matter.

    Back on 9/11, one of my biggest fears was not that terrorists would somehow feel that I was worth picking out of a crowd, but that my government would joyously tear up what remained of the Bill of Rights in an overzealous, misguided attempt to appear to be "doin' sumthin' about terrorism".

    I am very sad to see myself proved right.. almost on a daily basis.

    --

    The Digital Sorceress
    1. Re:Any Excuse to Say "We're Tough on Terror" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful


      What rights have been violated here? He's been arrested and charged in exactly the same way as would have happened on 9/10/01. Nothing has changed. He'll face a trial of his peers just like anyone else.

      Idiots who run around like nuts screaming about stolen rights when nothing is wrong just distract attention away from REAL civil rights violations.

    2. Re:Any Excuse to Say "We're Tough on Terror" by Kenja · · Score: 2, Insightful
      "Back on 9/11, one of my biggest fears was not that terrorists would somehow feel that I was worth picking out of a crowd, but that my government would joyously tear up what remained of the Bill of Rights in an overzealous, misguided attempt to appear to be "doin' sumthin' about terrorism".

      I am very sad to see myself proved right.. almost on a daily basis. "

      Your right. If we cant try to crash commercial airliners and then pin it on our daughters the terorists win!

      The guy was shining a laser at aircraft, including a police helecoptor. He then lied about it and tried to put the blame on his kid. Getting arrested is the least that should happen to him.

      --

      "Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
    3. Re:Any Excuse to Say "We're Tough on Terror" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Back on 9/11, one of my biggest fears was not that terrorists would somehow feel that I was worth picking out of a crowd, but that my government would joyously tear up what remained of the Bill of Rights in an overzealous, misguided attempt to appear to be "doin' sumthin' about terrorism".

      I am very sad to see myself proved right.. almost on a daily basis.


      Yes, it is very sad to see those basic freedoms which our forefathers fought so long and hard for -- such as the right to blind commercial pilots with lasers -- being lost within my lifetime.

    4. Re:Any Excuse to Say "We're Tough on Terror" by SilentChris · · Score: 1

      I seriously cannot think of one valid use to aim a laser at an airplane. Can you think of one?

    5. Re:Any Excuse to Say "We're Tough on Terror" by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Yes, it is very sad to see those basic freedoms which our forefathers fought so long and hard for -- such as the right to blind commercial pilots with lasers -- being lost within my lifetime.

      The right to reasonable punishment. Do you think that 25 years in jail (cue all the comments about how it is longer than rape or whatever) is reasonable for pointing a cheap home laser pointer at a jet?

    6. Re:Any Excuse to Say "We're Tough on Terror" by jimicus · · Score: 1

      The guy was shining a laser at aircraft, including a police helecoptor. He then lied about it and tried to put the blame on his kid. Getting arrested is the least that should happen to him.

      I don't think that's the issue. The issue is "Why is it necessary to use anti-terrorism laws for someone whos crime isn't terrorist in nature? Further, if the laws can be used in this way, exactly how well written are they?"

    7. Re:Any Excuse to Say "We're Tough on Terror" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What about if you actually do want it to crash?

    8. Re:Any Excuse to Say "We're Tough on Terror" by armyofone · · Score: 1

      I read the parent post as making the point that this should have nothing to do with the Patriot Act. Obviously, it's a crime and should be punished as such. I suspect, on the surface, that this is a case of stupidity in action on the part of the perp.

      Still, aren't there already laws in place to deal with this without invoking the Patriot Act?

      Just my 40% of a nickel...

      --
      "A revolution without dancing is... a revolution not worth having"
    9. Re:Any Excuse to Say "We're Tough on Terror" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0



      How exactly is his crime not terrorist in nature? He heard terrorists were planning to use lasers to blind pilots so he decided to try it out.

      Then when the cops were looking for them he tried the exact same thing on them.

    10. Re:Any Excuse to Say "We're Tough on Terror" by dynamo · · Score: 1

      I don't get it. How does this even slightly make the government appear to be doing anything about terrorism. I think it obviously makes them appear to be abusing their laws, and then gloating about it - the Patriot act was supposed to fix terrorism (in happy idea land) - it should NOT be applied to non-terrorism cases. Remember when the justice department guys smilingly assured all of us that even though they could mis-use these new powers, they most certainly wouldn't.

      Don't give them any credit towards even appearing to be doing something about terrorism. This is complete and total bullshit. If they thought it was terrorist related, I could maybe understand someone wanting to sympathize - but it is not.

      This has about as much to do with stopping terrorism as Iraq.

    11. Re:Any Excuse to Say "We're Tough on Terror" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, many soviet fighters have an IR search and track system (IRSTS) and a laser rangefinder to compute firing solutions. The soviets have also used lasers to blind NATO pilots.

    12. Re:Any Excuse to Say "We're Tough on Terror" by kaligraphic · · Score: 1

      Legislators are more obvious targets than you. Thus, they are more likely to be frightened of being picked out of a crowd. Especially when that crowd is filled with other likely targets.

      So, while your post makes sense, you should recognise that gov't types were rather afraid for their own skins, too. Especially after realising that they could have been killed.

      --
      You are standing in an open server west of a blue house, with a boarded front door. There is an Exchange mailbox here.
    13. Re:Any Excuse to Say "We're Tough on Terror" by dillon_rinker · · Score: 1

      To answer your question...now they can say "Shining lasers at pilots? Pfft! We can catch people who do that. Remember that one case, where it was a white guy, operating alone, but we caught him anyway? We're not racist, we're not incompetent, and this threat is NOT an issue. Next question! Vote for me! Whee!"

    14. Re:Any Excuse to Say "We're Tough on Terror" by l4m3z0r · · Score: 2, Insightful

      First off, this was illegal when the first laser pointers hit the market. This has nothing to do with terrorism this has to do with the fact that pointing a laser a plane risks a lot of lives. If it crashes it not only kills all on board but likely kills a bunch of people on the ground too. What they are taking serious is how this person threatened many lives by being a dumbass. Yes he should be arrested, and no this has nothing to do with terrorism.

    15. Re:Any Excuse to Say "We're Tough on Terror" by Paco04101 · · Score: 1

      Hmm how about the gov't charging everybody they want to punish with the "Patriot Act" when by their own admission it doesn't even apply here ?

    16. Re:Any Excuse to Say "We're Tough on Terror" by mengel · · Score: 1

      Um... how about seeing how fast the plane is going? After all, police now frequently use laser speed guns instead of radar ones.

      --
      - "History shows again and again how nature points out the folly of men" -- Blue Oyster Cult, 'Godzilla'
    17. Re:Any Excuse to Say "We're Tough on Terror" by GryMor · · Score: 1

      Range finder. Is that a 777 at 5000ft at 5 miles or something much smaller at 1000ft and 1 mile?

      --
      Realities just a bunch of bits.
    18. Re:Any Excuse to Say "We're Tough on Terror" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      So charging someone under the patriot act is a violation of their civil rights? That's bullshit. The PA has a clause about interfering with a flight crew, which this guy did on purpose on 2 occasions.

      So again, how does this involve the loss of civil rights?

    19. Re:Any Excuse to Say "We're Tough on Terror" by vondo · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Why is trying to crash a plane loaded with civilians into the ground, where it will hurt civilians not terrorism? Just because a well-defined political motive is (apparently) missing?

      I think many of us in the U.S. have recently redefined terrorism to "any action those Islamists take against us," which is just not accurate.

    20. Re:Any Excuse to Say "We're Tough on Terror" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So... If this guy was successful and the plane crashed. Would that not be terrorism then? If this guy was Tim McVeigh or Mohammed Atta it certainly would be terroristic act.

      This guy aimed lasers at multiple aircraft even after national media attention was putting this story out in front of the public in reference to earlier lock-ons. The guy is at least an idiot and at most a potential terrorist, in that his actions could have caused terror.

    21. Re:Any Excuse to Say "We're Tough on Terror" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you think you're an idiot for thinking of the possible sentence as a simple 25 years when the penalties could be anything UP TO 25 years or even just a fine?

      I do.

    22. Re:Any Excuse to Say "We're Tough on Terror" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The guy was shining a laser at aircraft, including a police helecoptor. He then lied about it and tried to put the blame on his kid.

      Really? Is that so? When was he found guilty?

    23. Re:Any Excuse to Say "We're Tough on Terror" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about this: all terrorists will have red lasers while us Americans can have the green ones. That way we won't accidently mistake someone for a terrorist! It must work!

    24. Re:Any Excuse to Say "We're Tough on Terror" by geekoid · · Score: 1

      "He then lied about it and tried to put the blame on his kid."

      that worth sending the guy up for 25 years.

      You dont blame your children, you take the blames.
      what a wuss.
      read:
      Dead eye dick.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    25. Re:Any Excuse to Say "We're Tough on Terror" by SilverspurG · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You dont blame your children, you take the blames.

      Let me guess this straight. The cops are flying around in the middle of the day and supposedly they can see a green dot on the outside of the helicopter while they're sitting on the inside? Then they go knocking around the neighborhood. They don't find anyone so they go flying around a few hours later. Now, maybe the second time it's dark enough where they can see the beam from the green laser, but they still can't see the outside of the helicopter unless they're hanging out the windows.

      Then, when the cops come questioning around the neighborhood, this guy mentions off-handedly that, well, yeah... his daughter was out back with the laser that he brought home from work. The cops swarm the house and say they'll have to take the girl away for questioning. At that point the guy stands up and says,"Wait. Don't take my daughter. I was just making that up. It was me out back waving the laser around."

      "Oh wait? You mean that laser hit a plane? No! I didn't know! You mean you're going to subject me to a lie detector test based on nothing more than a hunch and light you supposedly saw on the outside of the helicopter while inside of it? Have the pilots had a lie detector? Have the people in the police chopper had a lie detector?"

      I'd say the guy's taking the fall for his daughter and should be applauded.

      --
      fast as fast can be. you'll never catch me.
    26. Re:Any Excuse to Say "We're Tough on Terror" by Beatbyte · · Score: 1

      I didn't know we had an anti-stupid law.

      Or that there is a law that says you can't point lasers at aircraft.

      I know there SHOULD be.

    27. Re:Any Excuse to Say "We're Tough on Terror" by jc42 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Why is trying to crash a plane loaded with civilians into the ground, where it will hurt civilians not terrorism? Just because a well-defined political motive is (apparently) missing?

      Exactly. The term "terrorism" arose (in France) to describe acts of violence against civilians in order to put pressure on their government. It is widely used with other meanings these days, and of course the US government often uses it for "anyone who does violent acts that we don't like". But the original meaning was attacking civilians with a specific motive: influencing the government. It still has this meaning to most people with much historical knowledge.

      Under this definition, the guys act may have been reckless endangerment, but it certainly wasn't terrorism. There has been no accusation that he (or his daughter) was attempting to influence anyone at all, much less any government.

      --
      Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
    28. Re:Any Excuse to Say "We're Tough on Terror" by vondo · · Score: 1
      Of course, that's the classic definition. But, it may not be adequate. What about the "anthrax mailer." Can we not determine if that's terrorism or not because we don't know the person's motive? What about the una-bomber? He didn't have a political motive, per se, but a desire to change culture or society. What about those who target civilians *just* to terrorize society? The laser guy may fit into this last category.

      Dictionary.com has several definitions, some of which may apply to the laser case (and one which is even broader).

    29. Re:Any Excuse to Say "We're Tough on Terror" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't forget that pilots, bus drivers etc have been blinded by idiots with lasers so unless you can think of a good reason for not having a deterrant/punishment available I suggest you shut up.

    30. Re:Any Excuse to Say "We're Tough on Terror" by hugzz · · Score: 1
      I know this thread is dead and all, but I just wanetd to point out that you're an idiot.

      If i get into a bar fight and punch a civilian in the face, is that an act of terrorism? After all, it's hurting civilians

    31. Re:Any Excuse to Say "We're Tough on Terror" by Eric+S.+Smith · · Score: 1
      What about the una-bomber? He didn't have a political motive, per se, but a desire to change culture or society.

      That is a political motive in the general sense. Politics encompasses more than squabbling between political parties.

      What about those who target civilians just to terrorize society?

      I'd call them mentally ill, inasmuch as their behaviour is irrational and interally motivated.

    32. Re:Any Excuse to Say "We're Tough on Terror" by Shadowlore · · Score: 1

      Under this definition, the guys act may have been reckless endangerment, but it certainly wasn't terrorism. There has been no accusation that he (or his daughter) was attempting to influence anyone at all, much less any government.

      There has likewise been no accusation of intent to bring the plane down either, or even intent to shine it into the cockpit.

      Lesse ... if it's dark, and the plane is small and far away, I doubt he could even see the cockpit windows. Which means he happened to "get lucky" or onlucky depending on your POV. Reckless endangerment, sure. But absent intent it is nothing more than that.

      --
      My Suburban burns less gasoline than your Prius.
  51. Slashdot Bias for Nerds. Stuff that's Misleading by Oz0ne · · Score: 0, Offtopic


    Slashdot is still one of the best places for techy news, however every other category seems to be going to crap.

    Most everything listed is on fark about 4-12 hours earlier. When it finally gets on to slashdot, it's got a very FUD bias. This summary for example, fails to mention that the man being sentenced admitted he did this on purpose. 25 years seems fine to me.

    I know this is to make things more interesting/sensational, but really: Isn't the audience of slashdot supposed to be those above average? Geeks. People who pride themselves on their minds... not drama, sensationalism, etc?

    Or am I completely wrong, and the slashdot audience has become the lowest common denominator. If that's the case it makes sense to spew out FUD like this every day to get them riled up about their rights... even when there ISNT any danger to them?

    What happened to real reporting?

  52. laser to the stars? by bombardius · · Score: 1

    "She said her client was playing with his young daughter, using the laser's narrow green beam to point at stars..."

    Am i missing something? How does this work? It's pretty obvious to me that the daughter wouldn't be able to see the dot on a star.

    1. Re:laser to the stars? by natron+2.0 · · Score: 1

      I am glad I not the only one who caught that. Perhaps they do not have TELESCOPES in NJ!

    2. Re:laser to the stars? by DigitalSorceress · · Score: 1

      As I understand it, green lasers tend to show the path of their beam without needing smoke in the air... It actually makes some kind of sense.

      --

      The Digital Sorceress
    3. Re:laser to the stars? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can confirm that the green laser I own is a great astronomy tool, it works very well at pointing out the location of stars(much better than pointing your finger anyway)

    4. Re:laser to the stars? by rjamestaylor · · Score: 1

      Green lasers show the "line" not just the "dot". According to Slashdot-shop ThinkGeek, where I just bought a green laser before they're all banned, anyway.

      --
      -- @rjamestaylor on Ello
    5. Re:laser to the stars? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're an idiot.

    6. Re:laser to the stars? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      0900-Gestapo responded and is on its way. Please do not cause an incident and go with them, they will not hurt you if you remain calm. Only a little showering and you're in a good working camp, I promise.

  53. So how does someone do this? by jj_johny · · Score: 1

    Maybe I missed the point. How does someone aim a laser into a cockpit unless they have a laser sight on their rifle with a high powered scope and are using the scope to aim the thing? OK so you may not need the rifle but you do need the scope and laser combo, which I don't really get as a smart thing to do with an airplane or other place where people don't have eye protection.

    1. Re:So how does someone do this? by DebianDog · · Score: 1

      I think if I told you "exactly" how to do it I would get a friendly visit from the FBI or some-such.

      My question: Why in the HELL would you do it, if your NOT a terrorist?

    2. Re:So how does someone do this? by Tenebrious1 · · Score: 1

      Maybe I missed the point. How does someone aim a laser into a cockpit unless they have a laser sight on their rifle with a high powered scope and are using the scope to aim the thing?

      The whole point of a laser mounted on a weapon is that you don't *need* to aim the weapon. The laser is adjusted so you only need to point the weapon towards the target; when you see the laser "dot" on the target, you fire. With a novelty laser pointer, or the industrial one this guy was using, you just wave it around in the general direction until you see the laser "illuminate" the target; it's trivial to do.

      --
      -- If god wanted me to have a sig, he'd have given me a sense of humor.
    3. Re:So how does someone do this? by Junta · · Score: 1

      The benefit of the laser scope on a weapon is that it is coupled and nicely aligned with a magnifier. The chances of someone able to hold and know they are hitting it just using a laser pointer and the naked eye is slim (the laser is a small dot, on things far away, not visible unless you have a scope pointed in the right direction).

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
    4. Re:So how does someone do this? by phoenix321 · · Score: 1

      Hehe, you never tried it, did you?

      If you did, you'd know that it's nigh impossible to do. Aiming at an old piece of industry architecture, an old windmill or whatever and at a distance of more than 200 meters hitting that damn thing is nothing to be taken lightly. You simply don't know in which direction to move the pointer, as you got no clue if the dot is lower, higher, left or right of the target. Waving around a bit nets you a small blink when you hit it, but you can never stop your movement fast enough to keep it there.

      Aiming briefly through the ironsights will be much better. Laser pointers are just needed when you're expecting close quarter combat and/or want to show potential hostage takers your ability to instant-headshot them if needed. No mid or long range shooter would like to give out his position that easily or have his target know what's coming, long before a single shot is fired...

    5. Re:So how does someone do this? by Tenebrious1 · · Score: 1

      If you did, you'd know that it's nigh impossible to do. Aiming at an old piece of industry architecture, an old windmill or whatever and at a distance of more than 200 meters hitting that damn thing is nothing to be taken lightly. You simply don't know in which direction to move the pointer, as you got no clue if the dot is lower, higher, left or right of the target. Waving around a bit nets you a small blink when you hit it, but you can never stop your movement fast enough to keep it there.

      You're right; if you're trying to keep the target painted while waiting for the incoming bomber, or waiting to squeeze off a round, yeah, it's much more difficult because you have keep the target lit. But it's trivial to point any laser at a target and hit it briefly, to sweep the laser across the cockpit windows. Which is pretty much what happened and why it's not really a terrorist plot but some idiot with a laser pointer. Yeah, if it were terrorists you'd expect a more sophisticated mounted platform that allows for constant illumination of the cockpit to prevent the pilots from looking out.

      No mid or long range shooter would like to give out his position that easily or have his target know what's coming, long before a single shot is fired...

      ...which is why military laser targeting systems aren't in the visible spectrum.

      --
      -- If god wanted me to have a sig, he'd have given me a sense of humor.
  54. Good by SensitiveMale · · Score: 1

    At least 25 years...

  55. A few things to consider by Kenrod · · Score: 1

    25 years sounds harsh because the guy was just screwing around. But the truth is the Feds have to make an example of this guy because going easy on him will not effectively deter other morons from doing this. The FBI has enough to do without tracking down legions of dipshits.

    --
    Good heavens Miss Sakamoto - you're beautiful!
    1. Re:A few things to consider by kin_korn_karn · · Score: 1

      sure, ruin an american citizen's life and that of his family because he made a stupid mistake. Run to Daddy Fed to protect you from stupidity. People like you are proof that the terrorists have won.

  56. What kind of person would do something like this? by Meangenetic · · Score: 1

    25 years sounds fair enough, he even shined it at the helicopter that was searching the area for him. But what really gets me is what sort of person would shine a laser at any type of aircraft in the sky? Common sense seems to be only for the gifted nowadays.

  57. Why this is creepy to me by jabber01 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    There is precedent, albeit tenuous, that the only purpose of certain kinds of equipment, or even logic (DeCSS anyone), is to do unlawful and criminal things with it.

    Now, I'll grant that there are many reasons for owning laser pointers. Specifically, if you have a cat, it is a patented means of delivering exercise to the feline.

    However... With datamining, if you buy diesel fuel, fertilizer, and now a laser pointer, you can end up on a watch list which you could avoid if you did not buy a cat toy.

    --

    The REAL jabber has the user id: 13196
    What you do today will cost you a day of your life

    1. Re:Why this is creepy to me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is precedent, albeit tenuous, that the only purpose of certain kinds of equipment, or even logic (DeCSS anyone), is to do unlawful and criminal things with it.

      No, they didn't come after him because he had a laser. They arrested him because he pointed a laser at an aircraft.

    2. Re:Why this is creepy to me by Thomas+Shaddack · · Score: 1
      Now, I'll grant that there are many reasons for owning laser pointers. Specifically, if you have a cat, it is a patented means of delivering exercise to the feline.

      Ummm... you mean you bought the laser pointer to knowingly infringe on the intellectual property of the patent holder?

      To the slammer with you!

      Next!

    3. Re:Why this is creepy to me by Joel+from+Sydney · · Score: 1

      Welcome to the brave new world of ThoughtCrime.

  58. Interesting, but irrelevant quote: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    After the agent switched it on, Banach warned him "not to shine the laser in his eyes because it could blind him," the court documents say.

    Looking into any kind of focused light will cause damage to the eye. A cop tried to turn it on, and the guy tried to warn him of potential harm. The article makes it sound like this was some kind of deadly weapon (please, no fricken' sharks jokes). Conversely, his explanation was that he was shining them at stars. Like you can see any kind of reflection from shining a laser at a star. Ok, maybe a tree or the neighbor's house, but that's still a little sketchy.

    The moral of this story: Don't be an idiot.

    1. Re:Interesting, but irrelevant quote: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sharks are a deadly weapon.

    2. Re:Interesting, but irrelevant quote: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      An alternative explanation, and the way I read it, is that the cops (and article) are trying to point out Banach knew full well what the device was capable of doing when shone into someone's eye.

  59. Was he intending to bring the airliner down? by raehl · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Or was just just chronically stupid?

    I'd vote for the later.

    1. Re:Was he intending to bring the airliner down? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When did we start letting stupid criminals off and only jailing the smart ones again?

    2. Re:Was he intending to bring the airliner down? by olewis · · Score: 1

      Does it matter? People need to think before doing things.

  60. Well, it depends... by nonmaskable · · Score: 1

    Do you want it punished as a stupid but annoying practical joke or as the attempted murder of hundreds of people?

    I think the guy should be fried just to deter other clowns from putting it on their "Stupid People Tricks" audition tape.

  61. WINS, NY by tonsofpcs · · Score: 1

    It's been on the Radio in the NYC area all week.
    1010 WINS was talking about it nonstop (then again, they go through all of their news in 22 minutes and repeat), but they were reporting the first one, then they reported the second one -- note that in this one, the laser hit the cockpit of the helicopter of the people that were looking for the source to begin with, they were asking to get hit.

  62. Not as powerful as advertised by Momoru · · Score: 1

    Obviously this fellow slashdotter was midled by the power of the green laser

    That said, the poster makes it sound like its another case of the Patriot Act out of control, but if pilots are distracted enough by this guy to call the cops, and the beam is powerful enough for the cops to find him, then he deserves to be arrested.

  63. Something doesn't add up by Jerf · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Something doesn't add up, and I don't know what.

    All the incidents can't be like this, some guy playing with his kid. Are they copycat? Did one incident get reported first? Or was there really a rash of people shining lasers at planes more or less simultaneously? Quite a coincidence, that.

    I don't quite understand what's going on here.

    I do know this, though: This is serious, and the penalty sounds about right to me. 25 years for shining a laser at someone may sound stiff, but how about 25 years for reasonably endangering the lives of about a hundred people? The government is right here, it is no joke when there are people in that plane.

    Can you imagine shining your laser at a landing plane and watching it crash? I have a few mottos in life, and one of them is "Never engage in an endeavor where the worst case scenario is complete success"; you just know that's when life will choose to deal you the Royal Flush. I'd say this qualifies. (The canonical example, of course, is Russian Roulette. Do you really want to "win"?) I couldn't live with myself after that.

    1. Re:Something doesn't add up by twitter · · Score: 1
      The government is right here, it is no joke when there are people in that plane. Can you imagine shining your laser at a landing plane and watching it crash?

      No, I can't imagine that. First, it's never, ever happened. Second, I doubt it's possible. Third, I'm never going to do such a stupid thing. I can imagine something else though.

      Can you imagine being arrested for demonstrating a laser pointer to your daughter? You know, you're outside pointing at trees and clouds when a hoard of squad cars pulls up, hauls you away and reporters write up an incriminating story about it which is published with your picture in the USA Today. All of it done so that they can prove a point to pranksters? If we presume this man's innocence, that's exactly what happened to him.

      Sounds awful to me.

      What good is this going to do? How many "pranksters" are going to get the message being made by arresting this man? I presume the average "prankster" is a 14 year old boy with a toy and no clue. The chances, five years down the line, of that 14 year old even knowing what he's doing is against the law are remote to none. A warning on the pointer will do more than this arrest, even though such a warning will be lost with in all the other stupid warnings, which by their pointlessness we are training people to ignore.

      --

      Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.

    2. Re:Something doesn't add up by lew3004 · · Score: 1

      Actually, you 'win' by not getting the loaded chamber. These people should play the same game with a .45

      --
      I still can't get the screen shots of Castle Wolfenstein for the Apple IIe out of my head.
    3. Re:Something doesn't add up by Jerf · · Score: 1

      Sorry, lasing a police helicopter leaves me short on pity. With a $100 laser, not a over the counter $5 helium laser, too. Also lasing aircraft long enough to get caught.

      My point though was more about the mentality, which extends beyond this little domain. Ha ha, funny to paint the plane, ha ha, funny to paint the helicopter. What if the fluke occured and it crashed? How would you feel? Why would you take that risk in the first place for a "ha ha"?

      If we presume this man's innocence, that's exactly what happened to him.

      The law is obligated to do so, and I'd scream bloody murder if it didn't. I, however, am free to draw conclusions based on facts like "he got caught, which means he didn't stop, most likely for at least half an hour". In fact it is irrational for me not to. I wouldn't convict him on that, but it's better that the evidence I get for a lot of other things I just hear about in the news.

      The guy is an ass and an idiot. 25 years for playing with people's lives sounds right to me. Sob stories can be saved for the jury.

    4. Re:Something doesn't add up by Shadowlore · · Score: 1

      All the incidents can't be like this, some guy playing with his kid. Are they copycat? Did one incident get reported first? Or was there really a rash of people shining lasers at planes more or less simultaneously? Quite a coincidence, that.I do know this, though: This is serious, and the penalty sounds about right to me. 25 years for shining a laser at someone may sound stiff, but how about 25 years for reasonably endangering the lives of about a hundred people?

      I presume you meant "unreasonably endangering".

      A key factor you are missing is intent. If he was being stupid, which is what the authorities invovled admit to, then 25 years is ludicrous.

      If you are driving down a highway and are drinking a soda or eatign a burger, or yelling at the kids, or even just plain being in an emotional state like anger, you are endangering everyone on and near the road. Depending on where you are, this can be hundreds of people.

      Picture this. You are driving down an road and spill your drink in your lap, causing you to momentarily swerve into oncoming traffic where a bus full of people is heading toward you; the schoolbus driver sees this and swerves out of the way. You did something stupid (drinking a beverage while driving -- especially an open container kind) that endangered the lives of many people, yet nobody was hurt.

      To use your reasoning, you now deserve 25 years in prison. Your familiy is now without it's primary source of income or at least half of it's income. You probably got the fines that go with it, so now your wife has to pay all the bills and now can not pay the 200-500 thousand dollar fine so the government is taking your property. Oh, and good luck getting a job when you get out.

      Yet nobody was hurt, and you had no intention of causing harm. You were careless/stupid. And now you are on your knees in the prison cell at night servicing bubba.

      Still sure that "punishment" fits the "crime"?

      --
      My Suburban burns less gasoline than your Prius.
  64. I'm confused by the distance by mOoZik · · Score: 4, Insightful

    They say the plane was about 10,000 feet up and the laser came from 15 miles away. It doesn't take a genius to see that:

    1) Laser pointers over 15 miles away - or even nearly 2 miles away - lose a lot of their energy and are no brighter than dim LED bulbs at those distances.
    2) It is virtually impossible to track a laser on a cockpit from 15 miles way, or even from 2 miles away.

    So what's going on?

    1. Re:I'm confused by the distance by deadlinegrunt · · Score: 1

      "So what's going on?"

      Simple. You fail to understand the issue because you are trying to apply rational thought to a slew of irrational laws that have been passed.

      This is a simple case of a somebody being stupid at a time when it really is not the thing to be doing right now due to the fear-mongering laws to protect against these things as though they will actually stop somebody/group that is detemined.

      --
      BSD is designed. Linux is grown. C++ libs
    2. Re:I'm confused by the distance by killjoe · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What's going on? It's called "the drumbeat". In washington everything is driven by the drumbeat. Somebody dropped the "they can bring down planes with lasers" meme in washington DC and the "we have to do something about it" drums started beating.

      Once those drums are beating they won't stop until people are dead and tortured and may lives are made miserable.

      --
      evil is as evil does
    3. Re:I'm confused by the distance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Well there have been several reports of lasers shining in cockpits for several seconds, blinding the pilots.. Its impossible to shine it for even a microsecond, nevermind several seconds.. So obviously this is either a government technology being tested on civilians, or aliens. So the gov needs him to cover it up.

      Obviously

    4. Re:I'm confused by the distance by RealAlaskan · · Score: 5, Insightful
      1) Laser pointers over 15 miles away - or even nearly 2 miles away - lose a lot of their energy and are no brighter than dim LED bulbs at those distances.
      2) It is virtually impossible to track a laser on a cockpit from 15 miles way, or even from 2 miles away.

      So what's going on?

      From TFA:

      Justice Department officials said they do not suspect terrorism in any of the cases, but said Banach's arrest shows how seriously they take the matter.

      "We need to send a clear message to the public that there is no harmless mischief when it comes to airplanes," said Christopher Christie, the U.S. attorney for New Jersey.

      They've found some guy who was playing with his laser pointer and they're going to fry him. Doesn't matter whether he was the one they were looking for, doesn't matter whether the guy they were looking for could have done any harm this way if he'd been trying.

      Christie is going to ``do something about terrorism'', and he doesn't care how many of us he has to kill or imprison to make the rest of us feel safer by advancing his career.

      If we're going to start sending people to jail for shining lights at airplanes, maybe we'd be better off without the airplanes. Thanks to these same ``public servants'', it's getting too dangerous to travel by air anymore, anyway.

    5. Re:I'm confused by the distance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thats because you assume he was using a standard laser pointer. He wasn't. He used an industrial strength laser.

    6. Re:I'm confused by the distance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He failed a lie detector test. And he did it twice.

    7. Re:I'm confused by the distance by mark-t · · Score: 2, Informative
      You seem to be under the impression that laser light, like most energy, decreases in intensity with the square of the distance.

      Laser light, because it's coherent, doesn't do that. It's biggest loss of energy is to the medium that it must pass through , which in this case is air and would result in neglible loss of energy before reaching the target. There is an additional loss of energy due to lack of perfect coherence in the laser light generated, but that is insignifant compared to the total power output of the laser.

    8. Re:I'm confused by the distance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you are forgetting the fact that it wasn't going through air. It was going through air mixed with moisture, dust, pollen, etc. These things reduce the effectiveness significantly.

    9. Re:I'm confused by the distance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I almost hope this gets modded redundant, (it is) because that would mean someone actually read it.

      Look very carefully at point #2, folks. You absolutely cannot blind a pilot with a hand-held laser pointer from 15 miles away. You could not hold it steadily enough. This is completely and utterly FUD, move on.

    10. Re:I'm confused by the distance by mark-t · · Score: 1

      Reduced, yes... but still potentially very dangerous. This guy was an idiot and deserves to be punished quite severely (although as I've said elsewhere in my response to this story I think the charge of terrorism is ludicrous).

    11. Re:I'm confused by the distance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      BZZZZT! wrong, sorry you do not even get the home game....

      a laser beam is not a perfect beam that never spreads, they all spread and semiconductor lasers, the type that you have in ALL portable handheld lasers have a huge beamspread.

      the power of that laser beam is inversly proportional to the diameter of the beam, as that increases not only does the power drop byut the effect of atmospheric scattering increases.

      so he is right, you are drastically wrong.

      and yes I know. I have been a laser experimenter for over 15 years. most college laser specalists have less laser exposure time than I do.

    12. Re:I'm confused by the distance by mindstrm · · Score: 2, Informative

      I'm fairly sure it does. I know there are cases where a laser CAN be a true beam, but they are very specific.

      Your laser pointer is just run through a columnating lense.. it is not a perfect beam, and spreads out linearly.

      The decrease in energy density is because it's spreading out over a wider and wider area. The inverse square law still applies, unless I"m mistaken, and the beam doesn't get wider and wider, and in fact stays the same.

    13. Re:I'm confused by the distance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Maybe this is just a stupid question; but, the plane is moving at 150 mph, the glass in a cockpit sits up high on the nose (granted, the pilots can see straight down, but not easily), the glass is crowded by equipment anyways, the pilots aren't sitting with thier faces pressed to the window; how in the world is it possible to put a laser pointer right in someone's eye, so well in fact as to cause vision problems? There is something that is really not adding up here.

    14. Re:I'm confused by the distance by nonetheless · · Score: 2, Informative

      Other articles have described the plane as flying at 3,000 feet. These articles also describe the laser as a "high-powered ... commercial grade laser used for checking fiber optic lines," not the sort you'd typically find attached to a keychain. I haven't used a laser like that before, but I suppose I wouldn't be surprised if it traveled a mile and was still bright.

    15. Re:I'm confused by the distance by Lumpy · · Score: 5, Informative

      A typical laser will have a beam spread of 1.5 mRad.
      As a rule of thumb this is about 1.5 millimeters spread to each meter
      traveled. Hence at 100 meters the beam will be about 150mm wide which is
      just under 6 inches in diameter. Using this formula you can calculate your
      beam diameter at different distances.

      Oh and semiconductor lasers have a much larger beam spread.

      now, if at 100 meters if a laser can damage your eyesight 200 meters it will not. because the amount of laser light entering your eye is dropping extremely fast as the beam spreads further.

      will you be "dazzled" by the bright light you see at the opening of the laser? yes, it will make it difficult for you to see who is standing behind that laser, epically if the contrast is high, I.E. completely dark room with little lighting on t he subject and a laser pointed at you. it will certainly not affect your vision at other angles.

      I strongly suggest you learn about lasers, they are pretty darn fascinating, you seem to only know a very little about them but try to pass yourself off as an expert.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    16. Re:I'm confused by the distance by StormReaver · · Score: 1

      "They say the plane was about 10,000 feet up and the laser came from 15 miles away."

      Which article were you reading? The USA Today article linked in the story makes no mention of altitude or distance. It merely says that the plane was flying over the man's house (which makes it damn near impossible for the beam to enter the cockpit).

      I think the bulk of the 25 years maximum sentence comes from lying to federal officials when they questioned him.

    17. Re:I'm confused by the distance by M.+Silver · · Score: 3, Insightful

      They've found some guy who was playing with his laser pointer and they're going to fry him.

      Naw, they found some guy and they're going to make a lot of noise to the press about frying him.

      You'll notice all the hand-wringing in the article is all "maximum" and "could" and so forth. Dollars to donuts he ends up getting off with a slap on the wrist... which will then be unworthy of even a backpage followup article. Message sent.

      --

      Slashdot's token middle-aged housewife
    18. Re:I'm confused by the distance by ErikZ · · Score: 1


      I thought it didn't stay coherent foever. From what I remember reading in the catalogs that listed the coherency length, cheap lasers only go a few inches.

      The lab grade ones go farther, but I don't remember seeing any that went over 6 feet.

      I could be wrong though.

      --
      Democrats or Republicans. They are both taking us to the same place and they are not afraid of us anymore.
    19. Re:I'm confused by the distance by Vlad_the_Inhaler · · Score: 1

      Land of the Free, anyone?

      I'm curious, which country imprisons the highest percentage of it's inhabitants? Anecdotal evidence suggests that it is the US but is that really the case?

      It is easy to say that this guy was being stupid (the article was a bit short on details but it certainly looks like it) but stupidity is not - afaik - enough to get you sent down for 25 years. If it was, over 50% of the population would be behind bars.

      --
      Mielipiteet omiani - Opinions personal, facts suspect.
    20. Re:I'm confused by the distance by AnotherBlackHat · · Score: 4, Informative

      A typical laser will have a beam spread of 1.5 mRad.
      As a rule of thumb this is about 1.5 millimeters spread to each meter


      Laser light can be focused into a nearly parallel beam http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/miscon/miscon4.html
      But it can't be done perfectly (wave nature of light prevents perfection) and it's rarely done well.

      Still, 1.5 mRad sounds high to me.
      For a high quality optical communication laser, it would be more like 0.0015 mRad.

      Grabbing my pocket laser pointer, and a ruler, I can measure a spot of about 3mm at a distance of 1 meter, and 5 mm at a distance of about 15 meters.
      Granted I could easily be off by 2mm, that's still no where near 20mm.

      Measuring laser 'dot' size is a simple experiment that I urge anyone who thinks lasers don't spread to try.

      -- should you believe authority without question.
    21. Re:I'm confused by the distance by sheyingshi · · Score: 1

      The plane was evidently 10 miles out on approach so he would have been at about 3000 feet. A laser like he had would absolutely have the power to blind the pilots. They were far enough out on approach so they had time to recover but what if they were on short final/in the flair? I doubt this guy was a trying to bring the plane down, he just didn't realize the implications of his act.

    22. Re:I'm confused by the distance by mark-t · · Score: 1
      I'm not familiar enough with laser pointers in general to dispute your claim.

      I was under the impression that laser pointers were actually real lasers, but what you're describing is normal, but highly focused, light, which decreases in intensity with the square of the distance as normally expected. If that's all that laser pointers are then why don't they just call them "light pointers"?

    23. Re:I'm confused by the distance by ugmoe · · Score: 1
      You say:

      They've found some guy who was playing with his laser pointer and they're going to fry him. Doesn't matter whether he was the one they were looking for, doesn't matter whether the guy they were looking for could have done any harm this way if he'd been trying

      The article says:

      http://www.nypost.com/news/regionalnews/37694.htm

      David Banach, 38, of Parsippany, admitted under questioning that he aimed the hand-held laser beam at the jet and later a helicopter, but did not intend to do any harm, authorities said.

      The jet was flying at 3,000 feet with six passengers aboard and was about 11 miles away from the airport. The flash temporarily blinded the pilots, but they were able to safely land the plane.

      Banach even warned agents not to point the laser into anyone's eyes because it could hurt them, court papers said.

    24. Re:I'm confused by the distance by SilverspurG · · Score: 1

      admitted under questioning

      Was that the type of questioning which does or doesn't adhere to Geneva conventions. Seriously. "I was pointing out stars. Yeah, I suppose the plane might've flown past" counts as an admission but doesn't prove anything.

      The flash temporarily blinded the pilots

      Sure it did. No one would ever exaggerate in order to gain attention. Never.

      --
      fast as fast can be. you'll never catch me.
    25. Re:I'm confused by the distance by ugmoe · · Score: 1
      When you say:

      Seriously. "I was pointing out stars. Yeah, I suppose the plane might've flown past" counts as an admission but doesn't prove anything.

      Are you seriously claiming that you believe that he went outside on two different days to point at stars, and both days he accidentally flashed an aircraft while flashing the stars?

      Do you also believe that George's dad accidently sat on the statue of Jerry and got it stuck in his rectum?

      Banach, who said he bought the laser pointer over the Internet to use at work, later admitted he had shined the laser at both aircraft.

    26. Re:I'm confused by the distance by mindstrm · · Score: 2, Informative

      Laser doesn't mean beam.. it just means the light is all in-phase. We just think of it as a beam, as that's the most common use.

      Take apart a laser pointer, you'll find a columnating lens. Take that out, have the laser diode out in the open, and you'll see the entire room awash in that funky red laser glow, interference patterns and all (indicating coherence). (please don't look directly at it.)

      Some (most?) laser devices generate a highly focused beam naturally. .but it's still a normal beam of light. The inverse-square relationship applies to anything spreading out linearly over distance.. so unless the beam is perfectly parallel, which i'm not sure is even possible, it applies.

      Lasers tend to be single wavelength and coherent, making them easier to accurately focus, without scatter.

      They don't call it a "light pointer" because it's actually in-phase laser light.

    27. Re:I'm confused by the distance by SilverspurG · · Score: 1

      both days he accidentally flashed an aircraft while flashing the stars?

      No. I believe that on both days there were reports of lasers and this guy was the only one they could dig up who would admit to having used a laser to point at stars. The rest is pressuring him to admit that there's a possibility that it may have been his.

      What's still left is the credibility of the pilots and the police. The pilots probably own stock in a red laser factory which is losing shares to the green ones. The cops? I've read enough "suicide by cop" stories to understand that, in many cases, if you're within sight of a police officer he'll think you're aiming at him. There has to be some probable cause or else the officer won't get paid for the leave.

      What evidence has been presented to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the laser ever made contact with the plane or the chopper? I'm skeptical. I think it's a case of 1/2 mile being close enough when they're looking for someone to catch and no one else is around.

      --
      fast as fast can be. you'll never catch me.
    28. Re:I'm confused by the distance by znode · · Score: 1

      You are mistaken.

      As commented by my visiting uncle, a physics Ph.D.:

      The inverse square law is the result of the shape of energy propogation. Doesn't matter if it's light, sound, or vibration of other media. If it propogates in a spherical pattern from the source, it follows the inverse square law - intensity decreases by the square of the distance..

      The reason is very easy to see - the surface area of a sphere is 4*pi*r^2, and thus expands by the square of the distance.

      Thus, laser does NOT follow an inverse square rule. It is theoretically coherent.

      Of course, that's perfection, and it'll never be made perfectly coherent, but at least certainly does not spread in a spherical manner in all directions. (It still spreads however.)

      The rule that they actually follow varies wildly from laser to laser depending on the laser type, construction, collimation, and lenses.

      But back to the actual topic at hand. As mentioned in other threads, unless the guy had mechanical assistance, there is NO WAY the guy could haved trained a laser dot on, and tracked along with a moving plane 15 miles away. They don't even know whether the guy that painted the helicopter is the same guy that "painted" the plane.

    29. Re:I'm confused by the distance by incom · · Score: 1

      Not in this cliche of a "post 9/11 world" . The whole point of the patriot act is to be able to dole out higher punishments than before, and with a very vague definition of what they can punish that way.

      --
      True genius is grasping a situation like a peice of fruit, and peircing it just right so that it drains dry.
    30. Re:I'm confused by the distance by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      True. The vast majority of American citizens will never be directly touched by the Patriot Act ... but it is sufficient, to the political mind, that we all know that we can be. And in case any of us should ever forget that fact, the occasional reminder needs to be sent.

      And that is another topic that I find troublesome. This idea that an individual can be "made an example of" or otherwise given harsher punishment that is deserved or justified by law, simply to provide a deterrent effect. That's just wrong, but it seems to be popular.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    31. Re:I'm confused by the distance by M.+Silver · · Score: 1

      Oh, I don't doubt that that's what the law is *capable* of, I just rather suspect that this case won't go that way... if only because it would get jumped on as a poster child for those (rightly, I think) who want to take appeals all the way to the SCOTUS.

      --

      Slashdot's token middle-aged housewife
    32. Re:I'm confused by the distance by toby · · Score: 1

      They've found some guy ... and they're going to fry him. Doesn't matter whether he was the one they were looking for
      Gee, now what does that remind me of?
      --
      you had me at #!
    33. Re:I'm confused by the distance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your post just made me think of something; 'sending a message' to citizens and 'sending a message to terrorists'. We all know what's happening in the Middle East when it comes to terrorists (planes, bombs, tanks, ground forces, etc); what happens when American laser owners are identified as such?

    34. Re:I'm confused by the distance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OOH, OOH, Mr. Kottteer: I do know that the first laser was excited through a ruby and a strobe light!

    35. Re:I'm confused by the distance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      good work, Cheese...that guy was an idiot. Your last sentence, however, had two comma splices, which is very disturbing.

    36. Re:I'm confused by the distance by phoenix321 · · Score: 1

      Beam diverges for 1 deg in your hand around 0,250 miles on a 15mi distant target, a=(sin(a)*b)/sin(b) to repeat my former AC comment. I frankly assume most cannot hold their hand steadier than 1 deg without some visual aids (read: ironsights and some visual clues like trees and the horizon).

      Accuracy needed to shine a laser somewhere onto a 60m long and 10m high airplane body at a distance of 10km: horizontal no more than 0.34 deg, vertical no more than 0.06 deg.

      If it's a commercial jet airliner, that target is moving at a speed of at least 700 km/h or ~200m/sec. That means it is moving vertically 1.15 deg in every single second in the view of our laser shooter. No chance to hit that, seriously. The chance of winning the lottery may be ten times as high...

      And we were only trying to hit the hull and not the cockpit nor eyes of the pilot.

      Eye burn damage from a publicly available ultra strong laser happens only after at least 0.10 seconds, so we would have to hit a target no more than 1cm in diameter (the pilot's retina) for more than that time. A target of 1 square centimeter, soaring through space and time with a velocity of 200m every second in a distance of 10'000 meters. Give up already, it's not possible, not by chance, not by malicious intent and neither by a thousand evil terrorists trying to multiply their chances nor not ultra-sophisticated computer equipment.

      During landing and take-off, it may be possible. But at cruise speeds and altitudes, a plane and the pilot is for all intents and purposes invincible from publicly available laser pointers.

    37. Re:I'm confused by the distance by iawix · · Score: 1

      If the pilots say they were blinded, I believe them.

      After a 4 hour flight as a pilot, your night vision is extremely sensitive. And it needs to be, even though airports look bright as hell from the ground, they tend to just blend in to lights of a city from a distance.

      --
      FAA Certified Flight Instructor
    38. Re:I'm confused by the distance by ratsnapple+tea · · Score: 1

      Second highest, after Russia (not including countries like North Korea for which reliable statistics are impossible to obtain).

    39. Re: I'm confused by the distance by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1


      > Grabbing my pocket laser pointer, and a ruler, I can measure a spot of about 3mm at a distance of 1 meter, and 5 mm at a distance of about 15 meters.

      Just for fun, let's extend that to 15 miles.

      We'll work with the radius, and notice that the radius increases by 1mm every 14 meters (pretending your measurements are exact).

      15mi =~ 24,140m; divide by 14 to see how many times the radius increases by 1mm and you get a radius increase of ~1724.3mm at 15mi.

      Assuming a circular spread,

      A_{1m} = pi * (1.5mm)^2
      A_{15mi} = pi * (1.5mm + 1724.3mm)^2 [actually, that's 15mi from the 1m point]

      A_{15mi}/A_{1m} = (1725.8mm)^2 / (1.5mm)^2 = (1725.8/1.5)^2 = 1,323,727

      So the intensity per unit area would be reduced by a factor of ~1.3 million at a distance of 15 miles (modulo all my math errors), assuming the intensity is equal everywhere in the area of spread, even for this relatively tight beam. (The angle inside the cone is only ~0.008 degrees.)

      Also, if it's a jetliner that flies at high altitudes, wouldn't the windshield be tinted, polarized, or otherwise filtered to protect the pilots against UV and high-altitude sunlight?

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    40. Re:I'm confused by the distance by mindstrm · · Score: 1

      Common Laser pointers, for instance, diverge spherically (past the focal point, anyway), just like the beam from a flashlight.

      If the dot grows bigger the further away, but retains it's shape (ie: a circle), the inverse square applies. Whatever area gained over distance X, at 2X it will have 4x the area, and so on.

    41. Re:I'm confused by the distance by Shadowlore · · Score: 1

      nce those drums are beating they won't stop until people are dead and tortured and may lives are made miserable.

      Mission accomplished. They can stop now.

      --
      My Suburban burns less gasoline than your Prius.
    42. Re:I'm confused by the distance by rah1420 · · Score: 1

      Measuring laser 'dot' size is a simple experiment that I urge anyone who thinks lasers don't spread to try.

      Just not against aircraft. :)

      --
      Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens.
  65. Painting Lasers by thewiz · · Score: 1

    Well there goes my livelihood! As a professional painter, I make my living painting things. I'll miss painting lasers; Dr. Evil was my best paying customer.

    --
    If "disco" means "I learn" in Latin, does "discothèque" mean "I learn technology"?
  66. YRO???? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How does this story have anything at all to do with rights? It doesn't even have anything to do with online!!!

    Anybody else get the feeling that Slashdot has turned into a whore magnet like Jerry Springer and Oprah?

  67. Mod me down for whining, but... by ScentCone · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    My submission of this story one day earlier was rejected - I even included a link. The link, though, was to an AP story that happened to show up on the FoxNews.com web site, and I'd hate to think that URL had anything to do with why it was rejected. So, I gave up and added another comment to the already existing thread on this subject from the other day. I might add that the other thread wandered off into the "no one could actually hit the cockpit by hand!" area. I'll resist my "I told you so" and just follow the story.

    --
    Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    1. Re:Mod me down for whining, but... by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      Gosh, that's just rude. I was just perplexed as to why my reference to the same material yesterday - which would, I think, have generated the same vigorous commentary that this listing has - wasn't picked up. Further, I thought it would be helpful to point out the earlier discussion to people that might have missed it. Your unpleasantness is not helpful, and doesn't really add to any general sense of your own credibility or of /. in general.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    2. Re:Mod me down for whining, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sorry. (Sorry that you are a whining faggot hippie.)

    3. Re:Mod me down for whining, but... by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry. (Sorry that you are a whining faggot hippie.)

      But here's the thing: I'm a gun-loving, SUV-driving, animal killing/eating, flag-waving, hot-babe-appreciating capitalist. You seem to be having trouble mustering a clear picture of things, or working up better vocabulary with which to express it.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    4. Re:Mod me down for whining, but... by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      Oh, and you wear the Anonymous Coward label well. Very sporty!

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    5. Re:Mod me down for whining, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      YHBT. YHL. HAND.

  68. hmm... by EvilGoodGuy · · Score: 1

    I tihnk I'm starting to like this Patriot Act thing. So far it appears to be a viable excuse to get the asshats out of society. Though the whole thing about them knowing what I'm doing all the time still kinda bothers me. *puts on tin hat*

  69. Misunderstanding in why the feds track this down by niconorsk · · Score: 1

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems Slashdot has misunderstood why pointing a laser at aircraft is seen as a threat. This is not because the terrorist is trying to blind the pilot but because "painting" an aircraft, building, etc. with a laser is used as a cheap missile guidance system. Hence, it is not something the feds take to kindly to.

    --
    Nothing is impossible. We just haven't quite worked out how to do it yet.
  70. PTFA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    POST THE FUCKING ARTICLE

  71. Scared to use my ThinkGeek laser by NoData · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I have one of those cool ThinkGeek green laser pointers and it was kind of fun (and amusing for the kids) to take it out on a cloudy or foggy day and look at the neat laser beam. Even the ThinkGeek description advertises its use for skypointing while stargazing, which works even in the clear in very dark conditions. Now I'm scared to do either. God I love these times we live in.

    1. Re:Scared to use my ThinkGeek laser by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uh, just don't point it at any planes, genius.

    2. Re:Scared to use my ThinkGeek laser by NoData · · Score: 1

      Riiight, because what with all the hoopla this laser crap has generated, it's not going to look suspicious to my neighbors when I'm out on the lawn with a green laser beam pointed at the sky. That's all I need is the local law, or better yet, the FBI, coming by to ask "a few questions" and I am try to explain that I'm just pointing out Orion's belt to my nephew. No thank you. Welcome to the chilling effects of the nascent police state.

    3. Re:Scared to use my ThinkGeek laser by E-Rock · · Score: 1

      Except that you're chilling yourself. There is nothing illegal in what you're doing. Don't point it at planes or helecopters and you'll be fine.

      Everyone needs to stop freaking themselves out.

    4. Re:Scared to use my ThinkGeek laser by Thomas+Shaddack · · Score: 1

      Well... even asking about buying a flight simulator game can get a cop to be sent to question you. Happened already.

    5. Re:Scared to use my ThinkGeek laser by crimson30 · · Score: 1

      So your neighbors would call the cops on you for having a little astronomy fun with your nephew?

      What a bunch of assholes.

    6. Re:Scared to use my ThinkGeek laser by evilviper · · Score: 1

      I have one of those cool sports cars and it was kind of fun (and amusing for the kids) to take it out and drive around in it. Even the manufacturer's description advertises its use for driving around fast, and having fun in it. Now that people have been arrested for reckless driving, I'm scared to do either in it. God I love these times we live in.

      The fact that you're scared to do it, has entirely to do with your own irrational fear, not "these times we live in." This guy's excuse was blatantly false, and had he not been doing this intentionally and repeatedly, he wouldn't even have been apprehended. What your crazy neighbors might do is out of your control, and you can't live your life, petrified to do anything, for the fear of how it might be misinterpreted by some idiots.

      Unless you live near an airport, commercial flights are a tiny spec in the sky, and you'd have a hard time hitting the broad side of it, even if you were trying, let alone hitting the cockpit windows... Laser pointers are a (slightly) dangerous tool, and like any other, you need to be smart, and use reasonable safety precautions.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
  72. Its impossible by Lokni · · Score: 2, Insightful

    While it is definitely possible to do it to a helicopter, but has anybody realized that it would be nigh near IMPOSSIBLE to shine a laser pointer into the cockpit of an airliner, particularly into the eyes of the pilot? Look at how far back in the cockpit the pilot sits as well as the angle from his head over the instrument dash and into space. An airliner's cockpit windows are designed for visibility of the sky around the plane, not the ground. While this dumbass deservers a prison term, it is 100% asinine to use terrorism laws here to impose 25 years.

    1. Re:Its impossible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      It's not impossible. If you've noticed all the stories of lasers being pointed at planes have occurred when planes are taking off or landing. That would be the easiest time to hit the plane, as it's slowed down quite a bit and it's much closer to the ground. Hitting the pilot's eyes would be a feat of pure luck, but hitting the cockpit is far from impossible.

    2. Re:Its impossible by rawg · · Score: 1

      This is exactly what I was thinking. How the hell can you point a laser into the eyes of a pilot in a airliner? That's just nuts. I can see doing it to a helicopter, because most of them have windows on the bottom.

      I'll bet that someone reported seeing the laser and called it in. Then the helicopter was flying around and the laser hit it. Now their trying to make an example.

      I think the whole thing is retarded.

      --
      The above is not worth reading.
    3. Re:Its impossible by Mr.+No+Skills · · Score: 2, Informative
      While it is definitely possible to do it to a helicopter, but has anybody realized that it would be nigh near IMPOSSIBLE to shine a laser pointer into the cockpit of an airliner, particularly into the eyes of the pilot?

      Didn't this same topic get beat into the ground just 6 days ago?

      Do you really think there is no place on the ground to shine something into the eyes of a pilot? Do you really think pilots only look at the sky and there's no way for them to see the ground? Haven't you even seen a movie, TV show, or sat in a plane and watched the pilot line up on the runway? There's a reason runways have lines and lights all around them -- THE PILOTS ARE LOOKING AT THEM!

      Yes, a pilot doesn't look straight down. But if you were positioned past the end of a runway you could look right into the pilots eyes as he landed.

      Let's not let our hatred of authority blind us of basic understanding of science. We're supposed to be nerds, for cryin' out loud, not schoolkids whipped into a frenzy over the latest conspiracy theories. And this is modded "insightful", no less...

      --
      Sleep is for the Weak
  73. wtf by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Its a narrow beam for god sake...its not like he could actually aim it at the pilots eyes by hand as it flys overhead. the country has sunk to yet a new low. whats next prohibiting bubble gum on planes since popping bubbles may be implimented as sonic disruption device. looks like its time to break down the old h.e.r.f gun

  74. This is why we all hate the patriot act: by Above · · Score: 1
    A New Jersey man was charged Tuesday under federal anti-terrorism laws with shining a laser beam at a charter jet flying over his home, temporarily distracting the pilots.
    Justice Department officials said they do not suspect terrorism in any of the cases, but said Banach's arrest shows how seriously they take the matter.
    So, if the agency arresting you doesn't suspect terrorism, how can they charge you under an anti-terrorism law? That's what is broken here. I hope this guy uses their public statements that he's not a terrorist and that they do not suspect terrorism against them.
  75. I can't be the only one... by m50d · · Score: 1

    who read "Laser Printing" and thought "Shit".

    --
    I am trolling
    1. Re:I can't be the only one... by WillerZ · · Score: 1

      You weren't.

      I don't currently have a printer, and thought "Crap I'm stuck with an inkjet" on reading the headline.

      Phil

      --
      I guess today is a passable day to die.
  76. Dumbass... by sweepkick · · Score: 1

    While he's most likely not a terrorist, this guy ought to be charged under Federal Anti-Idiocy laws for not only initially flashing the plane, but also flashing the helicopter that was later searcing for the source of his laser. He actually tells the agent that arrested him not to shine the laser into his eyes becuase it might blind him!

    "Dyurrrrrhh...."

    1. Re:Dumbass... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry, if there was any "Federal Anti-Idiocy laws" most of the federal government would already be in jail.

  77. Physicist: Lasers are a poor choice of weapon by maynard · · Score: 5, Informative

    Salon published a letter to the editor today regarding their prior story about the potential for lasers being used to blind pilots. In the letter the physicist argues that to use a laser properly for this task would require expensive and large equipment, at least two men, and good site selection. Basically, much cheaper and deadlier weapons are available to the motivated terrorist than lasers. The article and letter in reply are worth a read... --M

    1. Re:Physicist: Lasers are a poor choice of weapon by TheSync · · Score: 1

      This letter is pretty dumb. So, you might need to put it in the bed of a pickup truck with an inverter, but you can easilly pick up a Q-switched pulsed Nd:YAG laser. I see a couple on Ebay right now.

      Retinal damage may initially go undetected because retina lacks pain sensory nerves. Photoacoustic retinal damage may be associated with an audible "pop" at the time of exposure. Visual disorientation due to retinal damage may not be apparent to the operator until considerable thermal damage has occurred.

      Even a small Q-switched YAG laser (~3W avg power) can cause eye damage at 1000 feet away.

      Of course, .50 cal might be a better and cheaper option, but would be easier to spot due to noise.

    2. Re:Physicist: Lasers are a poor choice of weapon by maynard · · Score: 1

      So, you might need to put it in the bed of a pickup truck with an inverter, but you can easilly pick up a Q-switched pulsed Nd:YAG laser.

      Well you do ignore his two other points: that being the necessity to spread the beam at least across the range of the cockpit windows (which would dilute the beam's power), and the necessity for line of sight to the eyes of the pilots (thus requiring special site selection). That you disagree with his statement on the cost and transportability of the equipment doesn't negate his entire argument. --M

    3. Re:Physicist: Lasers are a poor choice of weapon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      DUH!

      I have said this on EVERY other occasion.

      anyone that has ever did anything with lasers knows this.

      Anyone saying otherwise is simply pulling shit out their ass.

    4. Re:Physicist: Lasers are a poor choice of weapon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      the necessity to spread the beam at least across the range of the cockpit windows (which would dilute the beam's power),

      Nonsense. You only need to sweep the beam across the cockpit enough to catch the flight crew's eyes. To do this, set the laser on a vibrating mount. Or hold it with your hand... the effect is almost the same.

      the necessity for line of sight to the eyes of the pilots (thus requiring special site selection).

      Line of sight is not hard. You can see a very wide area from the cockpit, by design. That's what the huge windows are for.

      On the various approaches to the airport, the planes will sweep out a wide area.

    5. Re:Physicist: Lasers are a poor choice of weapon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I suggest you have the makings of a letter to the editor in reply...

    6. Re:Physicist: Lasers are a poor choice of weapon by cpt_rhetoric · · Score: 1

      That's why the best weapon against pilots is a 40 or couple shots of Jack. I hear the pilots at Delta fall for those hook/line/sinker.

    7. Re:Physicist: Lasers are a poor choice of weapon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      laser's beam power is an inverse log of it's beam spread...

      or for your tiny mind the bigger the dot size the massively weaker the hurting power.

      your 3 watt examples wont even bother someone 300 feet away if you increase the beam size to 6 feet.

      and let's completely forget the severe attenuation you get with atmospheric scattering.

      when you have some real information PLEASE do post it.

      but right now you make no sense to anyone but someone that knows nothing.

    8. Re:Physicist: Lasers are a poor choice of weapon by PeeAitchPee · · Score: 1

      Salon published a letter to the editor today

      +5 Informative? Come on. Salon, worthy scientific publication that it is, is about as unbiased as Fox News. I suggest folks be more careful getting scientific facts from sources which are obviously slanted either way -- left or right -- on the political spectrum, as such sites always have their own agendas to advance.

    9. Re:Physicist: Lasers are a poor choice of weapon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Line of sight is not hard. You can see a very wide area from the cockpit, by design. That's what the huge windows are for."

      Which huge windows are you talking about? Most cockpits have pretty abysmal visibility, especially from cockput to ground or vice-versa.

    10. Re:Physicist: Lasers are a poor choice of weapon by maynard · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I suggest folks be more careful getting scientific facts from sources which are obviously slanted either way -- left or right -- on the political spectrum, as such sites always have their own agendas to advance.

      I don't think /. cited USAToday as a source of scientific fact, either (well, actually, the /. editor forgot to cite anything this time - but I digress). The original Salon article, from a column titled "Ask The Pilot", was - duh - written by a professional airline pilot. The original column debunked the notion of terrorists using lasers to down commercial airline jets. The physicist replied in affirmation to the pilot-author with his own points, in a letter to the editor. I see no assertions of "scientific fact", simply informed opinion offered to an audience. Read, or not, as you see fit.

      I read no political bias in either the original article or the letter to the editor. You know, sometimes people offer statements without explicit political or partisan bias. Seriously!

      IOW: "It tastes not quite unlike tea!" - Arthur Dent

      Cheers,
      --Maynard

    11. Re:Physicist: Lasers are a poor choice of weapon by Hoi+Polloi · · Score: 1

      "Of course, .50 cal might be a better and cheaper option, but would be easier to spot due to noise."

      Easier to spot? As opposed to a very bright beam (due to atmospheric diffusion) running straight back to the source?

      --
      It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
    12. Re:Physicist: Lasers are a poor choice of weapon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are obviously smarter than anyone working on the SDI project. Please send your ideas in to DARPA immediately!

    13. Re:Physicist: Lasers are a poor choice of weapon by Detritus · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      In their next issue, another physicist proves that bees can't fly. Any empirical evidence to the contrary is just superstition and mass hysteria.

      --
      Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
    14. Re:Physicist: Lasers are a poor choice of weapon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also, you'll be in a frickin' airoplane with lod engines.

      You will NOT hear a .50 cal going off unless it's in the cockpit with you....

    15. Re:Physicist: Lasers are a poor choice of weapon by commodoresloat · · Score: 1

      It's a freaking letter to the editor. Even if you were right about Salon's bias hurting their objectivity about scientific facts -- and you're not -- this is a letter from an independent citizen.

  78. Finally . . . took long enough . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    stupidity is a punishiable offense!

  79. PAT-RIOT Act by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Please stop referring to it as the Patriot Act, it has nothing to do with patriotism and citing it like that is totally misleading. Instead, I suggest you refer to it as the PAT-RIOT Act.

  80. Perspectives - Makes you wonder... by OwlWhacker · · Score: 1

    Why don't other terrible crimes get such a high sentance?

    I'm sure that many people can't believe the lenient sentences associated with some attrocious crimes, and here we see a 25-year sentence for shining a light.

    I'm sure that if you have a list of crimes, ranging from bad to worst, that it would look like the sentences were picked at random.

    1. Re:Perspectives - Makes you wonder... by Junta · · Score: 1

      To be fair, we have *not* seen a sentence of 25 years, we haven't even seen a *conviction*, we are seeing the theoretical maximum sentence for what they are charging him with. The lenient sentences for atrocious crimes people note are almost always nowhere near the maximum sentence under the law the person was charged with.

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
  81. What I want to know... by nathan+s · · Score: 1

    ...is how this dude and his little green laser temporarily blinded the pilots? What does that mean? They saw it and took their eyes off their instruments, or that it caused actual temporary eye damage? How can you sustain a laser on a moving target with the windows located on TOP of the vehicle when you're beneath? Lots of questions here, and 25 years is simply outrageous.

    C'mon people, we've taken the terrorism thing far enough. A guy in his backyard playing with a laser pointer is not a terrorist. New York street kids in gangs are not terrorists either, no matter how much you want them to be.

    In fact, "terrorist" is a term that has no meaning anymore since it's become so overused, sorta like "pirate" which is used in every context from high seas robbery to filesharing to South Park's "ass pirate".

    Let it go!!!

  82. How every reply to this story reads by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    OMG?>! Teh story link is m1ssing! OMG, lol!!!

    Seriously folks, we don't need to know that the link is missing. Slashdot isn't a professional organization whose purpose is to deliver mission-critical blurbs about today's hottest gossip. Editors, those who submit, and yes, even us posters can all make mistakes.

  83. Worse still... by SolemnDragon · · Score: 5, Funny

    Worse still, he now has to live with the permanent epithet, "Laser Guy."

    Evildoer 1: I'm the Disgruntled Postman!

    Evildoer 2: Welcome aboard! Meet MurderOne, Manslaughter, Aggravated Assault, and oh- that guy over in the corner is Laser Guy.

    Evildoer 1: THE Laser Guy?

    Laser Guy: Just give me a laser pointer and i'll - (remembers what he's in for and hangs his head in shame) be almost completely ineffective, but not ineffective enough to stay out of PRISON... *curls up in fetal position and sobs*

    Evildoer 2: Yep, that's LaserGuy, all right.

  84. Good. by Renraku · · Score: 1

    Aiming a device that's notorious for being used to aim projectiles with at an airplane isn't the smartest thing in the world to do.

    This story should be up there with the 'dumbest criminals' like something from Fark. I mean, come on. That would be like popping up from behind something with a realistic plastic gun and aiming it at a police officer.

    --
    Job? I don't have time to get a job! Who will sit around and bitch about being broke and unemployed then?
  85. Serious business by tooley · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Just wanted to point out that pilots of commercial aircraft are granted a public trust. That trust is granted after they have proved themselves capable of piloting the aircraft well, proved themselves to be of good character. Our government then licenses them to command the plane -- and with it the lives of sometimes hundreds of passengers. Further, the passengers each put their lives in the hands of the pilots.

    Pointing a laser and blinding a pilot on final approach is the same as having broken into the cockpit and putting your hands over his or her eyes. You should and would be right to be charged with as many counts of attempted murder as there are people on the plane.

    25 years seems like a light sentence for that charge, to me. So he's getting quite a deal.

    But, to use the ignorant line "I didn't know" betrays the mind that each of us has in our heads. We have the ability to think through our actions, and we have the responsibility to each other -- as a society -- to do so.

    Intent has nothing to do with responsibility for actions. Perhaps intent can change the severity of the sentence, but should never invalidate the crime and the perpetrator's responsibility.

    If we want to live in a society, peacefully, and get along with each other, it is incumbent on all of us to take responsibility for our own actions, and to demand that our fellow citizens do no less.

    -tooley-

    1. Re:Serious business by rjstanford · · Score: 1

      Pointing a laser and blinding a pilot on final approach is the same as having broken into the cockpit and putting your hands over his or her eyes. You should and would be right to be charged with as many counts of attempted murder as there are people on the plane.

      There's one major difference. Its very, very hard to accidentally break down the armored door of an airplane cockpit and cover up the pilot's eyes. Its trivially easy to be playing with a laser pointer and hit a plane with it. Heck, at a long range its easy enough to be using those green pointers to point at distant stars and lower it down to a plane saying, "Well, I think that one is - no, wait, that's a plane" and move on to something else.

      Yes, this was a potentially dangerous action. By that argument though, anyone who weaves in their lane on the highway - even though the person in the next lane slows down, weaves, or whatever to correct the situation, should be tried under the same charge. And you can extend the "logic" out to a huge number of daily occurences as well, just as legitimately.

      --
      You're special forces then? That's great! I just love your olympics!
    2. Re:Serious business by radish · · Score: 1

      Intent has nothing to do with responsibility for actions. Perhaps intent can change the severity of the sentence, but should never invalidate the crime and the perpetrator's responsibility.


      Rubbish.

      Let's take three scenarios and compare them.

      Scenario 1: I'm driving along in my car, see a small child and drive towards them, purposfully speeding up to hit them. Child dies.

      Scenario 2: I'm driving along in may car, at significantly over the speed limit in a residential area. A small child runs into the street without looking, and although I react and try to avoid her, I can't stop in time. Child dies.

      Scenario 3: I'm driving along at a sensible, legal speed in a residential area. A small child runs into the street from behind a parked car, right in front of me. Although I react and try to avoid her, I can't stop in time, and neither could anyone, the distance simply was too short. Child dies.

      Now the end result of the scenarios is the exact same, a death, but the intent is clearly different. In the first case, we're talking Murder - pre-medidated intentional killing. In the second case we're looking at death due to negligence (it would likely be classed manslaughter or death by dangerous driving in the UK, don't know the equiv in the US). Although it was my fault she died (I was speeding), I didn't intend to kill her and there was no pre-meditation. In the last case it was a simple accident. I was doing everything right, not speeding and driving safely, but in some instances you simply can't avoid the accident. Should I really be punished for that? I think not, and the law agrees.

      --

      ---- Den ene knappen er powerknapp, den andre er Bender voice knapp "Bite My Shiny Metal Ass"

    3. Re:Serious business by natet · · Score: 1
      But, to use the ignorant line "I didn't know" betrays the mind that each of us has in our heads. We have the ability to think through our actions, and we have the responsibility to each other -- as a society -- to do so.

      Be honest. Before you read this article, how many of you would have thought twice about shining your laser pointer at the underside of an airplane. I can't say for certain that I would have (I'd like to think I would). When I got my first laser pointer, I was shining it up the sides of large nearby buildings just to see how high up it was visible. I was smart enough to stay on the brickwork and avoid windows, but still, not the most intelligent thing I have ever done. Those of you who would never have done such a thing, good for you! But the reality is, most of us would probably have gone "cool, I can see the beam on the bottom of that plane!"

      Further, the guys lawyer said that he was stargazing with his kid. Isn't it entirely within the realm of possibility that he was simply pointing out stars to her, and that the jet crossed the path of his beam? And you advocate putting this guy away for more than 1/4 of his natural life?

      --
      IANAL... But I play one on /.
  86. Uh oh.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I better be carefull during my next bathroom trip...wouldn't want to be charged under the "Patriot Act" for committing a terrorist act against my plumbing and everyone in the house! I think all nude sunbathers should also be arrested and shot as they can be spotted by low flying aircraft and distract the pilots from performing their duties.

  87. Patriot Act? by brucifer · · Score: 1

    If only there was a Dumbass Act that this guy could be tried under.

  88. Up To 25 Years = Probation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Up to 25 years means nothing. Federal laws are incredibly broad so vastly different conduct is covered under the same law, with the same theoretical maximum. I was charged with a crime for which I could receive "up to 25 years" and got 1 year probation.

    Nothing to see here, move along...

  89. One hell of an aim... by Sliptwixt · · Score: 5, Funny

    I can't always hit the toilet from a foot away, how the hell did this guy get a laser in the face of a pilot in a plane hundreds (thousands?) of feet in the air?

    1. Re:One hell of an aim... by GreyGeek · · Score: 1
      Easy.

      I was playing with a little red laser pointer (prior to 9/11) and observed that while the beam was only 2mm wide leaving the pointer it was about 6-10 feet across on the roof of a house about 900 feet away.

      And, using reflectance off of dust in the atmosphere, is was easy to point at about anything I wanted to illuminate. However, the beam hitting the roof wasn't bright enough to be able identify, say, a person at 900 ft, and certainly not bright enough to 'blind' them.

    2. Re:One hell of an aim... by BrodeCo · · Score: 1

      If your penis shot lasers, (or even sighted with one) then perhaps you'd be more accurate.

      Then again, you'd be working for the government, lasing North Korean jets and drinking coffee all day.

    3. Re:One hell of an aim... by chochos · · Score: 1

      yeah but it would be very easy for the enemy to send a spy to flash her boobs at him, causing an erection and thus making it a lot harder to aim at anything but the boobs

    4. Re:One hell of an aim... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So the intensity of the beam 900 ft away was something like 1/1,000,000 (2mmx2mm->7ftx300mm/ftx7ftx300mm/ft)the intensity leaving the pointer.

      Blinding!

    5. Re:One hell of an aim... by Guppy06 · · Score: 1

      Simple: he was sober.

  90. Doesn't read that way at all ot me... by raehl · · Score: 1

    A laser beam is a laser beam. 99.9% of laser beams are not destructive to anything other than MAYBE a retina, or a piece of paper with properly applied toner.

    I think most people understand that if anyone has a laser small enough to track a helicopter with that it's not going to do any damage to the helicopter. Unless there's a rash of laser rifles running around that I'm not aware of....

    1. Re:Doesn't read that way at all ot me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think most people understand that if anyone has a laser small enough to track a helicopter with that it's not going to do any damage to the helicopter.

      You have a ton more faith in the intelligence of your fellow humans than you should.

    2. Re:Doesn't read that way at all ot me... by j0nb0y · · Score: 1
      99.9% of laser beams are not destructive to anything other than MAYBE a retina


      Perhaps you're aware of some kind of popular laser that I am not, but even laser pointers are damaging to retinas with any kind of prolonged exposure. Lasers much bigger than that will blind you instantaneously.

      --
      If you had super powers, would you use them for good, or for awesome?
  91. prison system: deterence or reform by B5_geek · · Score: 1

    What is the focus of the legal system anyway?
    Deterence: Not tough-enough (if I was a terrorist trying to blind pilots I would laugh, wow so 25 years that you John Q. Public pays for my room & board, go for it.

    Reform: Too tough. Same as any 13-year-old charged with murder. Sure they know it's "wrong" but how the hell will a person ever learn from his/her mistakes if they are screwed for life for 1 goof.*

    * by goof I mean one incredibly brain-dead stunt, that deserves a serious repremaind.

    Yes I know it's an age-old problem, but holy fuck it's screwed up.

    --
    "The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men." ~Plato (427-347 BC)
  92. Laser Guided Weapons ? by Brigadier · · Score: 1



    I interpreted the danger of this being more of painting an aircraft with a laser as needed to target a laser guided missle. correct me if i'm wrong.

    1. Re:Laser Guided Weapons ? by Kesha · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I don't think that guy had any business painting that chopper either, unless he had some surface-to-air laser guided munition to accompany it and he fully intended to use it. Otherwise - what's the point? Stupidity, in this case, will be harshly prosecuted as a lesson to all future SAM site operators.

      Paul.

  93. I have some questions... by mattkime · · Score: 1

    Yeah, this guy set off our paranoia. So?

    He was using a laser pointer THAT WAS MADE TO BE POINTED AT THE SKY! Surprise! There are planes in the sky!

    The results of this action have been sensationalized as well. The pilots were temporarily blinded...gee...like that never happens driving your car on a sunny day.

    I'm really curious as to how this action could be done in a destructive manner. You'd need a clear day, the right angle, and have a laser with a certain power and be within range. What does it take to align those variables?

    While it might not have been the brightest thing to do, I'm not convinced that it is particularly dangerous either.

    --
    Know what I like about atheists? I've yet to meet one that believes God is on their side.
  94. how would that even work? by CoffeeJedi · · Score: 1

    how could you blind a pilot facing forwards, looking out very small windows thousands of feet in the air, from a point on the ground looking straight up? you'd just hit the bottom of the aircraft

    even if you were good enough to hit the plane (and you'd have to be damn good, a milimeter twitch of your hand translates to several meters that far away), you'd never be able to get the laser into the window, and even if you could accomplish that, it would still only be hitting the roof of the cockpit! unless this was a magic laser that could turn corners or something, you're not going to be blinding any pilots

    --
    May you be touched by His Noodly Appendage. RAmen.
    1. Re:how would that even work? by General+Alcazar · · Score: 1

      The laser probably hit the window of the cockpit and refracted - spreading bright green light around the cockpit. The effect was probably like someone shooting off a flash bulb, I would imagine. Since the cockpit was dark, the sudden light caused the pilot's eyes to dilate quickly, therefore making it difficult to see in the immediate aftermath.

  95. move along, nothing to see here... by mohrt · · Score: 1

    at least not after being blinded by a laser.

    Seriously, is it even possible to do damage with a conventional hand-held laser from over a mile away? The laser certainly would be far from a "dot" at that distance, and you would have to hold it pretty darn perfect to "paint a target" for any amount of time.

  96. Buy your Laser pointers now! by jj00 · · Score: 1


    Buy your Laser pointers now before there is a law against owning one. They'll probably go around shutting down sites that sell them, like ThinkGeek. Forcing them to provide a customer list so that they can track down potential terrorists.

    You might want to keep a close eye on your Binary clock...

  97. Depends on the laser by abb3w · · Score: 1
    Am i missing something? How does this work? It's pretty obvious to me that the daughter wouldn't be able to see the dot on a star.

    It's the beam, dude. While a standard cheapo red beam laser pointer does not usually have a beam visible unless there's enough fog to prevent seeing stars, the higher-end pricey green lasers have a beam that can be seen with just the normal trace of dust in the air, since it's about 50 times brighter than the usual red ones. Perfectly good for a pointer for astronomy lessons.

    --
    //Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
    1. Re:Depends on the laser by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In that case the guy should get 1250 years (50 times the sentence for the red laser)!

    2. Re:Depends on the laser by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh yeah, and shortly sweeping my little red laser across the sky over NYC's La Guardia is going to give me a 50 planes * 250 people/plane * 25 years per attempted 1st degree murder, right?

  98. How far can a laser beam go? by asscroft · · Score: 1

    Seriously. I have a laser pointer right here beside me. I've often shined it at the moon, to see if it would make the moon turn red, but the sun is much more powerful than my laser pointer. So I tried to hit the International Space Station, to see if I could turn it red, but it didn't seem to do much if anything. So I shined it at a cloud, and maybe I hit the cloud, but the laser was still pretty close to being a dot and I couldn't see the dot. I shined it at a mountain, and same thing, couldn't tell if I hit the mountain or not. I shined it at the house all the way at the end of the street, and I saw that. I'm gonna try using binoculars to see if I can see it when I shine it at the mountain. But does anyone know how far the typical laser pen will shine?

    --
    because I have been enjoined by this Holy Office to abandon the false opinion which maintains that the Sun is the centre
    1. Re:How far can a laser beam go? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Get one of those green lasers on thinkgeek, you'll see that hit the moon! Plus unlike the red ones, you can actually see the laser line at night

    2. Re:How far can a laser beam go? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The green ones from thinkgeek can reach a distance of up to 2.5 km (around 1.55 miles). The regular red lasers used for presentations will rarely reach over 100 m (around 328 feet).

  99. GOD BLESS AMERICA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    lol watch the FBI ring my door bell now.

    anyways, you can kill someone and get a lesser sentence than flashing a lazer beam at plane or helicopter. Its dumb to do so in the first place, but does the punishment fit the crime?

  100. HairyCanary by HairyCanary · · Score: 1

    An observation, after reading the article... They said green laser, and $100. That means it was a garden variety laser pointer, or something similar. 5 mw probably. That kind of laser from 3000 ft away will not blind anywone. Unless he got a heck of a deal on a really big laser, I think this story is bunk -- the pilots made a big deal over nothing, and the feds are running with it. Great use of the Patriot Act, folks... Dave

  101. Stupid beyond belief by cpuh0g · · Score: 1

    Before everyone here completely overreacts (oops, too late, this IS slashdot, after all), the odds of bringing down an airliner by shining a laser pointer into the cockpit are about likely as if you shot a BB gun at that same plane. Consider the fact that airliner cockpit windows are very narrow, rounded, and designed to reflect glaring light, OH, and they are on the UPPEr side of the fuselage, not the side facing the ground. Also, the planes are probably a couple of thousand feet in the air, moving at a couple of hundred miles per hour (even during approach), the odds of blinding BOTH pilots and causing an crash are astronomically small. Slashdot needs a new category "FUD and paranoia". Read what an actual pilot has to say about the whole silly matter(http://www.salon.com/tech/col/smith/2005/01 /04/askthepilot118/index_np.html) before you convict this idiot of anything more than being a moron. 25 years is an insane sentence for a moronic act. The guy admitted to trying to take down the helicopter, but its insane to charge the guy under the patriot act. No way he gets anywhere close to that kind of final sentence, if he's even proven guilty at all.

  102. so they are pretty scared, eh by sheepoo · · Score: 1

    Its really funny to see how much the Fibbies are "over-reacting". Life in States now is to constantly look over ones shoulder..... what a curse

  103. Conspiracy by vasqzr · · Score: 1


    Here's what my dad claims:

    The government has a satellite with a laser on it. They thinkg 9/11 would have been avoided had they 'blinded' the hijackers with lasers once they got control of the plane. They're testing the satellite out, and using this poor guy as a scapegoat.

  104. Blind the pilot, or just freak him out a bit? by dmorin · · Score: 1

    My first thought about damage was not about blinding the pilot, it was about the reaction of the pilot who notices the laser dot trained on him. You do not want those guys having what-the-fuck-is-that moments while handling a large vehicle quite possibly filled with lots of people. How exactly does he know that it's not about to be followed by a weapon of some sort? "There's no such weapon that works that way" could end up being famous last words.

  105. It's OK to own a gun... by The+Bungi · · Score: 1
    ... as long as you don't shoot it at anyone. It's OK to own a laser, as long as you don't flash it at airliners full of people.

    Let's hear it for the "evil government" "sticking it" to the little guy and another round of "oh our liberties are being curtailed", but what this dude did was fucking stupid and I'm glad they caught him.

    1. Re:It's OK to own a gun... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Yes, but for 25 years and half a million dollars?

      We put away rapists and murders for less on a routine basis.

  106. Can't say I blame them. by Millennium · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Shining a laser in someone's eyes is assault, plain and simple. I don't know if I'd call it terrorism, but I don't find criminal charges to be out of order.

    1. Re:Can't say I blame them. by nharmon · · Score: 1

      I'm not defending the guy, but it isn't assault. And besides, simple assault doesn't carry prison time (in Michigan at least).

    2. Re:Can't say I blame them. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What about a camera flash that somebody isn't expecting? Where do we draw the line? (Coherent light seems like a fine limit to me)

      Also, some red light cameras have really bright flashes that go off constantly. At night, these can really mess up somebody's concentration.

    3. Re:Can't say I blame them. by Tristandh · · Score: 3, Interesting

      From the article:
      She said her client was playing with his young daughter, using the laser's narrow green beam to point at stars and illuminating trees and neighbor's houses.

      And shamelessly lifted from another post in this discussion, this http://www.skypointer.net/ link states that

      Red laser pointers have grown cheap and ubiquitous, but unfortunately, they are not very effective as sky pointers. In contrast, green laser pointers are very effective because of the eye's greater sensitivity to the 532 nanometer green light. Under dark sky conditions, the beam from a 5 milliwatt green laser pointer creates a dramatic impression, and the beam apparently extends for more than a kilometer.

      which supports the former statement.
      In short, the guy was pointing out stars to his daughter, he NEVER intended to point it at an airliner (I'd like to see someone with a handheld laser pinpointing an airliner several thousands of meter up). So calling it "assault" is just ridiculous. Picking out this guy also is: supposing the linked site sold any number of units, this means that many people in the US are doing exactly the same, they just didn't hit the one in chance of flashing an airliner miles away AND having the beam deflected into a pilot's eyes. Conclusion: there has been much media attention about lasers hitting an airplane recently so a scapegoat had to be found. He's just one unlucky bastard. Not a criminal. And definately not a terrorist. Why do I hint at scapegoating?

      "We need to send a clear message to the public that there is no harmless mischief when it comes to airplanes,"

      Justice Department officials said they do not suspect terrorism in any of the cases, but said Banach's arrest shows how seriously they take the matter.

      Also, I really disliked this little piece of information:

      After the agent switched it on, Banach warned him "not to shine the laser in his eyes because it could blind him," the court documents say.

      Let me just say "well DUH!" A 5mW laser (a bit more than the presentation-purpose lasers) are ubiquitous and one shouldn't look straight into those from a few cm away either. This just makes it blatantly obvious this is pure sensationalist "journalism" about a gross injustice, namely picking out one individual, ruining his life, to make a public impression.


      ps. If this laser situation should prove potentially dangerous, something SHOULD be done, agreed, but this is just a perversion of justice.

    4. Re:Can't say I blame them. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IAAP (I am a pilot) and if you dazzle a pilot on short final, the odds of an accident go up significantly. This is a real threat, and has been used by the soviets.

    5. Re:Can't say I blame them. by SilverspurG · · Score: 1

      if you dazzle a pilot on short final, the odds of an accident go up significantly... This is a real threat

      Yeah... I'm sure _NO_ racy stewardess has ever been going down on a pilot at the end of a flight. "Quick, hurry up, we're almo... mo... mo... mo... MO... ahhhhh... landed."

      Just how naive do you think we are?

      --
      fast as fast can be. you'll never catch me.
    6. Re:Can't say I blame them. by bani · · Score: 1

      you're not naive, just an idiot.

    7. Re:Can't say I blame them. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually is is battery, not assult.

    8. Re:Can't say I blame them. by raile · · Score: 1
      "I don't know if I'd call it terrorism..."

      Bujeezus Christ, is every act of malice an act of terrorism these days?

      terrorism (n.) The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

      Do you honestly think that this NJ suburbanite with his toy laser pointer was trying to coerce the government? It's VERY bloody unlikely that this was terrorism.

      The words "terrorist" and "terrorism" and the way they've been bandied about lately has caused them to lose all meaning and become a generic insult.

    9. Re:Can't say I blame them. by jabuzz · · Score: 1

      Sorry but in the U.K. at least it is assault.

    10. Re:Can't say I blame them. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Explain to us, Mr. anonymous scaremongering cowardly Pilot, where and when the evil Soviets used that, the ultra low odds of actually hitting something and the Geneva Convention aside.

      And how many times this real threat you're talking about has led to a real accident or a real near-accident. I'm glad to hear from you.

    11. Re:Can't say I blame them. by starrsoft · · Score: 1
      In short, the guy was pointing out stars to his daughter, he NEVER intended to point it at an airliner

      Uh huh.... and that explains why a few nights later he lit up a copper chopper cockpit.

      --
      Read my blog: HansMast.com
  107. Re:Slashdot Bias for Nerds. Stuff that's Misleadin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Or am I completely wrong, and the slashdot audience has become the lowest common denominator.

    So, you are saying Fark's lowest common denominator is better then slashdot's lowest common denominator?

    Now that's an insult!

  108. Patriot Act is Stupid by tacocat · · Score: 1

    We've messed up again.

    Laser Targeting systems are Infra Red, not Visible. So marking a plane for a missile wouldn't be identified until you were going, "Oh Shit! That looks like a missile!.. BOOM!".

    Has anyone considered how easy it would be to carry a knife onto an airplane? How about a ceramic kitchen knife. No X-Ray footprint. But that's moot because no plane in the US is going to allow a bunch of whack-o's another opportunity. It would suicide to even try.

    Obviously our Nations sense of humor was damaged as much as the Trade Center was.

    1. Re:Patriot Act is Stupid by phoenix321 · · Score: 1

      Anything inside your bag makes an excellent X-Ray footprint. As a kid I've carried numerous large and small SuperSoakers in my baggage on holidays. While the bags passed through the scanner, I curiously looked at the X-Ray screens, and voilà, the shape of my SuperSoakers were clearly to be seen. And they're made entirely of plastic.

      What you carry in your handbag was not screened at that time and a ceramic knife wouldn't set off a metal detector, you mean. Today I wouldn't be surprised if they scanned everything, even the films inside the cameras just to be sure...

      If non-metal objects wouldn't leave an X-Ray footprint, cancer detection by X-Ray screening would be useless, you know...

    2. Re:Patriot Act is Stupid by tacocat · · Score: 1

      It's easy to mask. Thats why they have to sit a certain way when taking x-rays. If you tape a ceramic knife inside your hard copy of Cryptonomicon it's not likely to raise an eyebrow.

  109. I guess I don't understand... by Jaidon · · Score: 0

    ...how anyone doing this can be accused of intentionally trying to blind pilots without some sort of equipment to actually aim the laser at the cockpit. I don't know about the rest of you, but my eyesight isn't quite good enough to hit a mark that far away that accurately. I'm not trying to defend this man's actions, but I do find that the sentence is a bit on the harsh side. Perhaps they were trying to make an example out of him. Furthermore, would it not be possible to installed polarized mirror windows in these planes to prevent this problem? I just did a very simple test in the comfort of my own home involving a pair of mirrored sunglasses and a laser point. Guess what? It works. The government needs to pay as much attention to solving problems as it does to dishing out punishment for those who cause them.

  110. Oh great.... by Nonillion · · Score: 1

    Another item the TSA will take / detain you on your next trip. While this guy certainly wasn't using his brain, he doesn't deserve 25 years and a 500k fine. Just another gross abuse of the so called "patriot act".

    In the eyes of animals, ALL humans are sadistic cannibals.

    --
    "I bow to no man" - Riddick
  111. He must have good aim by SlayerofGods · · Score: 1

    To hit the cockpit of a plane traveling 100s of MPH so far above him....

    --

    Technology, the cause of and solution to all of life's problems.
  112. Your Dad needs to get back on his meds. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seriously. That is all.

  113. May not always be a laser pointer... by user404 · · Score: 1

    Who knows, next time it may be someone 'painting' a target w/ the laser for something heavier, or a laser sight/ranger... Personally if I see red dots centering on something, must assume that laser rifle/pistol sight...

    --
    User not found: Please check the world and try again.
  114. Intent is a matter for the courts by winkydink · · Score: 1

    and that's where he's headed.

    --

    "I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey

  115. The moronic part by EvilMidnightBomber · · Score: 1

    She said her client was playing with his young daughter, using the laser's narrow green beam to point at stars Ironically, now he'll be in jail 8.7 years from now when the beam finishes its return trip, (assuming Alpha Centauri) so he won't be able to show his daughter what the hell he was pointing at.

  116. Re: Apples and oranges by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How much does trying to crash a commercial plane generally net you?

  117. why our laws are screwed up by AviLazar · · Score: 1

    you can sit 25 years in jail for pointing a laser pointer at a helicopter

    And for murder can get out in under 5 years.

    Yea our laws at work. Does someone ever review some of the laws and just make a flat out decision that some of the penalties are just assinine (in both directions).

    --

    I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
  118. paranoia by willCode4Beer.com · · Score: 2, Funny

    I agree, kill 100 with a leatherman might be difficult.
    Now, if you had a plastic spoon AND a leatherman...

    --
    ----- If communism is a system where the government owns business, what do you call a system where business owns govern
    1. Re:paranoia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree, kill 100 with a leatherman might be difficult.
      Now, if you had a plastic spoon AND a leatherman...

      Damn, imagine what he could do with a spork!

    2. Re:paranoia by sconeu · · Score: 1

      No, you need a wheelbarrow! A holocaust cloak doesn't hurt either!

      --
      General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
    3. Re:paranoia by jpetts · · Score: 1

      Is that you, MacGyver?

      --
      Call me old fashioned, but I like a dump to be as memorable as it is devastating - Bender
  119. Intent and thought crimes and discrimination by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If he INTENDED to do paint a plane he should do serious time.
    If his intentions were innocent he should not.

    But how do you determine intent?

    Imagine a real terrorist getting his young child out and "playing around" with his laser pointer but he's really trying to blind an airplane? There's no way to tell what his motives are.

    When he's arrested, watch him scream "race discrimination."

    Either he's justly convicted and serves a long time or he's let go with a light sentence and deported.

    Imagine the same guy but he's not a terrorist, he really is just goofing off.

    Either he's UNJUSTLY convicted and serves a long sentence or he's justly convicted on a minor charge and deported.

    Now imagine the same two guys but they are white and from Canada instead of the Middle East.

    If you are on the jury, do you convict both on the lesser charge of reckless endangerment, or on the serious charge of terrorism? Do you convict one of the lesser charge and one of terrorism? Why? Remember, in all 4 cases, the evidence is identical - a man playing with a laser pointer who claims to be just goofing off.

    I'm afraid that in the real world, skin color and national origin will make the difference.

  120. Ease Up on the Paranoia by King+Louie · · Score: 2, Informative

    They may be charging this guy under the Patriot Act, but it has been a federal offense to interfere with the safe operation of an aricraft for many years. I was a Marine Corps helicopter pilot for 11 years, and back in the mid 90s we had someone flashing our aircraft at night with one of those ultra-bright (million candle power or so) flashlights. After several near-crashes, we finally pinpointed his house, and that night he got a visit from his friendly neighborhood FBI agent.

    So please, stop acting as if every enforcement of a provision of the Patriot Act is some new depradation by the current administration. There may be some provisions of that act that should be revisited, but that doesn't make the entire thing some vast conspiracy to revoke our civil liberties.

    1. Re:Ease Up on the Paranoia by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      oh? seems by what you're saying the Patriot Act has no use in this situation, as existing law is just fine. In fact, I would say the same thing abuot ANY crime that truly needs federal law enforcement action.

    2. Re:Ease Up on the Paranoia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Justice Department officials said they do not suspect terrorism in any of the cases, but said Banach's arrest shows how seriously they take the matter.

      Yeah, nothing to worry about here. Just an anti-terrorism law applied to someone not suspected of being a terrorist. I'm sick of all these whiny paranoid liberals making wild unfounded claims that the Patriot Act will be used against non-terrorists and then getting all bent out of shape when it actually happens. Our morally perfect government has already assured us that this won't happen, so any evidence to the contrary should be ignored. The matter is closed. The Patriot Act protects your freedoms and cannot ever be abused. President Bush said so, what more do you nutcases need?

    3. Re:Ease Up on the Paranoia by dynamo · · Score: 1

      But this IS a new offensively facist act. If there were already laws around, why is this dude not being charged under those? The patriot act is for 'terrorists', and the more they are willing to use those laws for 'non-terrorists', the closer we all are to being treated like (non-us-authorized) terrorists.

    4. Re:Ease Up on the Paranoia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh quit whining. He probably got pissed at all the helos buzzing his home at 3:00 a.m. I would flash you with the strongest possible light if you flew over my home 6 nights a week.

    5. Re:Ease Up on the Paranoia by Shadowlore · · Score: 1

      They may be charging this guy under the Patriot Act, but it has been a federal offense to interfere with the safe operation of an aricraft for many years. I was a Marine Corps helicopter pilot for 11 years, and back in the mid 90s we had someone flashing our aircraft at night with one of those ultra-bright (million candle power or so) flashlights. After several near-crashes, we finally pinpointed his house, and that night he got a visit from his friendly neighborhood FBI agent.

      So please, stop acting as if every enforcement of a provision of the Patriot Act is some new depradation by the current administration. There may be some provisions of that act that should be revisited, but that doesn't make the entire thing some vast conspiracy to revoke our civil liberties.


      Yes, it was already a crime to interfere with the operation of an aircraft. So why charge him under a terrorism statue as opposed to the interfering with an airliner operation statue?

      Maybe it'd lack the sensationalism and "justification" of the new infringements?

      Oh, and BTW, did the guy visited get put in prison for 25 years? I'd be likely to wager he got a good talking to and that was it.

      --
      My Suburban burns less gasoline than your Prius.
  121. What about instruments? by AnonymousCactus · · Score: 1

    Recently I read something about pilots not really needing the windows in the cockpit because because basically everything can be done with instruments. This makes me wonder if the laser really blinded the pilots or if it somehow blinded their instruments. Any thoughts on how a laser beam would affect whatever instruments are used in planes these days? It seems if the instruments were operational then this in the worst case would be like flying through low-level clouds because as the plane got closer to the ground the laser beam could no longer track the plane because it would be blocked by objects on the ground...unless this guy had a direct line of site to the runway.

  122. Pretty Smooth by quaketripp · · Score: 1

    He also was charged with lying to federal officers. Why do you lie in this situation? Just to jump to conclusions, it seems to be a common trend to not take responsibility for your actions. All he had to say was "Yes, I shined the LASER on your helicopter and I apologize. It was not my intent to distract and possibly blind the pilots." It also mentions the fact that he had a GREEEN laser pointer. It must have said somewhere on the box that it was upwards of 35 times brighter than your common red laser pointer. Yeah, laser pointers are neat, but they're a tool more than anything. I've had then shined on me not knowing where they came from, and not once did I think I was being painted by a sniper - I was simply upset at the fact that it would possibly be shined in my eyes. Smack with an a Encyclopedia set, letter by letter , send him home with each and tell him to a get a clue. Fine a couple hundred thousand to be used on more 2-ply cotton toilet paper for the headquarters, and send him to jail for a few years. Or, just have him get his Helicopter license, send him up and have him try to fly with lasers in his eyes.

  123. I have just got to ask by Cow007 · · Score: 1

    Why? Why would someone do that other than for obvious reasons. It would seem that he isn't the dangerous terrorist the charges imply beacause a real terrorist woulden't be dumb enough to shine the laser at the police. I suppose that I could see somebody doing stupid things with fancy lazers and whatnot. Thats why I am never going to get a gun beacause I would problably go around looking for things to shoot at.

    --
    411 Y0UR 8453 4R3 8310NG 70 U5!! -NSA
  124. Green laserpointers and pointing at the sky by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Next time it may be a hobby astronomer just showing his kids the sky with a green laserpointer:

    http://www.skypointer.net/

    25 years prison for pointing a laserpointer... c'mon that is *totally* out of proportion.

  125. Red vs. Green lasers by voss · · Score: 1

    Apparently recently green laser items have been sold to the general public. Unlike red lasers , green lasers apparently have a far greater range( a green laser pointer can have rannge of a couple miles) and are far brighter than the red lasers.

    Why would the general public need a laser with a two mile range?

    1. Re:Red vs. Green lasers by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      actually, the human eye is much more sensitive to light in about the greenish-yellow portion of the spectrum...the green laser pointers aren't stronger.

  126. This is just pathetic. . . by Fantastic+Lad · · Score: 1


    They couldn't come up with something more believable in their quest for domestic 'Terrorist' activities, (read: Excuses to put regular people in prison for no good reason), than laser pointers?

    Think about it. . .

    The whole sparkly, brand-new Fear is that airplane pilots might be blinded in their cockpits by laser pointers, right?

    Okay. Explain this: How exactly does a laser-pointer 'terrorist' go about blinding a pilot from ground level? Those cockpit windows, aside from being quite small, were last time I flew, situated on top of the plane's nose.

    Are these domestic laser-pointer 'terrorists' standing on mountain tops? Seriously! The claim isn't even logistically possible!

    It seems clear to me that this is simply more horse-hooey. --But, hey, whatever works. People obviously eat this crap up. I even saw one post below where a guy was complaining that 25 years was not enough prison time for an evil laser pointer 'terrorist'! Maybe we need newer, stronger laws! --And think about it. . . The guy arrested by the flying Storm Troopers, if he had done this a year ago, wouldn't have faced any charges at all because it would have been before the stupid fear-hype. --Which just goes to show that television propaganda really does work.

    Bit by bit, the anti-terrorist laws will be turned in upon the American citizens. That's how facsism works. Aim out, then control within.

    But, laser-pointers? Come on!


    -FL

  127. How dangerous could it possibly be? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I remember reading in some other article that the distance between the origin of laser and the plane was around 15 miles. At this distance laser beam will widen to the point where the cross-section of the beam will be around 1 meter:

    C ~ L * lambda / d
    L - distance; L = 15 miles = 2.4*10^4 m
    lambda - laser wavelength; let's say 500 nm = 5*10^-7 m
    d - laser aperture; probably under 1 cm = 10^-2 m

    Therefore C > 1 m

    Diameter of a human pupil is 2-8 mm. This means that at any given moment, no more than 1/50 000th of the laser beam power will enter the eye of the pilot.

    And the laser wasn't too powerful to begin with. Maximum output of a typical retail laser pointer is around 5 milliwatt.

    1. Re:How dangerous could it possibly be? by fishbowl · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "At this distance laser beam will widen to the point where the cross-section of the beam will be around 1 meter"

      Diffused into the laminated glass of the airplane cockpit, that would be just about right to obscure the visibility, wouldn't it?

      I think people are jumping to the conclusion of "retina damage", even though that's not really the claim being made. Obscuring the pilot's visibility is.

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
  128. Oh, that article... by abb3w · · Score: 2, Funny
    The slashdot story is missing the link. No comment about the editor who posted it.

    Are you implying that they may be a missing link? Or just noting that it was from the "too-bright-therefore-not-so-bright" department editor?

    Eh. Errare humanum est.

    --
    //Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
  129. well of course by i+3+joo! · · Score: 0

    The Feds arrested him after he flashed a police helicopter

    For public display of indecency, no doubt.

  130. Painting? by rscrawford · · Score: 1

    So, shining a laser directly at something is called painting?

    Huh. I always thought it was called pointing.

    Guess you learn something new every day.

    --
    -- The reason it's called the right wing? Irony.
    1. Re:Painting? by IdntUnknwn · · Score: 2, Informative

      Another context where you may hear painting is in sniping. You paint a target with a laser beam for better accuracy.

  131. Idiocy should be its own punishment. by Lord+Kano · · Score: 1, Insightful

    This asshole pointed a commercial laser at an airliner. He temporarily blinded the captain and copilot while they were trying to land. When the police sent a helicopter to find the source of the laser, this idiot pointed his laser at the police helicopter. He lied to the FBI and tried to pass the blame on to his child.

    This isn't some teenager doing something stupid. This is a 38 year old man who should know better.

    25 years and a half million dollar fine does sound pretty harsh to me, but if he had caused that plane to crash it wouldn't seem nearly harsh enough.

    Fuck this guy.

    Move along, nothing to care about here.

    LK

    --
    "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
  132. Why are the feds trying to ban lasers? by phr2 · · Score: 1
    This stuff about taking out airplanes with them is clearly nonsense. They have some other problem with lasers, e.g. that lasers can be used for medium distance high speed data communication without wires and without FCC-controlled radio broadcasting.

    Are they trying to make sure we can't communicate with each other without government approval?

  133. Home repair jobs!? by badmonkey · · Score: 2, Funny

    From the article: "Thousands of inexpensive lasers used for home repair jobs were sold before Christmas, some for as little as $15."

    What kind of home repair can you perform with a laser pointer?

    1. Re:Home repair jobs!? by dick+johnson · · Score: 1

      For about $20 you can buy a laser level. No more need for chalk lines or or fashioned levels.

      -dj

      --
      - dj
    2. Re:Home repair jobs!? by badmonkey · · Score: 1

      oh yeah, duh, forgot about those. for some reason i was thinking about around the house laser welding :)

    3. Re:Home repair jobs!? by SithLordOfLanc · · Score: 0

      Hang pictures in a straight line or do tile work on the wall or floor.

    4. Re:Home repair jobs!? by fishbowl · · Score: 1


      "What kind of home repair can you perform with a laser pointer?"

      None that cannot be done more conveniently with a chalk line and a spirit level.

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    5. Re:Home repair jobs!? by mengel · · Score: 1
      Laser levels, dude. A level line all around the room at whatever height, so you can hang all your cabinets, pictures, whatever on the same level.

      Also laser measurers; don't hang a tape measure hook, and stretch it 10 feet just to have it jump off -- just shine the light from here to the wall and it tells you how far away the wall is to +-0.5mm.

      There are probably others i'm not thinking of just now...

      --
      - "History shows again and again how nature points out the folly of men" -- Blue Oyster Cult, 'Godzilla'
    6. Re:Home repair jobs!? by fishbowl · · Score: 1


      "For about $20 you can buy a laser level. No more need for chalk lines or or fashioned levels."

      The funny thing about that is, in order to level the beam, you still need the old-fashoned spirit level!

      I prefer chalk line. I also find that dead reckoning can be more effective in an asymetrical room. Houses were built by carpenters working in inches not millimeters. Also, houses change shape. What's level on a meter doesn't always look right!

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    7. Re:Home repair jobs!? by shiftless · · Score: 1

      Ever heard of a "laser level"?

    8. Re:Home repair jobs!? by Shadowlore · · Score: 1

      Gees man don't you watch commericals? ;)

      Lasers used in home repair are the ones that project a straight (enough) line for things like laying tile, lining up shelving, and so on. Not to mention distance determination without those pain in the arse measuring tapes across the room difficulties.

      --
      My Suburban burns less gasoline than your Prius.
  134. "I'm not sure why so many were used this month" by glrotate · · Score: 1

    Then you're extrordinarily dense. The difference is intent. One scenario indicates a malicious person who will seek out ways to harm. The other may simply be a moment of stupidity. See mens rea

    1. Re:"I'm not sure why so many were used this month" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The difference is intent.

      Perhaps I'm harsh in my interpretations, but I don't think a criminal should get off easy just because he says "oops, my bad... didn't mean to do that."

      I understand what intent is. It's also my understanding that "intent follows the bullet" (or laser, as the case may be). He intended to shine a laser at an airliner pilot. Not realizing that his intended actions could have killed dozens of people is not a measure of intent, just of stupidity. Stupid criminals go to jail, too.

    2. Re:"I'm not sure why so many were used this month" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then you're extrordinarily dense. The difference is intent. One scenario indicates a malicious person who will seek out ways to harm. The other may simply be a moment of stupidity.

      You may be equally dense. From my understanding of the case, the man intentionally pointed a high-powered laser at an aircraft on landing approach. There was nothing accidental (or unintentional, rather) about it. Whether or not he fully grasped the consequences of his actions isn't important. He intentionally did something very dangerous, and that calls for criminal punishment.

    3. Re:"I'm not sure why so many were used this month" by EvanED · · Score: 1

      You don't need intent. Doing something dangerous, even if it is just a moment of stupidity, can be illegal. See reckless endangerment.

      It appears that there aren't many states with a full-blown endangerment crime, but all I looked at had one for kids. Surely there were a few kids on the plane.

    4. Re:"I'm not sure why so many were used this month" by terrymr · · Score: 1

      That requires intent to be reckless ... seriously.

    5. Re:"I'm not sure why so many were used this month" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The other reply is correct... if you knew that your actions could cause an accident, then you are guilty of being reckless. If you didn't know that shining a laser at a plane could blind them, then you're not guilty of being reckless. However, there could be a law that says you're not allowed to shine lasers at planes, in which case, as long as you intended to shine the laser at the plane, then you're guilty, even if you didn't know about the law or the consequences.

      Either way, if you did damage, whether or not you intended to do it, you are liable for those damages.

      At least that's the way it's supposed to work.

  135. I think it's mostly for yucks. 25 years is absurd by TheLittleJetson · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Immagine you just bought a $700 laser pointer. You're amazed that you can see a reflection from stuff really far away. Hey look, I can even shine it on that plane overhead!

    Really, I bet that's the extent of it. This whole "THEY ARE CRASHING PLANES WITH THEIR LASER GUN" is just more post-911 hysteria. 25 years is a long time. This is an equivalent penalty to MURDER, and this is far from it. I think a stiff fine would be enough to stop folks from doing this.

    More importantly, this is just one more case where the PATRIOT act, which gives some constitutionally-questionable powers to law enforcement, for the specific purpose of apprehending terrorists, has been used on someone who isn't a terrorist.

    Funny thing is, I saw this on the news like 2 days after I saw a link to one of those uber-laser-pointers that burns holes in plastic cups (I believe I was linked from /.) News reporters were like "this is sophisticated laser tracking" and my parents were like "I wonder if it's terrorists?" I said "no, it's probably some guy with one of these laser pointers I just saw on the web, but if they catch him, he'll be prosecuted as a terrorist." Sucks being right all the time about this kind of stuff...

  136. What kind of laser? by Ratbert42 · · Score: 1

    I've read a few things about the laser he was reading, which seem to contradict themselves.

    First I read that he said it was a piece of test equipment for fiber optic cables (and he used it for his job). Sounds like it could be powerful?

    Then I read it was a green laser and he ordered it for $100 from a website. (Thinkgeek?) That doesn't sound that powerful then.

  137. Maybe people are getting fed up with the noise. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...Of the airplanes constantly overhead, I know there has been may times I thought to myself 'is that plane ever going to go away'?

    Maybe someone should check if these laser incidents are commonly in areas of high airplane traffic, or in areas with a significant number of complaints about noisy planes.

  138. Les Concerts aux Etats-Unis? by Dogtanian · · Score: 1

    Does this mean that Jean-Michel Jarre won't be doing any more laser lightshows for fear of being bombed by the US military?

    He's French, so they'll probably find an excuse to bomb him anyway.

    --
    "Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
  139. Read the facts.. The guy deserves it! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    At first I thought the guy is getting screwed due to nationwide coverage of the issue but after reading the facts I think he deserves it.

    He's been charged with shining the light into the cockpit of a landing plane, thus distracting pilots at a critical time.

    He was then found when he was shining the same laser into a helicopter that was out to search for the source of that laser, *with the pilot of that original plane* on-board to help! Since there was quite a time gap between these events this leads me to believe these were not two separate incidents.

    He is additionally charged with lying to authorities about the whole thing.

    He's not going to get 25yrs but a nice lesson to take responsibility will be fair.

    If he was playing with his kids pointing at stars and this was a complete accident it would be a different story. What he was doing appears deliberate and dangerous. If it indeed was an accident then I certainly hope he can prove that, otherwise I'll shed no tears..

  140. But officer, I was just hanging cabinets... by mengel · · Score: 1
    Just think, you're a carpenter, using your Laser level to hang the cabinets in a room level, and you happen to be near the airport. Suddenly, the FBI bursts in and arrests you for terrorism, 'cause the window is open and the laser light happened to shine on an airplane.
    PRODUCT DETAILS
    4 times brighter laser for best line visibility. Great for brightly lit conditions.
    360 rotation for expansive 120 ft. work area
    3M® Command Strips® mount the tool to any surface and remove with no damage - work hands free
    Dual bubble vials are easy to read for accurate horizontal and vertical layouts
    Distance control pivot action for adjusting line length and visibility
    IDEAL FOR
    - Hanging Cabinets or Heavy Shelving
    - Leveling Trim Work
    - Ceilings & Flooring
    - Picture Arrangements
    - Getting Arrested by FBI :-O

    This is getting really silly, and really scary, both at the same time.

    --
    - "History shows again and again how nature points out the folly of men" -- Blue Oyster Cult, 'Godzilla'
  141. America is lost by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "a high-powered laser"

    Perhaps you read, but didn't understand it.

    Or are you trolling? If so, nice job!

  142. Range? by EvilCowzGoMoo · · Score: 1
    Has anyone tried to keep a laser dot still on a powerpoint presentation from 30ft away?

    Now think about that little dancing dot and imagin trying to even hit an airplain sized object from 4000 feet away?

    Now imagine hitting the cockpit, and then imagin hitting a piolets eyeball?!?!

    Does anyone else think this is rediculous?

  143. Steady Hand on the guy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If this guy can hold a laser beam on the cockpit of a commerical airliner long enough for the pilots to even notice it, he has:
    An extremely steady hand (unless he's within a couple of yards).
    A very wide beam
    An excellent location.

  144. He knew it was eye unsafe by Migraineman · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The kicker in this case is two-fold: a) he did it more than once; b) he knew the laser he was using could cause eye damage. So this isn't a case of Joe Sixpack getting a laser-pointer from his girlfriend, ripping the package open and heading outside while hollerin' "Hey y'all, watch this!" Nope, Doofus here pointed his fiber-optic test equipment (which he warned the attorneys about being dangerous) at more than one aircraft on more than one occasion. He can try to plead with the judge that he didn't know there would be any people on the aircraft, or that he didn't think that there would be danger beyond X distance from the source, but I don't think anyone is going to fall for it. There's no doubt that the lawyers are going to publicly crucify him, but this guy's actions were clearly negligent.

    1. Re:He knew it was eye unsafe by swb · · Score: 1

      Even worse, he lied to the gubmint when they first asked, saying "my daughter did it."

      He should have owned up to it in a shocked way and said "get out -- you can't even see this thing 3500 feet away!"

    2. Re:He knew it was eye unsafe by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      It's no longer politically correct to associate a "Southern Accent," with stupidity. Please choose from one of the following:

      1) The, ah, New England lobstaman.
      2) Pleased to not be using an Indian accent. Thank you, come again.
      3) It's alwizzy okizzy to make fun of da blizzacks.
      4) I am le monkey de surrendier! Cigarette?
      5) What's this aboot, eh?
      6) Like, it's totally ok to assoshi.. assoc.. OMG!! I totally can't spell.
      7) Arrrrrr, matey!
      8) Wat you be sayin to Miz Cleo darlin? You iz da fadda!

      Any departure from the above selections must be pre-approved before belittling may commence. Thank you for your cooperation.

    3. Re:He knew it was eye unsafe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      b) he knew the laser he was using could cause eye damage.

      And he probably also knew there was nofucking way he could possibly track the beam in the cockpit long enough to blind anyboday.

    4. Re:He knew it was eye unsafe by blitz487 · · Score: 1

      Oh come on. There's an enormous difference between it being unsafe at 5 feet and unsafe from a couple miles away.

    5. Re:He knew it was eye unsafe by More+Trouble · · Score: 1

      this guy's actions were clearly negligent

      25 years worth of negligence?

      :w

    6. Re:He knew it was eye unsafe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bzzzt, sorry, wrong. That's why it is a LASER.

      Laser beams are COHERENT light, and still bright from a couple miles away. Look it up.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser

      If he had just used a little pocket laser pointer it would not be as dangerous as the really bright laser he did use.

    7. Re:He knew it was eye unsafe by Tarwn · · Score: 1

      A pirate walks into a bar with a ship's wheel down the front of his pants and a parrot perched on top of it.
      The bartender gives hime a look and asks, "What's the deal with that parrot?"
      The pirate looks at the parrot and then back up, "Arrr! He's Driving Me Nuts"

      Arr Matey :)

      --
      Whee signature.
    8. Re:He knew it was eye unsafe by ckedge · · Score: 1

      When I was a physics grad student we had to take a number of half day hazards courses, one for each type of hazard we had in any of the labs were were going to be using for our research.

      -cryogenic liquids
      -high voltage systems
      -compressed gas systems
      -acids and other chemicals (storage, handling, etc)
      -lasers

      The one on lasers was interesting because they gave you a 20 page book which gave you all the math and exposure/limit charts and information you needed to calculate *for yourself* the dangers and limits of the laser you were using were.

      *Then* after all the courses, they asked you to write up a multipage essay describing in detail all of the systems in all of the labs and their hazards in explicit detail as per the course material ("The Photoluminescence laboratory uses a 10mW 300nm CW laser ... blah blah ... capable of this type of eye damage if direct, capable of this type of eye damage when specularly reflected, requires these types of safety procedures, requires these types of interlocks, here is all the math I used to calculate all of the above, etc etc).

      The feds should IMPOSE and require anyone who has access to a laser (other than puny pointers) or laser parts - the requirement to take such a course.

      Just like the occupational health and safety group in my home province and university required of me. ...and nowdays the course should also have a page saying "no fucking around pointing it into other people's eyes even if the expected exposure at the expected distances will be below maximums - as the cost of police investigations mean your ass will be suitably fried just for causing the need for an investigation in the first place".

      Maybe in IQ test too. Personally I don't mind at all if the guy burns. I viciously hate inconsiderate assholes, and he was definitely being an inconsiderate asshole. Serves him right.

    9. Re:He knew it was eye unsafe by Migraineman · · Score: 1

      I wasn't going to get into the whole "is 25 years appropriate" arguement, but since you asked ...

      I don't think FPMITA prison is appropriate for this doofus. Take away his lasers. He's a fiber optic tech (or something related?) Take away his access to lasers. Force a career change on him. Tatoo "asshat" on his forehead. House arrest with a tracking collar would probably do fine. A year of intense scrutiny will alter his outlook, and that's the point, right? This guy's probably more ignorant than fundamentally evil. A prison sentence makes you and me pay (financially) for his transgression. I'm not interested in that. Prison should be reserved for truely violent and dangerous folks.

      If he does it *again* after all that, then it's definitely malicious. Toss him in the clink if he even *looks* at an Edmund Scientific catalog ...

    10. Re:He knew it was eye unsafe by Shadowlore · · Score: 1

      Insightful? man today's /. mods really need to learn that word.

      b) he knew the laser he was using could cause eye damage

      Yeah, at close range.

      he didn't think that there would be danger beyond X distance from the source, but I don't think anyone is going to fall for it.

      Thats actually a reasonable defense. Laser light shows are limited to not aiming their lasers at 3000+ feet (somehow -- don't ask I didn't write the law). Could it be that the beam dispersion is enough at that distance to reasonably conclude the danger of blinding is negligible? Perhaps.

      If 3000 feet is good enough, how about 8500 feet straight up and a few miles away? Even more reasonable.

      A maglit penlight can temporarily blind you at close enough range but that doesn't mean it's folly to think that a person 30 feet away is in danger of blindness.

      Doofus here pointed his fiber-optic test equipment (which he warned the attorneys about being dangerous) at more than one aircraft on more than one occasion.

      No, the description of what he was doing is not consistent with aiming it at airplanes? Funny how you seem to add that bit of misinformation in to butress your weak argument. Oh wait, you didn't RTFA, right?

      He claimed he was using it as a pointer for stargazing and pointing out clouds. This is not uncommon. It just happens he caught an airplane in the beam.

      Insightful? Not even. It isn't even informative or above average in any way. Much like this post. mods, if you feel the need to take action based on this post, mod the parent back down where it belongs. That's much more just and correct. ;)

      --
      My Suburban burns less gasoline than your Prius.
  145. Look into the laser beam... by DaveAtFraud · · Score: 1
    ... as you are driving at high speed on a narrow mountain road and tell us whether "...some physical damage could have been done..." to your vehicle. Yeah, chances are the laser beam wouldn't affect the vehicle directly.

    The problem is that most of the other terms the article could have used (illuminated, painted, shined on, etc.) don't indicate the gravity of the danger this bozo was causing. Here is a brief article explaining some of the risks of even very low power lasers such as laser pointers (Class 3a laser generally with a power level of less than 5 milliwatts).

    --
    They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty.
    Ben
    1. Re:Look into the laser beam... by Lawrence_Bird · · Score: 1

      quote: In the Ophthalmology editorial, Dr. Mainster explains that laser pointers do not pose the same risk to adults because "pupil, blink, and aversion response terminate accidental laser pointer exposures in less than 0.25 seconds."

      I'm not an expert by any means but I believe the spot size in mm goes as
      initial size (mm)+2*divergence(mrad)*Dist(m)
      to make the math easier, assume an initial size of 0 and
      a divergence of 0.5mrad and dist of 1000m would give an
      apparent beam size of 1m at 1000m (~3000ft). The intensity
      would be reduced to about 3.2e-4Io (Io=initial intensity).

      Someone with laser/optics expertise please check those
      numbers, but it seems to me these very low power devices
      would not have been damaging at that distance and dimmer
      than a flashlight. And this doesn't take into consideration
      the difficulty of keeping a 1 meter spot on a moving
      target a mile+ away.

    2. Re:Look into the laser beam... by DaveAtFraud · · Score: 1
      Also from the article:
      This warning was prompted by reports of two school-based incidences, in which a teacher experienced a 10-day after-image and a cheerleader suffered vision loss from laser pointer exposures.
      I guess the "do not pose a risk to adults" part explains the cheerleader not blinking and thus having problems but not the teacher. Again, these incidents would probably be at distances of say within a classroom (the teacher) or at most across a football field (the cheerleader).

      BTW, from a different article on the incident... The bozo warned one of the cops not to look into the beam because, "... it could blind him."

      --
      They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty.
      Ben
  146. It's easy to track a plane with a laser by foniksonik · · Score: 1

    If said plane is flying directly at you.

    Don't know the details nor did I RTA... just an observation that seems to be missing herein..

    --
    A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
  147. not going to work by blitz487 · · Score: 1
    "But if they could do this, why not outlaw all guns and rifles in the US! I mean, couldn't THESE be used on approaching and departing airliners? A 460 Weatherby Magnum rifle could do some serious damage...maybe bust open a fuel tank if aimed with any degree of accuracy"


    There's a reason why fighter aircraft are armed with high rate machine cannons. There's a reason why antiaircraft weapons are cannons. A handheld popgun isn't going to bring down an aircraft, even if it manages to poke a small hole in one of the multiple separate fuel tanks. No way. Nevertheless, anyone attempting to do such should be hammered good and hard by the justice system.

    1. Re:not going to work by NotoriousQ · · Score: 1

      If you can aim a laser through the cockpit at a pilot's eye, you can put a bullet through the same spot.

      --
      badness 10000
    2. Re:not going to work by blitz487 · · Score: 1
      If you can aim a laser through the cockpit at a pilot's eye, you can put a bullet through the same spot.

      Not likely for several reasons:

      • Lasers can be aimed line-of-sight. Rifles have to take into account wind, drop, and the target has to be led.
      • Lasers spread out over distance, at the cockpit it might be several feet in diameter. Not so for bullets.
      • Lasers leave a visible track in the sky, making it easier to bring the beam on target.
      • Cockpit glass is made of ballistic materials. It should stop an ordinary bullet.
    3. Re:not going to work by NotoriousQ · · Score: 1

      My claim is that a laser pointed at the airplane has about as much damage potential as a bullet. The whole whether it hits or not is not the point. I should stop speaking figuratively from now on.

      Basically, what would cause a more dangerous situation...me shining a laser at the airplane, or me shooting it? Which one is more likely to cause an accident. Whether or not I actually cause any real damage is irrelevant...the point is to disrupt the pilot, since that is what the laser does. Does the pilot has more chance to lose control of the plain when hit by a laser, or when the plane gets hit by bullets.

      Besides, the plane in question is a sessna. I doubt that can stand up to a few rifle rounds.

      --
      badness 10000
  148. What if you were the pilot? by wibskey · · Score: 0

    It seems many people are pretty quick to defend this guy, but how would you feel if you were the pilot?

    What if you were speeding down the highway with your children in your car and some jackass was shining a laser pointer into your car? Even if it's not directly in your eyes, it's still distracting and annoying.

    Now imagine your flying a plane full of people, who you are responsible for getting to their destination safely and you have some jackass on the ground pulling the same stunt.

    Come on. The guy even does the same thing to the police helicopter.

    In custody, he tells the FBI agent not to shine the laser in his eyes "because it could blind him".

    Jackass.

  149. Re:I think it's mostly for yucks. 25 years is absu by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Immagine you just bought a $700 laser pointer. You're amazed that you can see a reflection from stuff really far away. Hey look, I can even shine it on that plane overhead!

    Yeah. I'm sure that's exactly what he had in mind.

    Man, I'd love to hear you the next time you get pulled over. "Officer, I wasn't speeding, I simply marveling at how my accelerator goes all the way to the floor!"

  150. Re:"Laser printing could lead to 25-year prison te by putzin · · Score: 1

    Kudos, this is the first time I've lauged out loud at a post, and not even read more than the headline. Thanks.

    --
    Bah
  151. Correct me if im wrong by g0bshiTe · · Score: 1

    but, will a $15 green laser reach that altitude? How in an enclosed cockpit do pilots see they are bieng painted? COuld this rash of laser tagging be the work of those making crop circles?

    --
    I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
  152. How can you reach a pilot from the ground? by Val314 · · Score: 1

    this may sound like a stupid question, but how is it physicly possible to blind a pilot from the ground?

    i mean you are obviously under the plane and the windows are in the top side of the airplane.. so how is it possible for the laser beam to even enter the cockpit.

    or are there any laser-sensitive stuff on the bottom of the plane that can cause something (other than showing a little red dot)?

  153. How much time, actually? by spud603 · · Score: 1
    I'm always a bit skeptical of the "up to n year in prison" statements. In most cases, that's the maximum sentence the judge can give. In cases such as this, in which the intent was probably not in line with the motivation (however misguided) behind the law, I would expect a much more lenient punishment. Maybe a plea bargon with a fine and a promise to not own any more green lasers?

    Of course, I'm not a lawyer, so I don't actually know what I'm talking about. I've just been through the "well, we could charge you with X, but if you cooperate we'll let you off with X/30" routine enough myself, that I tend to be skeptical of the threats made by police/government.

  154. Right, because by aristus · · Score: 2, Insightful
    adding a dimension of moral retribution, and intentionally skewing justice "to make an example" is the way we want to go, right?

    What's sickening is that in a way, you are right. Dramatically overpunishing a few to cow the rest is much more efficient than dispensing justice fairly to all. Ask any dictator, junta, or Catholic schoolteacher.

    --
    Sometimes seventeen/Syllables aren't enough to/Express a complete
    1. Re:Right, because by danheskett · · Score: 1

      The man has not been sentenced. Under the law he *could* get 25 years. COULD. "Facing up to 25 years" does mean "he will serve 25 years".

      What this guy did could have very easily led to the death of 250 people. This wasn't some little toy laser on a keychain. Granted it wasn't a friggin light sabre, but it was in the realm of possibility that this plane and/or the pilots could have been hurt seriously or killed.

      So far the *charge* fits the act perfectly. At trial things like motive, intent, naiveitte, and other factors will be raised by his defense. The judge and/or jury and/or prosecutor will dispense final justice.

  155. We need laser pen control NOW,... by stankulp · · Score: 0, Troll

    ...if we can save the life of just one airliner, it will be worth it.

    --
    We must be alert to the danger that public policy could become captive to a scientific-technological elite. - Eisenhower
  156. The guy is moron... by jzarling · · Score: 2, Informative

    There are just certain things you should have the common sense not to do.
    And directing a laser pointer into the eyes, or in this case cockpit of a plane trying to land is one of them.
    Landing my Piper at night is tense enough, your flying off instruments, that are lit up about like your cars gauges. The runway's landing lights give you an idea of distance but little else.

    --
    It is better to be the hammer than the anvil.
    1. Re:The guy is moron... by the+pickle · · Score: 1

      No offence, but if you're flying instruments on a visual approach at night, something is wrong with your flying. You should be looking out at the airport and continuing to scan your instruments just like you would during day VFR.

      If you're in IMC, that's something different entirely, but you just basically said that you weren't.

      p

  157. YRO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    1. How is this "my rights"?

    I am not a stupd adolescent white male.

    2. How is this "online"?

    It is not.

    1. Re:YRO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1. With inexpensive laser devices becoming readily available, almost everyone could own one. Arresting someone for waving one around sets a precedent that does affect you, notwithstanding your gender, race, age or ability to spell. Without proper safeguards, all it would take to put someone on ice is one witness in collusion willing to testify that it was your green laser that painted their plane.

      2. This forum, Your Rights, is online. Not the rights. The site. *rolls eyes*

    2. Re:YRO by bbuR_bbuB · · Score: 1

      I am not a stupd adolescent white male.

      That stands to be reasoned. The man in question, however, is not a stupid, adolescent, white male. He is a stupid, middle aged, white male.

      2. How is this "online"?

      Does someone print slashdot out for you, or do you read it over the intar-web with your compu-tar?

    3. Re:YRO by rvw14 · · Score: 1

      From reading the article it apears that he actually was painting the police helicopter that was looking for the source. This does not sound like a case of "oops I waved my laser in the air."

    4. Re:YRO by SilverspurG · · Score: 1
      it apears that he actually was painting the police helicopter

      How do we know it's true?
      After being taken to an FBI office and given a lie-detector test, Banach said "he had hit the jet with the beam ... while pointing out the constellation of Ursa Major to his daughter", court documents say.

      The flash temporarily blinded both the pilot and co-pilot, but they were later able to land the plane safely. The pilots were not subjected to a lie detector test.

      Then, on Friday, a helicopter carrying Port Authority detectives was hit by a laser beam as its crew surveyed the area to try to pinpoint the origin of the original beam. Similarly, the detectives were not subjected to a lie detector test about the actual contact of the beams. Apparently their written reports suffice.
      --
      fast as fast can be. you'll never catch me.
    5. Re:YRO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      2. This forum, Your Rights, is online. Not the rights. The site. *rolls eyes*

      Um...so why aren't all the sections followed by "Online"?

  158. Diffraction, beam divergence, and power density by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Calm down, everyone. A 5mw laser is a _little_ dangerous at close range, because of the power density (intensity) of the beam. If you've got a 5mw beam with a 300 micron diameter, its intensity is about 250 mw / mm^2. Also, since your pupil is larger than the beam diameter, by pointing it at your eye you can pump the entire 5 mw into your eye.

    That's _kind of_ dangerous, but you have to work pretty hard to do any permanent damage (like stare into the beam for a while).

    On the other hand, lasers like this have a beam divergence of at least half a milliradian (due to diffraction, if nothing else -- it's IMPOSSIBLE to collimate a 300 micron diameter beam of visible light better than that).

    So if you're, say, a kilometer away, the spot size of the laser is a half meter. This gives a power density at the pupil of your eye, of about 80 nanowatts per square millimeter, or 80 milliwatts per square meter.

    Truly, truly harmless.

    That's about 1/12000th the intensity of direct sunlight.

    Anyone who wishes may point their green laser pointer directly at my eyes from a range of 100 meters or more, for as long as they wish.

    1. Re:Diffraction, beam divergence, and power density by fishbowl · · Score: 1


      >Truly, truly harmless.

      I'm not buying the "burned retina, permanently damaged eyesight" assumption in this story.

      What I would believe, is a diffusion across the laminated glass of the cockpit, effectively reducing the visibility due to the glare.

      That would be a lot easier to do, considering the angles involved and the divergence of the beam at those distances.

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    2. Re:Diffraction, beam divergence, and power density by ChaoticLimbs · · Score: 1

      You're right about the power AT THE PUPIL but you forgot that the eye is a focusing device and the spot on your retina will be much smaller and with a higher power density per sq mm.

  159. What's it called? by yndrd1984 · · Score: 1
    I thought that was "click-whir". "Drumbeat" sounds planned and organized.

    Yndrd1984

    1. Re:What's it called? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      although click-whir may be the scientific term, drumbeat gives the layman a more accurate picture, as each member of these circles seek to appear as determined movers and shakers at the hint of an opportunity to join the fray.

  160. Come on Scare me some more........ by PacketScan · · Score: 1

    Ok I'm getting really tired of the So called memo's that state just about everything and anything is a possible terror plot. Get over it only tell me when you have solid proof. (And not solid from a crack head that is getting paid to talk / divulge information to the government on this issue.)
    But these idiots with the laser beams.. At 38 years old you should know better.. would you drive down the highway and point a laser at the person driving next to you, no probably not.
    Well as for sentencing I think 25 years is a little light compared to the death toll that could potentially have been created. If said person took down an air craft their should be a mandatory sentence of one year per body with 50 bodies equaling the death penalty. why am I so harsh? what if a family member was on that plane you'd feel the same.

  161. FDR by Mark_MF-WN · · Score: 1

    Agreed. It's time to start trotting out one of the America's greatest political quotes of all time again; "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself" -- Franklin Roosevelt. It's absolutely timeless wisdom.

  162. Harsh sentences vs learning by Jtheletter · · Score: 4, Informative
    First off, I did RTFA, and for those that didn't here's why a long prison sentence is warranted, whether it whould be for 25 years I will get to.

    The man who was arrested was caught because he shined the same green laser into the cockpit of a helicopter that was surveying the area to discover the origin of the laser that temporarily blinded the pilots of the airliner. They were able to find his location because of this, and incidentally he blamed the helicopter lasing on his daughter. So here we have not just poor judgement or a one-time prank, but a guy who was shining a very bright laser (according to article it was used to test fiber optic cables) at pretty much anything that flew overhead. If he had just done it once he likely would have never been caught and it could be written off as poor judgement.

    Because of this I think his sentence should be more than just a slap on the wrist, definitely some heavy fines, maybe a few years jail time depending on what motives they discover for his actions. However, if it turns out he was just a jerk, or an idiot, or whatever and wasn't trying to bring down aircraft, then the maximum 25 year sentence is definitely too long. What I fear is that to make an example of him and to stop others who seem to think lasing planes is a fun idea (reports from multiple other airports of similar events) is that the government will hit him with the max or near max penalty.

    I have to wonder, making examples of criminals or not, how some judges can justify these extreme jail sentences? The criminal learns his lesson for sure, but is effectively never given the chance to apply that lesson. In 25 years the man will be so old as to almost be ready for social security, and with a criminal record he'll be lucky if greeter at Walmart is even available to him. What the system has done now is taken an otherwise productive (granted rather stupid for his actions) member of society, burned a ton of taxpayer $$ on him for 25 years, then released him to be a further drain on the system.

    At what point will someone - the american people, congress, other judges - say enough is enough and start setting limits on jail sentences to times that make sense? If this guy is guilty of nothing more than the airline equivalent of chucking rocks over the freeway as a dumb prank then I'm pretty sure 5 to 10 years in the fed pen will be quite enough to ensure he doesn't shine a laser anywhere again. Even 5 years is a sizable chunk of someone's life, and prison is no fun place to spend it, plus getting one's life back on track after such a sentence will be hard enough. It's time to stop this "War on X" mentality that the justice system has taken and give non-violent offenders a chance to learn from their actions and apply those lessons in their lifetime instead of overcrowding prisons and sucking up taxpayer dollars.

    Anyway, this rant is mostly concerned with if this guy turns out to be just a beavis/butthead type who got his hands on a laser and gets the 25 yrs. If he gets a more appropriate sentence length, or if his actions were in fact malicious then I guess this rant is moot. But there seems to be a trend in our courts to just throw people away forever, which in the end really doesn't teach a very long lesson since those people never get out to tell others to not follow their example.

    --
    -- I'm not a pessimist, I'm a realist. It's not my fault that life sucks so much. --
    1. Re:Harsh sentences vs learning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      this rant is mostly concerned with if this guy turns out to be just a beavis/butthead type

      Now, if it was Beavis and Butthead, they'd eventually find the green laser shining out of a cat's back passage, after they'd stuck it up there.

    2. Re:Harsh sentences vs learning by BrokenSoldier · · Score: 1

      Problem is, in Omaha some kids did just that-chucked some rocks over an overpass....and killed someone. Then, utilizing a little more bad judgement. TMd people about it, neglecting to mention that they HAD hit a cars windshield.

      --
      If it's not broken, let's fix it till it is.
    3. Re:Harsh sentences vs learning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is the result of mandatory sentencing "guidelines" in action. These laws, like the 10-20-Life that is so popular here in Florida, take the punishment out of the hands of the judge. And as fervent moralism sweeps the country, expect such guidelines to be applied to more and more crimes.

    4. Re:Harsh sentences vs learning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I agree that some real punishment is due and that 25 years is too much.

      And since this is a pretty rare occurence, not a whole lot deterrence value is there.

      I'd give him three months in the pokey. (Nothing sexual intended.)

    5. Re:Harsh sentences vs learning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What part of "example" don't you understand? You keep sputtering about how the sentence is unjust for the individual. You can't weight the cost of the sentence against the actual actions of that individual, you have to compare it against all the actions that will be prevented by a strong example. Sucks to be him sure, but you need to either argue that we should never make examples of anyone (which has a cost) or argue that the example won't be effective.

    6. Re:Harsh sentences vs learning by B1ackDragon · · Score: 2, Informative

      It is a shame that our "corrections system" is more about vengeance and politics, isn't it?

      Here's a nice article: http://www.reason.com/sullum/042304.shtml entitled "Pill Sham - A man seeking pain relief gets 25 years for drug trafficking."

      --
      The snow doesn't give a soft white damn whom it touches. -- ee cummings
    7. Re:Harsh sentences vs learning by jafac · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I'm curious. Would you feel any different if he had blinded the pilot of the plane carrying your mother, thus causing it to crash into the ground, burn, and spread little bits of charred gristle that were formerly parts of your mother over an area of about 5 square miles?

      Or maybe you'd feel differently if you were a professional pilot, blinded by the laser, landed successfully, but were never able to work again for the rest of your life?

      This was not a simple, harmless prank.
      Perhaps this calls for tighter regulation and licensing of more powerful lasers. (FCC? egad!). But let's at least start with protecting the public from this fucktard.

      --

      These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
    8. Re:Harsh sentences vs learning by Jtheletter · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Sucks to be him sure, but you need to either argue that we should never make examples of anyone (which has a cost) or argue that the example won't be effective.

      You're right, I was vague about that point, but I make these up as I go, heh, no one who took the time to really craft a response would get one up in time to be modded otherwise. I think my point was that while an example may be required, there is a balance between a reasonable punishment and an effective example. A balance that a 25 year sentence in this case broadly oversteps.

      If we take a look at what 'making an example of someone' means here it's does the cost of getting caught prevent someone from pulling the prank? Most anyone would agree 5 to 10 years is plenty to dissuade 99.9% of the idiots out there. Anyone who still decides it's a good idea with even that length of sentence would probably not be swayed by another 15 years tacked on. I mean, hell, why not just give him life, that'll set an example.

      What we need to do is find that middle ground where the sentence is strict enough that both the crook and others learn a lesson, but that does not needlessly burden our system with yet another "criminal" who would be better off out paying taxes instead of using them in federal prison and taking up the bunk of someone who rapes/murders/commits intentional terrorism.

      As others have pointed out, though, the 25 years possible sentence is the result of a number of charges strung together, which includes lying to a federal officer. In the end though, people are going to read the headlines and equate lasing an airplane with whatever the jailtime is, regardless of what the details of the charges were.

      --
      -- I'm not a pessimist, I'm a realist. It's not my fault that life sucks so much. --
    9. Re:Harsh sentences vs learning by Jtheletter · · Score: 1
      Yes, I would feel differently, but that's probably because the circumstances would be different, wouldn't they?

      I think we need to look at what is the most effective way to go about "protecting the public from this fucktard." And that means cost-effective too. Although we know the consequences of his actions could have been much worse, it seems like (thus far from what little we know) his motivations were along the lines of a harmless prank. Does that make it harmless? Fuck no! Should he get some serious fines and jailtime to teach him this lesson? Hell yes! But if he really was just a doofis with really really bad judgement then he won't do it again after a few years making nice with people who murder for fun. Putting him away for 25 years is only justified if the court decides he's likely to keep doing this and he needs to be locked up to prevent him from doing it. But if he's just a moron then teach him his lesson in a couple years time then free up his cell for someone who really does need to be kept totally out of society.

      --
      -- I'm not a pessimist, I'm a realist. It's not my fault that life sucks so much. --
    10. Re:Harsh sentences vs learning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree whole heartedly. Most prison sentences (for non-violent crimes) in the US are ridiculously long. I think most people grossly underestimate how much it sucks to go to prison. A year is a LONG time to sit in one room.

    11. Re:Harsh sentences vs learning by Detritus · · Score: 1

      Sometimes it's just the simple arithmetic that it is cheaper to keep a career criminal behind bars than to release him when you take into account the cost of his crimes to society. Someone who supports themself with a life of crime can impose very large costs on society.

      --
      Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
    12. Re:Harsh sentences vs learning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm curious. Would you feel any different if he had blinded the pilot of the plane carrying your mother, thus causing it to crash into the ground, burn, and spread little bits of charred gristle that were formerly parts of your mother over an area of about 5 square miles?

      Oh hell yes. That lovely inheritance, the insurance pay-out, no funeral costs..

    13. Re:Harsh sentences vs learning by Scudsucker · · Score: 1

      I'm curious, could you find a worse analogy since none of that happened, or apparantly was even close to happening?

    14. Re:Harsh sentences vs learning by ckedge · · Score: 1

      > the ... equivalent of chucking rocks over the freeway as a dumb prank

      http://www.google.ca/search?q=rock+overpass+death

      Fuck you and your dumb pranks.

      Personally I think people should be sentenced for their actions, not for their actions combined with their good luck in not killing someone. The guy who drives home drunk and the guy who drives home drunk and runs someone over - what did they do differently? Nothing. But if the first guy is caught he gets his license taken away, if the second guy gets caught he gets 2 years in jail.

      I think both of them should get 2 years in jail.

      .

    15. Re:Harsh sentences vs learning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Jtheletter: ... the system has ... taken an otherwise productive (granted rather stupid for his actions) member of society, burned a ton of taxpayer $$ on him for 25 years, then released him to be a further drain on the system.

      True, IF he got the maximum sentence that'd be a lot of money. But it must be balanced against the cost of NOT having to prosecute copycats -- and for that matter, the probability-weighted cost of NOT someday having a plane crash into the ground because the pilots were incapacitated. The System® may be a little weird here, but it is not obvious that it's nuts.

      Keep in mind also that convicting & sentencing Banach could take months or years. But by arresting him and publicizing his case, the feds IMMEDIATELY end the recent spate of copycat laser mischief-makers. Even if four weeks from now they quietly released him, the feds would still rack up a victory.

      I think the cost-benefit calculation actually looks pretty good.

      Jtheletter: ... give non-violent offenders a chance to learn from their actions and apply those lessons in their lifetime instead of overcrowding prisons and sucking up taxpayer dollars.

      Fair enough, but hold on: are you quite sure Banach is a nonviolent offender?

      If Joe Blow shoots a rifle at your head but misses, is he a violent offender? Yes: he has committed assault with a deadly weapon, although (fortunately) no battery occurred.

      This poor Banach slob is not a Bad Guy, and he did not leave a trail of dead, but he arguably does have several victims (the people he endangered in the plane) and he arguably did commit assault. Certainly reckless endangerment.

      Now, is PATRIOT the right law to punish him? Okay, that's another question, and I have no idea...

    16. Re:Harsh sentences vs learning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thats the dumbest, least insightful, most trollish thing I've heard today. WORSE than the GNAA trolls! I can't believe the stupidity of "both of them should get 2 years in jail." Why the fuck should they? Did you ever think there might have been motherfucking OUTSIDE CIRCUMSTANCES? No of course not, you didn't think past a random "holy shit I crapped my pants I better post" response. Next time, realize there's more to situations than the one fucking thing your dumb ass knows.

    17. Re:Harsh sentences vs learning by Jtheletter · · Score: 1
      Personally I think people should be sentenced for their actions, not for their actions combined with their good luck in not killing someone

      Part of that means evaluating intent and how reckless one's actions actually were. By your logic I should also get 2 years in prison for speeding because I might have been cut off and was unable to slow down in time and caused a fatal car accident. A person cannot be sentenced based soley on outcomes that may or may not have occurred as a result of their actions. Yes, those outcomes should be taken into account, doing something clearly dangerous, such as drunk driving, will net you a harsher sentence than just speeding, but you cannot prosecute to the worst case scenario everytime, otherwise everyone would be in jail.

      The guy who drives home drunk and the guy who drives home drunk and runs someone over - what did they do differently? Nothing.

      I beg to differ, one of them ran someone over, that's clearly different. Their intentions - to get home w/o hitting anything - were the same, their bad judgement in choosing to drive drunk was the same, but the outcomes were different. Which only further demonstrates that the worst-case doesn't always happen so we can't assume it always will. What about a farmer who drives home drunk down a deserted dirt road from the bar to his farm? Does he deserve 2 years as well even though no one else lived or travelled on that road?

      One last point, a kid I used to know from college was arrested for drunk driving and had his license taken away for a year, plus had to attend some AA meetings and take a class given by the state police. Let me tell you, after 12 months of having to find rides to work, or to go out anywhere, and after all thsoe meetings, he sure as hell learned his lesson. It was a huge burden not being able to drive. He got lucky and didn't hurt anyone when he was DUI, and the system gave him a second chance with some penalties. I argue that he learned his lesson w/o having to spend two years in jail. Two years that may have cost him his life, definitely would have cost him his job and future jobs, and probably would have screwed him up pretty badly.

      --
      -- I'm not a pessimist, I'm a realist. It's not my fault that life sucks so much. --
    18. Re:Harsh sentences vs learning by shiftless · · Score: 1

      [I]I'm curious. Would you feel any different if he had blinded the pilot of the plane carrying your mother, thus causing it to crash into the ground, burn, and spread little bits of charred gristle that were formerly parts of your mother over an area of about 5 square miles?

      Or maybe you'd feel differently if you were a professional pilot, blinded by the laser, landed successfully, but were never able to work again for the rest of your life?[/I]

      What the fuck does that have to do with anything? Did the plane crash? No. Was the pilot blinded? No. 25 years is a ridiculous length of time for somebody to stay in prison when nothing bad happened and there was no malicious intent to begin with.

    19. Re:Harsh sentences vs learning by Shadowlore · · Score: 1

      The man who was arrested was caught because he shined the same green laser into the cockpit of a helicopter that was surveying the area to discover the origin of the laser that temporarily blinded the pilots of the airliner.

      Yes that is hwo they busted him. But is he beign charged with shining it in the helocopter's cabin? No. He's being charged as a terrorist for it getting into an airplane's cabin. So whatever he did with the chopper is irrelevant to the airline incident.

      Funny, the cops are saying he did not intentionally shine it at the plane, let alone the cockpit. Yet you predicate your argument on the belief he did in fact intend to hit the plane and the cockpit in particular. Something the government, again, isn't actually charging ... yet.

      I have three kids. If one does somethign stupid that might have caused a harm, I don't sentence him or her to three months in the corner or something just to make an example, of because of the possible impact of a minor risk. As you allude to, it doesn't work.

      Same should go for this situation, and dozens if not hundreds or thousands similar to it in principle.

      --
      My Suburban burns less gasoline than your Prius.
  163. Dr Evil style nonsense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    First off, why would blinding a pilot cause a plane to crash. I mean if he were blind he'd stop the approach and either hand off to a copilot or bring up a flight attendant and walk her through it.

    Second, sniper rifles are cheaper, more effective, easier to use, and harder to trace.

    1. Re:Dr Evil style nonsense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "First off, why would blinding a pilot cause a plane to crash."

      It won't. But it will impact the profitability of a multi-billion-dollar corporation. And that's all you need to know about that.

  164. Re:How can you reach a pilot from the ground? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Earth is not flat, and in this case I'm not talking about it being round.

    He could (and probably was) doing it through upstairs window in a nearby house.

  165. Auto pilot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Aren't most pilots using autopilot these days anyways? Furthermore, if they aren't, why would a laser blinding them somehow cause them to force the plane into a nosedive?

    *oh no, something is shining in my eyes.. must push plane into a nose-dive.. can't.. resist.. the urge is overwhelming.. ahhh"

  166. Does it really take 25 years of correction? by iamlucky13 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I have to admit, before the concerns started coming up a couples months ago, painting an aircraft with a laser is the kind of thing I might consider trying on an impulse, but being careful not to do it while it was heading toward me so light couldn't enter the cockpit. It wouldn't take me 25 years to realize that was a little irresponsible, though. It would take about 1 night in jail. Actually, it only took me one news article. Still, some people don't learn as quickly as I do. A small fine and some community service seems like a much better punishment in this case, assuming he had no malicious intent. Remember he reported that his daughter was with him when he did this, which makes me more inclined to believe the story that he was just playing around and did something stupid.

  167. How do pilots manage to see the runway? by AzrealAO · · Score: 2, Informative

    How do pilots manage to see the runway during approach if the windows are on the top, and the runway is under them?

    The plane was only at about 3,000 feet on approach for landing. I'm guessing that the pilot just MIGHT have been looking towards the ground.

    But maybe that's just me.

    1. Re:How do pilots manage to see the runway? by Ahnteis · · Score: 2, Insightful

      HOW do people driving cars manage to see the road? I mean, the windshield is ON TOP of the car and the road is BELOW the car.

  168. I think the moral of the story is by WormholeFiend · · Score: 1

    Instead of pointing your laser at an airplane, you should mount it on a shark and have it point the laser at a submarine.

    At least it wont blind the crew and wont get you into trouble with the FBI.

  169. "dropped overpasses" by Hawke666 · · Score: 1

    Wow...wouldn't the dropped overpass itself be more of a problem than some rocks from same?

  170. 1 Year?!?! by Mark_MF-WN · · Score: 1

    A year in jail?! He could have blinded those pilots, and he could have caused the deaths of hundreds of people! That kind of reckless mischief is serious businss. It warrants at least five or six years, especially since he did it repeatedly.

    1. Re:1 Year?!?! by p3d0 · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Do you have any idea what it's like to spend a year in jail?

      We have a really whacky idea of appropriate jail terms these days. It's like another form of inflation.

      --
      Patrick Doyle
      I mod down every jackass who puts his moderation policy in his sig. Oh, wait a sec....
    2. Re:1 Year?!?! by beforewisdom · · Score: 1

      Okay, five years and drain his bank account or something similar for reckless endangerment, but sending him to jail for what most life sentences after parole is a bit stiff

  171. Wrong! by Number_5 · · Score: 1

    Read the US constitution.

  172. Intent doesn't mean anything anymore. by aristus · · Score: 1
    If you are a potential threat, or just in the way when the cos are looking for headlines, you are toast. Remember the guy that was arrested for the Olympics bombing, Richard Jewel?

    We've certainly come a long way in this country. It used to be only poor minorities could aspire to be scapegoats. Now everyone has the same chance.

    --
    Sometimes seventeen/Syllables aren't enough to/Express a complete
    1. Re:Intent doesn't mean anything anymore. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Solely in terms of the laser-pointing case at hand, how is this man a scapegoat? There was nobody else involved, no big conpiracy that landed on his shoulders. He did something very dangerous and wrong all by himself and he's being criminally charged for it. Ignoring all the terrorist-inspired fears and paranoia in the US, the facts alone point to this man as having committed a criminal act. End of story.

  173. Forever. by raehl · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The question isn't intelligence, the question is intent. Chronically stupid means he didn't INTEND to bring down an airliner. We've always gone lighter on people when they didn't have intent, and sometimes if you didn't have intent, an act isn't criminal at all. Whether or not an act is criminal, and how criminal an act is, isn't just determined by the act itself, but also by the INTENT behind the act, and the SUCCESS of the act.

    That's why there's 1st Degree Murder, 2nd Degree Murder, Manslaughter, Reckless Homicide, and Not Guilty by Reason of Mental Defect. If you committed the ACT of boobytrapping your door to have a swolrd come down on someone's head if opened, any of the above could be the correct end result, depending on whether you knew your wife was coming home within 30 minutes of setting the trap, or you saw a door salesman coming to the door so you impulsively chose to set the trap then, or you just always leave the trap set because you're super-anal about property defense, or you set the trap because you believe little green men are trying to get in your front door.

    And even if you intended to kill someone, if your boobytrap fails and only injures them, your charge/sentence will not be as harsh as it would if you were a smarter criminal and built a more effective trap.

    So, yeah, we generally are easier on the stupid.

  174. Frickin lasers by merc · · Score: 2, Funny

    Were they attached to a frickin shark's head?

    --
    It's true no man is an island, but if you take a bunch of dead guys and tie 'em together, they make a good raft.
    1. Re:Frickin lasers by WillerZ · · Score: 1

      Nope, but some ill-tempered mutated sea-bass were seen leaving the area shortly after the incident.

      --
      I guess today is a passable day to die.
  175. Thinkgeek = Terrorist? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  176. Right to bear Laser Guns? by implex · · Score: 1

    Which brings up a very interesting point. With the advancement of lasers & optics at some point laser weapons will be available. How will these be handled. I can't imagine them being available to consumers legally at any point. However many have argued in the US that the right to bear arms is more about allowing civilians access to equalizers should the government get out of hand... so what then?

  177. so all the pilots are blind now? is that what i'm by TheLittleJetson · · Score: 1

    hearing? glare != BLINDING. be serious.

  178. give me laser painting or give me death!!1! by nostromo.operator · · Score: 1

    gimmie.

  179. The Old Saying Goes ... by the_mushroom_king · · Score: 2, Informative

    Never attribute to complicated malice what can be explained by simple stupidity. -- TMK

  180. A Laser Exercise - Experts Only! by baudbarf · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Okay everybody, get out your laser pointers, it's time for an exercise.

    Try to shine that laser at a target the size of a grape. Easy? Okay, make that grape move. Harder, huh? Now make the grape move at 600 miles per hour. Can you still hit it? Now, try doing the same thing to a grape hurtling through space at 600 miles per hour about half a mile away from you. Do you still think you can hit it?

    That grape represents the pilot's eye.

    Now, try holding your laser on that target for a couple minutes - as long as it takes to blind a person.

    Now repeat the exercise to blind the pilot's OTHER eye.

    Now do it two more times to blind the co-pilot's eyes.

    And you'd better hope that the pilots don't respond to the agony of their retinas sizzling away by putting on sunglasses, or ducking or moving in any way!

    This, friends, is the terrorist threat of the week. Please be frightened.

    --
    You can run but you can't hide, except, apparently, along the Afghan-Pakistani border.
    1. Re:A Laser Exercise - Experts Only! by Newspimp · · Score: 1

      Not only that, make sure that at one point, you put the grape on the other side of a multi-plate glass, with a vaccuum central area, at an angle, and shine the laser through, compensating for refraction in the window.

      Very good exercise (as someone who works with 100-170 mW laser systems everyday!)

    2. Re:A Laser Exercise - Experts Only! by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 4, Interesting
      Now make the grape move at 600 miles per hour.

      If its coming more or less directly towards you, the apparent velocity goes waay down. And aircraft on approach are not going 600. More like 250.

      You don't have to completley 'blind' them, as in burn out their retinas, to be very, very hazardous.
      You can try this yourself. Remove the brakes from your car. Drive at high speed, at night, on a crowded road.(Crowded, to simulate the workload of a pilot on approach). Have a friend shine a high power laser into your eyes for a few seconds. (Said friend will probably want to be on an overpass, rather than in the car with you.)
      If you live, repeat the exercise a few more times.

    3. Re:A Laser Exercise - Experts Only! by michaelepley · · Score: 1

      And of course this is with: a $10 2mW laser pointer from the store, with its relatively poorly colummnated beam; and not being able to see where the beam is impacting so as to correct its position and follow the moving target.

    4. Re:A Laser Exercise - Experts Only! by kirkjobsluder · · Score: 1

      Well, I don't think that you really need to do eye damage in order to be a nusance. There have been experiments at developing a laser for stopping runaway drivers by scattering a laser off the windshield rendering it impossible for the driver to see through the glare. (The laser in question seems to be a bit beefier that your cat toy pointer.)

    5. Re:A Laser Exercise - Experts Only! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ok....try it at 250mph, i bet its a whole lot easier!

      Remove the brakes from your car.

      And that equates to what on the plane? Does the laser burn the landing gear off the plane before it goes for the pilots?

      Jesus man get a grip.

    6. Re:A Laser Exercise - Experts Only! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure, now in your experiment, what does the overpass simulate? And how would a terrorist end up in a position of elevation ABOVE the aircraft? Starting to see how retarded this whole thing is?

    7. Re:A Laser Exercise - Experts Only! by michaelepley · · Score: 1

      That is about the weakest analogy I've ever seen. Not to mention how weak a form of pursuasion analogies are.

    8. Re:A Laser Exercise - Experts Only! by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 1

      In a car, you can stop, blinded or not. In an a/c...you don't have that option.

    9. Re:A Laser Exercise - Experts Only! by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 1
      I postulated the overpass, because the 'friend' would probably not want to be on the ground near an out of control car.

      A pilot in an aircraft on final can assuredly see the ground. And someone one the ground can see him.

      I think it's a bit farfetched as well. But evidently he did do it. So it is possible.

    10. Re:A Laser Exercise - Experts Only! by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 1

      That was only to point out that you don't have to actually completely blind someone, esp. a pilot, to make the situation very, very hazardous. A temporary blindness, when on final approach, is bad enough.

    11. Re:A Laser Exercise - Experts Only! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      $100 5mW green laser

    12. Re:A Laser Exercise - Experts Only! by starrsoft · · Score: 1
      make the grape move at 600 miles per hour

      1. The various flavors that the Cessna Citation (the jet that was being flown) come in have a cruising speed of between 397-489 mph. A little less than 600, huh? Also, that's cruising speed! Not flaps-all-the-way-out approach speed, which was what this pilot was doing.

      2. Many other posters have pointed out that the beam gets bigger (forget the scientific terms; understand the concept) as it progresses. One poster said that at something like 100 ft, it would be half a meter across. So at three thousand feet, it wouldn't be grape sized. Also it would get all four eyes at once. It would also include the whole cockpit and reflections off of the interior of the cockpit. This would be heightened by diffraction off the windshield.

      3. When it is dark your pupils dilate and are more sensitive to light. The laser doesn't have to hit long enough to make the person permanently blind. Just long enough to temporarily blind them. Think of being in a darkened room (just dim enough where you can see general shapes), looking at a darkened bulb and ever so briefly flicking it on and off. Think you can still see much of anything? Now think of using a laser.

      --
      Read my blog: HansMast.com
    13. Re:A Laser Exercise - Experts Only! by ckedge · · Score: 1

      Now have a friend hold the grape 50 feet away from you, and move it at 1 inch per second (everything is relative dude). Attach your laser pointer to a pair of binoculars and mark on the near lens the "hit point". Now try and track the "fast moving" plane.

      Easy, isn't it? Now all you need is a 10 watt laser instead of a 10mw diode pointer.

      [sarcasem] Of course, it's so easy to tell which lasers pointing into the cockpits and into motorists eyes and into pedestrians eyes are "pranks" and "jokes" verses "assaults" and "mallicious".[/sarcasem]

    14. Re:A Laser Exercise - Experts Only! by bash_finger · · Score: 0

      Warning Do not look into LASER with remaining eye.

  181. Uh, what facts were you reading, exactly? by Fantastic+Lad · · Score: 1
    Quote:

    A New Jersey man was charged Tuesday under federal anti-terrorism laws with shining a laser beam at a charter jet flying over his home, temporarily distracting the pilots.

    A plane flying over his house? How did he point the laser through the aircraft window exactly? Unless he was on a mountain top, or a long damned way away from the plane and using a MUCH more powerful laser which would not diminish after 2 miles, the stated claim is not even possible.

    And these days, any statements taken from captives mean exactly nothing since the U.S. has demonstrated a willingness to torture prisoners.

    This is total propaganda bullshit. The fact that it's suddenly happening all over the country is further evidence of its being a deliberate orchestration of social engineering.

    And you fell for it. Smooth.


    -FL

    1. Re:Uh, what facts were you reading, exactly? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't get it. Why would we be wasting resources on this if it were not a legitimate problem? Why would they even bother with the helicopter search?

      And I like how you use the word torture. The goings on in Abu Garab was embarassment, humiliation, and hazing. It was hardly torture. And during war, I think anything up to serious/permanent injury or death is justified in order to get information.

  182. Re:Misunderstanding in why the feds track this dow by Paco04101 · · Score: 1

    So using the same logic, pointing my finger should be illegal too, being as how I COULD have been pointing a real gun.

  183. Re:shhhh by Lord+Bitman · · Score: 1

    if they find out that the whole system is fundamentally flawed, millions could lose their jobs!

    --
    -- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
  184. Except, you don't have to "use it properly" by AzrealAO · · Score: 2, Insightful

    You don't need anything sophisticated to stabalize the laser, or track the plane. The terrorist isn't interested in bringing down one specific plane at a specific time. They're just looking for A plane (or just to cause enough Terror due to the threat).

    They'll just keep aiming the lasers at planes until they get lucky and hit the cockpit windows, dazzling pilots during final approach. If they miss the cockpit of one plane, big deal. There'll be another one along in a few minutes, until they decide to bug out and try somewhere else.

  185. You are right, of course by aristus · · Score: 3, Insightful
    I was responding to the GP's attitude that the suspect is not only guilty, but should be intentionally overpunished lest it contribute to "the decline of this society". I'm getting pretty sick of the moralistic, "hang the buggers" attitude in recent years.

    Instead of talking about justice or equity, the reasoning centers around social control and the realative worthlessness of individual citizens (not to mention non-citizens).

    I recall a few EMP experiments at a certain Army base that disabled every piece of unshielded electronics for miles around. Luckily there were no aircraft nearby. Punishments? Apologies? None.

    --
    Sometimes seventeen/Syllables aren't enough to/Express a complete
  186. I can invision the guy in prison with the other 25 by TheLittleJetson · · Score: 1

    -to-lifers... "What are you in for?" "Rape/Murder." "Arson Spree." "Assault / Armed Robbery." "SHINING MY LASER POINTER"

    Haha, he's doomed.

  187. Is looking at a plane legal? by DanielJS · · Score: 0

    When you look at a plane you are shooting the plane with light atoms, right? This is just crazy!!

  188. I don't know if terrorism is appropriate... by mark-t · · Score: 1
    The guy was stupid, to be sure... but to charge him with terrorism is a bit extreme when that wasn't his actual intent.

    Not that I don't think a fairly harsh punishment isn't appropriate... people that are going to ignorantly engage in activities that very easily can endanger other peoples' lives ought to be punished to the very limits that the law will allow, but I think actually charging him with terrorism is a bit silly (especially when you consider what terrorism actually means... it's patently obvious he isn't a terrorist).

  189. phasers, disrupters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I find lasers ver primitive
    Heghlu'meH QaQ jajvam

    oh
    nuqDaq 'oH puchpa''e'

  190. Huh? by PaulBu · · Score: 0

    A rifle bullet will have a velocity that's a relatively small multiple of the airliner's velocity.

    You know alot about bullets and rifles, right? ;-)

    Actually a bullet fired from a good rifle is supersonic, compare to
    Mach 1.

    What was the last time you flew on a supersonic aircraft?

    The real difference is that the beam from that kind of laser is continuos, so it works both as a "spot mark" AND as a "bullet", with an infinite number of rounds per minute.

    Paul B.

    1. Re:Huh? by HeghmoH · · Score: 1
      A rifle bullet will have a velocity that's a relatively small multiple of the airliner's velocity.
      You know alot about bullets and rifles, right? ;-)

      Actually a bullet fired from a good rifle is supersonic, compare to
      Mach 1.

      What was the last time you flew on a supersonic aircraft?

      According to your page, a bullet goes about 900m/s. A typical airliner might land at 60m/s. The bullet is therefore going 15 times faster than the airliner. That qualifies as a "small multiple" in my eyes. Having to hit the plane with a bullet that's only going 15 times faster is going to be difficult.
      --
      Mod down posts with a "Free Mac Mini/iPod" sig, they're spam!
    2. Re:Huh? by FredThompson · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You are so incredibly incorrect.

      Senator Joe McCarthy absolutely DID identify active Soviet agents.

      Among them was Alger Hiss.

      The American Left and other pro-Communist groups claimed it was a bs witchhunt with no substance. They knew that wasn't true but was an effective political claim given the public's lack of familiarity with intelligence matters.

      Read up on the Venona decrypts. I worked at the NSA when parts of these were declassified. I've seen some of the still classified documents. They're real, no question about it.

      There is no factual basis, whatsoever, for your claim.

    3. Re:Huh? by jsdkl · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It was mostly Hoover and the FBI who identified the "Communist sympathizers". McCarthy asked them for information. When McCarthy started attacking the president (Eisenhower) and the US Army, in 1954, Hoover felt he would be threatened and stopped providing information.

      Joe just thought it was a good story and a way to get some attention. It WAS a circus, and a HUGE waste of resources.

      Also, McCarthy was the fourth member in the history of the US Senate to be censured, in December of 1954.

    4. Re:Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, so make that (X) real communist agents, mind you that X^y number of innocent people were irreparably harmed, but hey, that's just the price of doing business 'eh?

    5. Re:Huh? by Jamesie · · Score: 0

      It will make people on the planes safer because this bozo won't be shining laser beams into pilots eyes.

    6. Re:Huh? by Xabraxas · · Score: 1
      Among them was Alger Hiss.

      That's still being debated.

      I've seen some of the still classified documents. They're real, no question about it.

      Ok sure, don't be offended when I don't take your word for it.

      There is no factual basis, whatsoever, for your claim.

      There are is no factual basis for your claims either. Nothing that can be proved.

      --
      Time makes more converts than reason
    7. Re:Huh? by ATMAvatar · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This is not about making people safer. It's about testing how far our powers go after their dramatic expansion under the Patriot Act.

      --
      "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
    8. Re:Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It WAS a circus, and a HUGE waste of resources.

      Nicely understated. It was an obscene descent into the kind of authoritarian state which is the opposite of everything the US is supposed to stand for. Thankfully we nipped that one in the bud ... now for the Patriot Act!

    9. Re:Huh? by thirdbanE · · Score: 1

      You are so incredibly incorrect. Senator Joe McCarthy absolutely DID identify active Soviet agents. Among them was Alger Hiss.

      Senator Joe McCarthy had nothing to do with Alger Hiss. HUAC was the committee that investigated Alger Hiss. McCarthy, in the Senate, didn't start begin his BS witchhunt until two years later.

    10. Re:Huh? by Psykosys · · Score: 1

      Hitler identified active foreign agents as well, so what exactly is your point?

    11. Re:Huh? by CountBrass · · Score: 1

      Really? Name one.

      --
      Bad analogies are like waxing a monkey with a rainbow.
    12. Re:Huh? by FredThompson · · Score: 1

      There's no "debate" about Alger Hiss among people in the intelligence community. You've obviously never had access to those sorts of materials.

      Unfortunately for you, documents released from the KGB archives and those of their client regimes, such as the Stasi, absolutely did show a numebr of the people Joseph McCarthy fingered as Communist agents were such agents.

      It matters not a whit if you don't believe it. You're more than welcome to show up at my door and look at my orders, awards and photos from my time at Fort Meade but I'll most certainly not post such items for public consumption. There's the little factor of a 70-year gag order which affects anyone who's worked there.

    13. Re:Huh? by FredThompson · · Score: 1

      The claim that McCarthy's actions were all a BS political witchhunt are untrue. As with many other things involving intelligence, the entire evidence is not laid out for public consumption. You'll still find people who think the Rosenberg's weren't Soviet agents, regardless of the fact that Soviet documents show they were as do living serios Soviet agents.

    14. Re:Huh? by FredThompson · · Score: 1

      Ah, darn, I got them mixed up and I'm usually someone who points out the McCarthy was a Senator and, thus, didn't have anything to do with the HOUSE Un-American Activities Commission.

      Again, VENONA documents, even the small portion which have been released, can eb cross-referenced with other publicly available documents to show that Mccarthy DID finger Soviet agents. You don't have to believe it for it to be true.

    15. Re:Huh? by plague3106 · · Score: 1

      There's no "debate" about Alger Hiss among people in the intelligence community.

      Well we all know the intelligence community never is wrong. I mean, just look at all the WMD coming out of Iraq! Good thing we got to Saddam before he could use them!

      You're more than welcome to show up at my door and look at my orders, awards and photos from my time at Fort Meade but I'll most certainly not post such items for public consumption.

      Seem pretty convient. Not that I care, since you claim only to have seen 'documents.' Well, if some gov't agency wrote it on a piece of paper, it must be true! Get over yourself and your former job. Its likely you've hurt far more innocent people then you helped.

    16. Re:Huh? by plague3106 · · Score: 1

      As with many other things involving intelligence, the entire evidence is not laid out for public consumption.

      Oh ok, well then I'll trust you just b/c you (and the gov't) said so. I'm not really sure why we need this evidence crap at trials anyway..you wouldn't have gotten arrested if you didn't do it!

      Now, I'm going to go back to reading my bible, its old and someone says i should believe it!

    17. Re:Huh? by Wolfrider · · Score: 1

      --I do believe you're right. 25 years is WAY too harsh for something like this; 6 months to 1 year should be more than enough to warn people off (unless Something Bad happens because of laser-painting.)

      --
      .
      == WolfriderV6 == I'm willing to admit that *I just might* be wrong... Are you??
    18. Re:Huh? by Xabraxas · · Score: 1
      There's no "debate" about Alger Hiss among people in the intelligence community. You've obviously never had access to those sorts of materials.

      You're right, I have never had access to those sorts of materials but I don't believe you have either.

      Unfortunately for you, documents released from the KGB archives and those of their client regimes, such as the Stasi, absolutely did show a numebr of the people Joseph McCarthy fingered as Communist agents were such agents.

      Again I say, don't be offended that I don't believe you, after all why should I?

      It matters not a whit if you don't believe it. You're more than welcome to show up at my door and look at my orders, awards and photos from my time at Fort Meade but I'll most certainly not post such items for public consumption. There's the little factor of a 70-year gag order which affects anyone who's worked there.

      Well I suppose I could claim I was God on the internet and someone would believe me, but I'm not one to be that foolish.

      --
      Time makes more converts than reason
    19. Re:Huh? by bckrispi · · Score: 1
      You're right, I have never had access to those sorts of materials but I don't believe you have either.

      If he has seen them, he is in a world of shit for talking about it openly. Public dissemination of classified documents is a no-no.

      --
      Xenon, where's my money? -Borno
    20. Re:Huh? by Datamonstar · · Score: 1

      I totally agree. Can you say "example?"

      --
      The eternal struggle of good vs. evil begins within one's self.
    21. Re:Huh? by hunterx11 · · Score: 1
      You're correct in that the Red Scare was not a witchhunt. There were Communist agents in the U.S., and VENONA is proof of it.

      McCarthy didn't know about VENONA, however. He was and remains a jackass.

      --
      English is easier said than done.
    22. Re:Huh? by Coffeesloth · · Score: 1

      Since many of the Soviet documents have been made public, they should be available on the web somewhere. If they are it might help quash all the arguments. As for the other documentation you are referring to a lot of those should be available under the FOA and probably aren't because no one has asked about them. Right now it's interesting history without much intelligence value so there really isn't a great (documented) need to keep them classified.

      Senator McCarthy was involved in a witch hunt, nothing more nothing less. If he had accurate information it's because the people he got it from were reliable and knew it to be correct, but in the long run he wasn't really that interested in accurate information...just in what he could use to advance his own objectives and career.

  191. It's simple. by FreshFunk510 · · Score: 1

    They're making an example out of him by giving him a really harsh sentence to deter anyone else from even THINKING about it. C'mon. This is America. ;]

    (In reality, they did this to make the headlines but he'll probably get a couple months in jail AT MOST.)

    --


    "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." - Martin Luther King, Jr.
  192. Re:Walking in fear by symbolic · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Remember: if you walk around in fear, then the terrorists have already won.

    The irony here is that it's not the terrorists I'm afraid of, it's our own government. Seems the terrorists have won either way.

  193. Don't be daft by Gordonjcp · · Score: 4, Insightful

    That's exactly why the pilot of a commercial aircraft rarely if ever flies the approach by hand.

    1. Re:Don't be daft by CoolGopher · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually, you might not be entirely correct. I think it depends on how heavily trafficed the airport is. With QANTAS here in Australia (with comparatively small airports), almost all descents/landings are manual. It's only in case of severe weather that they activate the auto-landing feature.

      Why? Because in my experience, the pilots do a better job at managing a smooth landing. The two (I think?) automated landings I've experienced have had a very noticable "touch down bump". I would liken the experience to being in a car with someone planting their foot on the brake in a car with ABS - it gets the job done quite safely, but it's not a smooth ride.

    2. Re:Don't be daft by crankyspice · · Score: 2, Informative

      That's exactly why the pilot of a commercial aircraft rarely if ever flies the approach by hand. Instrument landing systems can only take you so far; the last few hundred feet (or more, depending on the airport) are done manually. Google for "decision height" and "ILS."

      --
      geek. lawyer.
    3. Re:Don't be daft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Never let facts get in the way of a good story. What are you a liberal?

  194. I know the subject line field is short but.... by mrn121 · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Titling this article "Laser Pointing into the Cockpit of a 747 Could get you 25 Years in Prison" would have made a lot more sense, and made it far less of the shocking "I-can't-believe-how-the-evil-right-wing-governmen t-is-taking-away-our-rights" piece that it is.

    This guy was an idiot. Case closed. Ever read the Darwin Awards? This guy is lucky to still be alive based on how dumb he is. Odds are, 25 years in prison will protect him from doing something else this dumb that will cost him his life.

    1. Re:I know the subject line field is short but.... by Alcemenes · · Score: 1

      I couldn't agree more. I'm noticing how many responses posted here are knee-jerk reactions at the simple mention of the Patriot Act. I suppose he could be let off with a slap on the wrist and a very firm warning. What happens when he does something stupid like this again and endangers lives or actually causes a plane to crash? I would imagine folks would be in an uproar because he wasn't locked away the first time he did it. There are a lot of things I don't like about the Patriot Act but shining lasers at airplanes can not be treated lightly. Pilots are under enough stress; they don't need to be bothered with assholes playing games with laser pointers. Personally I think people need to take more responsibility for their actions. Perhaps then the government would realize they don't need to pass more laws to protect us from ourselves. Perhaps instead of screaming bloody murder every time the Patriot Act is mentioned constructive criticism and credible alternatives could be offered instead. Or perhaps things will remain the status quo, who am I to say?

    2. Re:I know the subject line field is short but.... by Feanturi · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, he has already reproduced, and what's worse, he was showing his daughter what fun the laser was. Hopefully she is now aware of the reason daddy's gone away.

    3. Re:I know the subject line field is short but.... by Shadowlore · · Score: 1

      Titling this article "Laser Pointing into the Cockpit of a 747 Could get you 25 Years in Prison" would have ... been false since that isn't what he was doing.

      --
      My Suburban burns less gasoline than your Prius.
  195. Making an example by runamok1 · · Score: 1

    The REAL issue here is that very powerful green lasers have gotten extremely cheap ($59.00 to $99.00) so they need to throw the book at this guy to prevent the rest of us citizens from playing possibly dangerous games.

    A more realistic thing to do is come up with a technological solution to prevent an airplane from being downed by a $100.00 device. A self-darkening wind screen, some sort of polarized surface, a one way mirror coating?

    The use of the Patriot Act is a travesty. The guy is pointing out stars to his daughter and obviously Mr. Clueful was not exactly trying to hide the fact from the police helicoptor.

    1. Re:Making an example by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      RTFA (ads) These are *not* high powered lasers. They are all less than .005W output.

    2. Re:Making an example by runamok1 · · Score: 1

      OK. OK. I was in a rush because I was at work. I do remember reading about a laser that was linked from www.dansdata.com. This thing was a glorified light saber. It melted a plastic cup. The point I was attempting to make is that it is a hell of a lot easier to afford, get, hide and use than a Surface to Ground missle. However, I would assume it would be much easier to defend against. With technology and not excessively punitive prison sentences.

  196. If I were to say that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ..flying a jumbo over my head is anti social and not nice of those people.
    At work I get told to not walk under heavy (moving) objects, they might drop!!!

    But those people flying over my head do not adhere to my safety standart, they put me in danger!!!!
    And I cannot do anything about it.

    Well most people would call me crazy (and you should:)

    That's my opinion anywaysz.

  197. Other articles by kuma_act · · Score: 1

    http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/World/2005/01/05/80877 4.html

    This article gives a bit more detail about the situation that may make things a bit clearer.

    "The jet, a chartered Cessna Citation, was landing Dec. 29 with six people aboard when a green light beam struck the windshield three times at about 3,000 feet, according to court documents. The pilot and co-pilot were temporarily blinded but were able to land the plane safely. "

    Now, he may not have been trying to blind the pilots, but this guy had to realize that that is a possibility. Especially given his profession: he tests fiber-optic cables - with lasers, I assume, since it says the laser was purchased for his job AND he is quoted by police in the USA Today article as saying "Don't point it at your eyes. It could blind you" when the laser pointer was brought out during questioning.

    The article says he hit the cockpit of the plane not once, but three times (!) with the laser. Stargazing my ass. He was seeing if he could really do what was in the news reports. And then, after hearing on the news that the Feds were taking this VERY seriously, he goes and points the beam at a helicopter. Not exactly the brightest bulb in the lamp, eh? A distant airplane, ok, maybe... maybe if you're a dumbass... I might believe you when you say you initially thought it was a star. A helicopter, close enough for the police to shine a spotlight on your house?

    One more thing to note: Everybody is going nuts over the potential penalties in this case. 25 years and $500,000 is the maximum penalty. Keep in mind that this all has to go before a judge and possibly a jury, depending on whether his attorney thinks he'll be a sympathetic defendant for a jury. It is very rare in criminal law for a defendant to get the maximum penalty. More than likely, this guy will get less than a year in jail out of it all.

    My opinion on this? This guy is one of the biggest dumbasses on the planet and probably deserves some jail time. 25 years is too much here, but some time behind bars is probably a good idea, both as a lesson for this guy and as a lesson for the "consequences ignorant" folks out there.

  198. I hereby by puppet10 · · Score: 1

    Call for a new FAA rule requiring all pilots and copilots be required to wear broadband laser eye protection during landings.

    This will put this matter to rest completely and protect them from a more dangerous near infrared laser attack on them.

    --
    -------- This space intentionally left blank --------
  199. Finagle's Law by wren337 · · Score: 1


    "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity."

  200. coherent (laser) illumination is worse than glare by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    on your eyesight, at least...

  201. Even better idea - New York by SuperKendall · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Riling Texas is pretty stupid as they supply a lot of the nations needs - we need them, they don't need us, and they have a lot of armed citizens who could easily make sure that all the "stupid crimials" stayed on the OTHER side of the fence, thank you very much.

    No, instead it is far better to simply bring to life the concept of "Escape from New York" and turn the whole city into a giant prison. A lot of the people that should be in such a place are there already (including stock analysts) and furthermore, it would be even harder for terrorists obcessed with harrasing New York to do anything if the population at large was very stupid and/or evil. You can't blow up a building with a bomb in a truck (see previous WTC plot) when your truck is jacked about a block into the city, or you get mugged and loose your briefcase dirty bomb.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Even better idea - New York by oliphaunt · · Score: 1
      Riling Texas is pretty stupid as they supply a lot of the nations needs - we need them, they don't need us, and they have a lot of armed citizens who could easily make sure that all the "stupid crimials" stayed on the OTHER side of the fence, thank you very much.
      I think you may be confusing 'Texas' with 'California.' Nobody needs Texas, or anything or anyone that comes out of it.

      Name one thing that Texas makes that we the US can't get from some other domestic source- and power-crazed traitors who will steal an election and jeapordize 200+ years of democracy don't count, becuase I'm sure we could find some of those in Hollywood too.

      --




      Humpty Dumpty was pushed.
    2. Re:Even better idea - New York by PsiPsiStar · · Score: 1

      We need Texas for... what? They have one of the worst educational systems in the country, but because they unify book purchasing for all their schools statewide they create such a big market that many book publishers provide for the Texas school book market. This insures that the standards for US educational materials are set by the state with one of the worst standards.

      I say we invade Texas and take their oil. Sure, there are a lot of people with weapons there, but we can probably use that as justification.

      --

      ___
      It's the end of my comment as I know it and I feel fine.
    3. Re:Even better idea - New York by Fnkmaster · · Score: 1

      Something tells me you've never really spent much meaningful time in New York. I've lived many places in this country so I feel qualified to comment. Before I moved to New York as a teenager, I was surrounded by morons everywhere I went. I had an intermittently unhappy childhood, thinking I was a worthless geek who would just never be popular.

      Then my family moved to New York and I started going to a top notch private school here. Suddenly, I was surrounded by fairly bright people, many of whom didn't hate me, they were actually envious of me because I got better grades then they did. I became active in activities in high school, and started dating a decent number of girls. I learned the joy of public transportation when you are 15 years old - no dependence on your parents for "the car" like you have out in the burbs. Complete freedom - which admittedly I went a bit overboard with for a while.

      New York is a fabulous place, with zillions of cultural opportunities that just don't exist outside of the city. Some of the brightest, hardest working people in the country live and work here. Also some real scumbags, which frankly makes it similar to every other place I've ever been. They are just often rich scumbags. It is expensive as hell, and it's not a good place to be if you're just ekeing out a living and don't have much money to burn. This is true. But to suggest that most of the people here are criminals or deserve to be in prison is just ignorant.

      Now, I return you to the regularly scheduled programming of making fun of Texas because it's populated with dumb rednecks.

    4. Re:Even better idea - New York by HRH+King+Lerxst · · Score: 1

      And don't forget, Texas was the only state that originally was a sovereign nation!!

      --
      No one got beat up more often than the mimes of the old west!
    5. Re:Even better idea - New York by BandwidthHog · · Score: 1

      You forgot Poland.

      Oops, I meant Hawaii.

      --

      Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari?
  202. 1920's Germany by mrkleen · · Score: 2, Insightful

    wow this country is becoming more and more like the late 20's germany.our personal freedom are being taken away "for our own protection". we also have "the enemy" in germany it was the "big bad jews" in the u.s. its the "terroris muslims who want to destroy american way of life". we had our own "burning of the reightstagg (sp) " whats next ? death sentences for drug users (after all they support the "terrorists") ? howabout camps for "them brown people "? this blows ive never been more ashamed to be an american. its time to start flying the flags the way we did after 9/11 but lets do it the right way and fly them upsidedown.

    1. Re:1920's Germany by dynamo · · Score: 1

      agreed. it's good to see someone else noticing and posting it.

    2. Re:1920's Germany by nsayer · · Score: 1

      Godwin's law strikes again. You are now disqualified.

    3. Re:1920's Germany by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your right to swing your fist stops at the end of the other persons nose.
      I don't fucking lase cockpits, I don't try to blind pilots, thus I don't get busted by the .gov, .
      Do YOU lase cockpits? Is that why you are snivelling?

    4. Re:1920's Germany by norkakn · · Score: 1

      Godwin's law is normally used with individuals. I don't think it applies when talking about oppressive governments.

    5. Re:1920's Germany by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Erm, Yea, it's right there in the 25:th amendment: "Your right to blindeth airliner pilots using commercial-grade lasers shall not be infringed!"

    6. Re:1920's Germany by SensitiveMale · · Score: 2, Insightful

      wow this country is becoming more and more like the late 20's germany.

      I was wondering how soon it would be until someone blamed Bush.

      our personal freedom are being taken away "for our own protection".

      Are you saying everyone should have the freedom to blind a pilot controlling a plane full of passengers and then to do it again? What if you are on that plane?

      we also have "the enemy" in germany it was the "big bad jews" in the u.s. its the "terroris muslims who want to destroy american way of life".

      I'm not sure the "big bad Jews" staged multiple terrorist attacks for over 20 years that culminated in 3000 deaths and an economic hit of more than a trillion dollars but I'll google it and see. I'll also check to see if the US has opened concentration camps across the country and interned every Muslim in this country. I don't think it has happened but you seem sure.

      whats next ? death sentences for drug users (after all they support the "terrorists") ?

      We've had a drug problem for over 40 years and I have yet to see death sentences for addicts. To the contrary, I have read how the government has funneled billions and billions into treatment programs and facilities.

      howabout camps for "them brown people "?

      Nice racist remark.

      this blows ive never been more ashamed to be an american. its time to start flying the flags the way we did after 9/11 but lets do it the right way and fly them upsidedown.

      If it bothers you that much, feel free to leave or renounce your citizenship.

    7. Re:1920's Germany by SilverspurG · · Score: 1

      Are you saying everyone should have the freedom to blind a pilot controlling a plane full of passengers and then to do it again?

      I think they're saying we have the right to use green lasers to point constellations out to our children without fearing that the local police will badger us with,"Don't you agree that, while viewing the stars, you MIGHT have struck an airplane?" I don't see the transcripts of the questioning session cited in any of the news articles.

      Admitting that it's possible and admitting that it occurred are two different things... but in a scenario like this I don't think the police care.

      --
      fast as fast can be. you'll never catch me.
    8. Re:1920's Germany by RexRhino · · Score: 1

      How does this idiotic stuff get modded +5?

      No ones personal freedoms are being taken away. You don't have the right to intentionally shine a laser into the eyes of a commercial airline pilot while he is flying a plane, any more than you have the right to drop bowling balls from a freeway overpass on moving cars, or pour sulferic acid on your neighbors dog.

      Also, the same morons who are screaming about "Nazis" because they aren't free to blind passenger aircraft, are the very same people who demand gun control, demand that the federal government control what everyone learns in school and that everyone should be forced into public education, demand that the federal government ban fast food and cola, ban beauty pagents for "exploiting women", force people to wear seatbelts and helmets, that parents who spank their children should be sent to prison, and the federal government should jail spammers while they are at it.

      The people who want the government to control every aspect of our lives, economy, education, health care, media & communication, marrage and family, are now suddenly all upset because they can't act like idiots with high power lasers. Boohoo! Those evil jackboot nazi thugs!

    9. Re:1920's Germany by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think if all we has doing was pointing out stars he would have had nothing to fear. The police are badgering him because he got caught doing it twice, the second time to the police directly. He's charged, and he'll have a lawyer (or two) to scruntinze the questioning, and they were probably sitting with him while this was going on, anyway.

      You might want to meet some policemen. You might not be so scared of them if you found out they were regular people.

    10. Re:1920's Germany by mrkleen · · Score: 1

      1 . im not blaming Bush im blanming the people for not questioning the motives, and not standing up for themselves 2. no blining pilots is wrong i was refering to other things that are going on in this country 3.we have guantanamo bay. that violates ALL international laws 4. do more reading ... the sentences for a DISEASE have been on a steady incline . we have most harsh sentences other then some 3rd world countries that actually kill people for being addicts 5IM the furthest thing from racist ... but this country is 6. no im a real american and i will say whats on my mind but thanks for the option

    11. Re:1920's Germany by mrkleen · · Score: 1

      its funny how we think so alike yet you totaly mmisconstrued what i was saying ... im not CONDONING STUPIDITY ( like shining laser into a cockpit ) what im upset about is and i quote "The people who want the government to control every aspect of our lives, economy, education, health care, media & communication, marrage and family"

    12. Re:1920's Germany by mrkleen · · Score: 1

      ummm i never mentioned N* or H* so im not sure about your post Godwin's LAW does not apply .. i was refering to the political situation in a country at a particualr time, where the government utilized mass hysteria and fear in order to secure absolute power

    13. Re:1920's Germany by nsayer · · Score: 1

      You compared the US government to the Nazis. Game, set, match.

    14. Re:1920's Germany by mrkleen · · Score: 1

      no what i did is i drew an analogy (as in analogy ( P ) Pronunciation Key (-nl-j) n. pl. analogies Similarity in some respects between things that are otherwise dissimilar. )based on historical facts. and we all know what happens when we fail to learn from the history.

    15. Re:1920's Germany by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1. Judge not lest ye be judged.
      2. This story was about blinding pilots. There are other threads about "other things going on in this country" (other countries too).
      3. Our having Guantanamo Bay violates "All international laws"? Really? All of them? Even this one
      4. Shining a laser on a passenger airplane is not a disease, unless you think stupidity qualifies.
      5. Good for you and no its not.
      6. Are you suggesting that people who don't share your views aren't "real" americans?

    16. Re:1920's Germany by hacker · · Score: 1
      "I'm not sure the "big bad Jews" staged multiple terrorist attacks for over 20 years that culminated in 3000 deaths and an economic hit of more than a trillion dollars but I'll google it and see."

      You've obviously never heard of Operation Northwood before.

    17. Re:1920's Germany by keytoe · · Score: 1

      We've had a drug problem for over 40 years
      Yeah, I remember the good old days back in the 40s before we had a drug problem in this country.

      Oh, wait. I forgot that we humans have had a drug problem for fucking ever. There will always be a portion of the population that uses drugs. It comes with the genes.

      We've just been putting the poor saps in jail for over 40 years.
    18. Re:1920's Germany by toddestan · · Score: 1

      I was wondering how soon it would be until someone blamed Bush.

      Looks like you were the one who brought up Bush, not the original poster.

  203. Suggestion, as in hypnosis by Muttonhead · · Score: 2, Funny

    I can see how the media might have suggested the idea of shining lasers at aircraft and after reading that people went outside to give it a try.

  204. Maximum 'possible' sentences by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 1
    He is charged with a) lasing the aircraft and interfering with the pilots (twice), and b) lying to federal officials.

    The charges together carry a possible maximum of 25 years. He has not been convicted, nor sentenced to the max.

    We shall have to wait and see what comes out. The judge and/or jury probably has wide latitude in the sentencing.

  205. Um. No. Sorry. by Venner · · Score: 1

    >>
    Ordinary laser lights will not do much to the eyes, as far as I know. Obviously if this light is going 3k feet in the air, it's not an ordinary laser. It's obviously quite high-powered and capable of causing injury.
    >>

    You're kidding, right? Even the laser at the supermarket for scanning prices can damage your eye. It's less than 0.5mW, so casual exposure won't hurt you.

    A 5mW red laser pointer is another matter. A few seconds can cause temporary blindness. In under a minute, you can cause permenant damage. And as to range, with my 5mW 632nm diode (common in 'bright' pointers), I've been able to reflect it off a stop sign just over a mile away. I used my telescope mount to align it and keep it steady (you'd need steadier hands than mine!), but the reflection was visible to the naked eye. Nothing fancy involved.

    The human eye is most sensitive to green (in the middle of the visible spectrum) so a 5mW green laser looks much brighter. And can do much more damage. And so far, we've just talked about Class IV and III lasers.

    Someone with a more powerful laser could do some serious harm in a short amount of time. Most CO2 lasers aren't in the band visible to the human eye and are very powerful. For a couple thousand dollars and some surplus parts, you can build a laser that will cut metal. If you're really gung-ho and have some skills, you can do it much cheaper.

    This incident? I think they're making the guy a patsy. Even if he was being stupid and shining a laser at a vehicle in the air, he probably didn't think it would hurt anyone. Intent is a very important concept. It doesn't indemnify him, but it ought to suggest more appropriate penalties.

    What should his punishment be? Since no one was hurt, I'd say probation and community service.

    While I certainly don't believe that the US had any direct involvement in the events of September 11th, I also certainly see the parallel between the WTC and the burning of the German Reichstag in 1933. Be very wary of anything done in the name of 'anti-terrorism.'

    --
    A preposition is a terrible thing to end a sentence with.
    1. Re:Um. No. Sorry. by kfg · · Score: 1

      (you'd need steadier hands than mine!)

      Aha!

      I think they're making the guy a patsy.

      More than that, they admit it up front. Under those circumstances a conviction is virtually impossible (although stranger things have happened), and the prosecutors know it. It'll be plea bargained to a misdemeanor count of criminal mischief and something like a $500 fine.

      KFG

    2. Re:Um. No. Sorry. by jesup · · Score: 1

      The eye is most sensitive to green, but the energy of the laser is the same, so any heating-related damage would be similar. The danger from lasers to the eye is generally that the energy is concentrated in a VERY small area (very few cells) and not just overloads them, they heat up and are damaged - or so I believe, IANAD (I Am Not An Doctor).

      So while a green laser will look brighter (and may cause overloading and temporary blindness more easily), I believe any damage would be similar to a red laser.

      And yes, be very wary of anything justified by 9/11, terrorism, etc. Even if everyone in the government is acting out of honest concern for the safety of Americans, etc, they can still go way too far in reacting to something like this, especially people who believe (as many fundamentalists like Ashcroft do) that the ends justify the means, and that they know what's good for people and aren't concerned about imposing those beliefs.

      Someone can have no evil(*) intentions and still cause major harm to liberty (and cause what many would call evil).

  206. Patriot? by geoff+lane · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Has this daft law ever been used to deal with an actual, real, evil, acid-spitting terrorist? Ever?

    1. Re:Patriot? by norkakn · · Score: 1

      no

      plenty of pot smokers tho, and they support terrorism!!!......... with all the pot they buy that's grown mostly in the US.......

      yeah, it's pretty stupid

    2. Re:Patriot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are people being held without trials from various nationalities (including some from the western world).

    3. Re:Patriot? by Animats · · Score: 3, Informative
      Well, sort of. Bin Laden's driver. )Really) A wannabe terrorist who didn't make the cut for September 11th. (He flunked out of flight school.) A crook from Detroit who got mixed up with some terrorist group. Some guys who went to fight with the Taliban before September 11th.

      We're not talking about al-Queda's A-team here.

  207. Computers? by Funkeriffic+Toad · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Granted I've never flown a plane, so I don't know how farfetched the idea may be... but isn't piloting a potentially computer-controllable task? After all, planes fly pre-arranged flight plans, land on carefully-scheduled runways, etc. In the plane, most of the work consists of pointing in the right direction at the right time, and being at the right altitude for the flight plan, no? And not only are computers harder to blind (with proper design) they are also harder to highjack (with proper security).

    Just a thought

    1. Re:Computers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      most planes do fly by computer (auto-pilot), pilots usually only liftoff and land, or take over in an emergency.. But normal flight is autopilot, and sometimes auto is required (during dark/stormy weather where the pilot cant see)

      The fact is, computers could launch and land too but then the pilots would get no practice =P

  208. Bullshit from the Neo-con apologist brigade. . . by Fantastic+Lad · · Score: 1
    The plane was only at about 3,000 feet on approach for landing. I'm guessing that the pilot just MIGHT have been looking towards the ground.

    There was no mention in the article about altitude. I also did a Google search but found no such details.

    Unless the fellow's house was actually built on the runway, I find it rather unlikely that he managed to hit the cockpit at 3000 feet from his backyard.


    -FL

  209. When a cop uses the words "make an example", by aristus · · Score: 1
    someone is being made a scapegoat. This "rash" of laser attacks has been reported all over the country, not just this guy's house, else a suspect would have been found much sooner. He is a suspect, and the law does state such-and-such punishment. No argument there.

    But a vital piece is missing from the information we have: exactly what part of the "Patriot" Act was involved, and exactly how did it make it easier to find him? From the report, he was caught after the chopper investigating the incident was shined on as well.

    This man is a double-scapegoat; his case is also being used to boost the efficacy of the "Patriot" Act, even though no specifics are given. The USA Today article even has a bootless frission about how these dangerous terrorist weapons are available over the Internet for $15.

    --
    Sometimes seventeen/Syllables aren't enough to/Express a complete
  210. Lasers are different by tepples · · Score: 1

    The headlights of a motor vehicle do not focus intense, coherent light at a small point. A laser pointer does. It's much easier for a laser to burn a blind spot in a human eye than for a conventional light source to do the same.

    1. Re:Lasers are different by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Light, even "laser" light diffuses over distance in an atmosphere. It is my decided opinion that the use of a laser as astronomical aid by even amateur operators takes precedent over the minuscule and highly over inflated threat it, when from the ground several thousand feet away it intersects the window of the cockpit and would appear as a brighter area at the most. Now, if shined from within the body of the place into the cockpit and reflected into the eyes of a pilot it is a genuine danger and does belong on the list of items to be refused cabin transit on an airplane.

    2. Re:Lasers are different by ottothecow · · Score: 4, Insightful

      But the high beams instantly kill the drivers vision while they shine (from front or into mirrors) while he is participating in what is already a very dangerous activity. The pilot could afford a few seconds without vision (hell he could get up and do a dance)

      --
      Bottles.
    3. Re:Lasers are different by Flashbck · · Score: 2

      The pilot could afford a few seconds without vision (hell he could get up and do a dance)

      But a laser can burn the retinas causing temporary blindness which may last a little longer than the fuel on the plane can

    4. Re:Lasers are different by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      The pilot could afford a few seconds without vision (hell he could get up and do a dance)

      Not if he is on his final approach...

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    5. Re:Lasers are different by Jzanu · · Score: 1

      Reference the single anonymous post attached to this sub-thread, it explains the simplistic foolishness represented by your post. Primarily, a laser light is subject to the same diffusing effect as any other light within an atmosphere, it was impossible for the man to have produced a green dot at the distance he was from the airplane.

    6. Re:Lasers are different by Arcturax · · Score: 1

      There are times where even a few seconds of vision loss can be absolutely critical, especially when taking off or landing.

      Also, what if the damage is for more than a few seconds and affects both pilot and co-pilot?

      --

      --Won't that be grand? Computers and the programs will start thinking and the people will stop. - Dr. Walter Gibbs
    7. Re:Lasers are different by wertarbyte · · Score: 1

      Please, a laser pointer wont burn your eye instantly. You really have to stare into the beam for some time, nothing someone ever would do.

      --
      Life is just nature's way of keeping meat fresh.
    8. Re:Lasers are different by FredThompson · · Score: 1

      Yup. 3,000 feet is very different than 30,000 feet.

    9. Re:Lasers are different by penguin_asylum · · Score: 1

      So not only will he hit the pilot square in the eye from the ground, but he will aim it at the glass so that it splits into two beams and also hits the co-pilot? Wow.

    10. Re:Lasers are different by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 0, Troll

      Wel I guess its poinless, I feel like feeding the tolls:
      Please, a laser pointer wont burn your eye instantly. You really have to stare into the beam for some time, nothing someone ever would do.
      Please, get a clue! Google or read a book about physics. You are wrong
      angel'o'sphere

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    11. Re:Lasers are different by wertarbyte · · Score: 1

      I did. Check this: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser#Klassifizierung _nach_DIN_EN_60825-1 (I'm sorry, I couldn't find an english version of this) Accorind to DIN classification, the beam of a type 2 laser does not endanger the eye for a period of 0.25 seconds, as longer exposure is avoided by your lid closing reflex.

      --
      Life is just nature's way of keeping meat fresh.
    12. Re:Lasers are different by Thomas+Shaddack · · Score: 1

      All depends on the energy per time delivered into the eye. That depends on the angle the beam gets into the eye, the ratio of crossection of the beam (which grows with square of distance) vs the crossection of the pupil (which contracts rather quickly), and time (which is typically the shorter the beam is narrower - as a test try to hit a dot of the size of an eye pupil drawn on a car door, with a laser pointer, from considerable distance. Try both stopped and moving car, both from hand and from a tripod. It is not easy, even with the tripod.

    13. Re:Lasers are different by SilverspurG · · Score: 1

      Please, get a clue! Google or read a book about physics

      Most people have neverending disdain for those who think they know everything just because they've read it.

      I've stared straight into the sun long enough to have a ten minute afterimage. I've stared straight into a laser long enough to see the kinda neat pattern that's inside the beam. Other than the afterimage (which wasn't blinding and did go away) I've never been blinded.

      I think people are overreacting on exaggerated and probably falsified reports. Why? Because they believe everything they read but have no experience whatsoever with reality.

      --
      fast as fast can be. you'll never catch me.
    14. Re:Lasers are different by jsdkl · · Score: 2, Informative
      I went to Google, searched for "laser pointer eye damage" (without the quotes) and went to the first hit: http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/english/iyh/products/laser. html (Health Canada).

      To quote: "If you look directly into the beam from a laser pointer for more than a minute and a half in a very steady manner, or shine the beam into your eyes with binoculars, you could end up with permanent eye damage."

    15. Re:Lasers are different by Moofie · · Score: 1

      "Also, what if the damage is for more than a few seconds and affects both pilot and co-pilot?"

      Then it didn't come from a dinky little laser pointer.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    16. Re:Lasers are different by spectre_240sx · · Score: 1

      I really don't mean to be offensive with this comment... but your addmitting to staring into both the sun as well as a laser beam is not helping your case much.

    17. Re:Lasers are different by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      but your addmitting to staring into both the sun as well as a laser beam is not helping your case much.

      Since when is truth learned through experience discrediting?

      Some people will do anything to try a smart comment.

    18. Re:Lasers are different by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      First of all, learn the difference between YOUR and YOU'RE. Then learn to spell, and then get rid of YOUR gay-ass free iPod sig. Then you can FOAD!!

    19. Re:Lasers are different by jrockway · · Score: 2, Insightful

      We should make the Sun illegal because if you look into that for a minute or two you might go blind.

      --
      My other car is first.
    20. Re:Lasers are different by Flashbck · · Score: 1

      depends on the class laser that being pointed into your eye...Laser Pointer Safety and so you know, anyone can buy a class 3b laser which can cause damage to the retina in the time it takes to blink

      Quote from Laser Safety Information
      "Class 3B lasers are very likely to cause damage to the eye before the aversion response operates."

    21. Re:Lasers are different by fucksl4shd0t · · Score: 1

      You might have just explained the temporary blindness. So the beam hits your eye, and your pupil closes to let in less light. But it's nighttime, so now you can't see until your pupil readjusts. Sorta like stepping into a dark room from a bright room. You can't see for a few seconds/minutes.

      Right? Wrong?

      --
      Like what I said? You might like my music
    22. Re:Lasers are different by fucksl4shd0t · · Score: 1

      I've stared straight into the sun long enough to have a ten minute afterimage. I've stared straight into a laser long enough to see the kinda neat pattern that's inside the beam. Other than the afterimage (which wasn't blinding and did go away) I've never been blinded

      I built my guitar stand out of scrap exhaust pipes, painted it, and so forth. I did all the initial welding with the mig welder, went back over it with the torch. Didn't wear a mask at all. During the mig welding I watched closely to see the first part of the bead start, then shut my eyes tightly.

      After I got home from work, I couldn't see for about 30 hours. Literally, couldn't see. Called in to work and so forth, had to wear sunglasses for the remaining light part of the day.

      A few days later, grabbed the torch and rewelded a number of parts that weren't welded correctly. Wore a mask.

      It's a nice guitar stand. I have one of those lightning-bolt shaped guitars, so your standard guitar stand wouldn't work for it at all.

      --
      Like what I said? You might like my music
    23. Re:Lasers are different by Thomas+Shaddack · · Score: 1

      Right. Kind of like when you meet a car with strong lights, or when a SWAT team swarms into your house in the middle of the night, flashlights on. This is a problem at the very final phases of touchdown; in other parts of the flight, the autopilot and the guidance from the Tower (you go temporarily blind but not deaf) should save the day, or more specifically, night.

    24. Re:Lasers are different by fucksl4shd0t · · Score: 1

      Man, I hate driving at night for that reason. I always thought it was just me, that my eyes were particularly sensitive to light. (I still think so, actually, for various unrelated reasons) I flash people who have their low beams on because their low beams are really bright. Hmmm.

      I've always thought the dangers of laser pointers were blown out of proportion by the mass media, but I've never thought laser pointers were perfectly safe. :)

      The guy should be in trouble for it, and they should be able to use pre-PATRIOT laws to get him. But we need to recognize something else going on here.

      Prosecutors always go for the jugular, and they rarely get it. If the man's guilty, the judge decides the sentence (or the jury in some places, I think). Throughout the trial, their might be some exchanges to reduce the charges, and the sentence is not likely to be the maximum penalty available (unless he's already got a serious criminal record). The way the system works, if a prosecutor doesn't go for the maximum charge/penalty, he loses the case before it even starts.

      So, yeah, the PATRIOT act shouldn't be applied here, but it's not an abuse of the PATRIOT act that's the cause, rather it's the way the system works. Fix the system. (Yeah, we need to get rid of the patriot act, but that's not the problem here)

      --
      Like what I said? You might like my music
    25. Re:Lasers are different by Thomas+Shaddack · · Score: 1
      So, yeah, the PATRIOT act shouldn't be applied here, but it's not an abuse of the PATRIOT act that's the cause, rather it's the way the system works. Fix the system. (Yeah, we need to get rid of the patriot act, but that's not the problem here)

      That, and the guilty pleas. Even somebody quite innocent can be forced to accept couple months for nothing when facing a prolonged and expensive legal battle with the risk of getting a Patriotic sentence. And the drug-quagmire asset forfeitures. That's not a legal system, that's a feudal-grade farce.

    26. Re:Lasers are different by archeopterix · · Score: 1
      Please, a laser pointer wont burn your eye instantly. You really have to stare into the beam for some time, nothing someone ever would do.

      Please, get a clue! Google or read a book about physics. You are wrong angel'o'sphere

      Sigh... Actually, the power limits of class 2 lasers are set so that it won't damage your vision unless you refrain from blinking/averting your sight. Class 3R lasers are borderline (small risk of damage from accidental exposure). The pointers are class 3R lasers ( less than 5mW output power).
  211. Nahh, he's smart by Imazalil · · Score: 1

    See, by the time he would get to retire, there will be no such thing as Social Security. Most retirement homes look pretty much like jails anyway, and jails have a little bit of excitement once in a while (prison riot v.s. bingo night). So I bet he is thinking of this like an early retirement.

    Im.

  212. Planes are not travelling at 600 miles an hour ... by AzrealAO · · Score: 1

    3,000 feet up on final approach.

    You don't have to shine the laser directly into a pilots retina to dazzle him in that crucial time during landing. Especially considering this is occuring at night, suddenly illuminating the windshield infront of him with an extremely bright green light, which is dancing around due to aircraft movement and vibration from the guy pointing the laser, is going to dazzle the pilots and seriously fuck with their night vision.

    A terrorist doesn't have to be precice, because he's not trying to bring down one particular plane, at one particular time. He just has to keep pointing it at planes during approach until he gets lucky.

  213. Terrorism pretext by Muttonhead · · Score: 2, Funny

    The terrorism pretext is a big excuse to clamp down on Americans. In other news, little Johnny rudely pointed his finger at his teacher, Mrs. Smith. He will get 50 years for that. Little did Johnny know that his finger pointing interrupted Mrs. Smith's speech and caused her to lose her bid for school principal.

  214. Key word is "Up To" by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    Note that he's not getting 25 years automatically - he's getting UP TO 25 years.

    So, I think people should decide how riled up to get after the sentance is handed out.

    Note that not only did he hit the helicopter, he admitted shining lights on a jet - this is not an average laser pointer in operation. Regardless of how you feel about the Patriot act something should happen to this guy, his actions are indefensible.

    I also think 25 years is overkill. But you also can't just let people who might blind pilots go with a $100 fine and a night in the pokey to "sleep off the stupids". They are right to make an example him so future people shining lasers on planes are really the ones you want to go after - punishing him imporves the S/N ratio for other crimes of the sort.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Key word is "Up To" by SilverspurG · · Score: 1

      Note that not only did he hit the helicopter

      I seriously believe that part was added in by the police to make the story credible. If they'd tell the truth the DA probably would've told them to get stuffed.

      he admitted shining lights on a jet

      If you're looking at the stars, and the pilots say they were blinded, and you say,"Well, I suppose it could've passed over the jet while I was pointing out Capricorn" that counts as an admission to the media.

      Don't you people have ANY critical thinking skills, at all?

      --
      fast as fast can be. you'll never catch me.
    2. Re:Key word is "Up To" by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

      I seriously believe that part was added in by the police to make the story credible. If they'd tell the truth the DA probably would've told them to get stuffed.

      I see.

      If you're looking at the stars, and the pilots say they were blinded, and you say,"Well, I suppose it could've passed over the jet while I was pointing out Capricorn" that counts as an admission to the media.

      Remember that the pilots did not say they were blinded - they said a laser appeared "for a few seconds" which indicates tracking. If you use your brain you realize that a fixed light would not even have been visible long enough from something going as fast as a jetliner... that they saw it at all means someone was following the plane with it.

      Furthermore something like a police helicopter would be very visible (running lights, remember?) and therefore you would pretty much have to it it because you wanted to, even if you had it just pointing up at a star or a cloud you would be able to move it out of the way. With headlines of lasers hitting planes in the national news would YOU honestly hit a plane or copter with a laser if you could avoid it? Would you leave it on outside while you went in to fix yourself a snack?

      Don't you people have ANY critical thinking skills, at all?

      I use the brain I have, which appears to be far more capable of logical reasoning that the particular brand of your brain full of anti-government paranoia that has clouded your thinking.

      --
      "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    3. Re:Key word is "Up To" by SilverspurG · · Score: 1

      Remember that the pilots did not say they were blinded

      And while Banach was subjected to the intense scrutiny of an FBI lie-detector tests, the pilots weren't. Why should we believe the pilots?

      Furthermore something like a police helicopter would be very visible (running lights, remember?)

      I've been wondering about the police helicopter. Apparently the cops and the pilot went out to try to find the source of the light. Wouldn't that be done in the daytime? Isn't it also kinda tough to see a dot of light on the outside of a helicopter if you're inside the copter?

      There's too much here that doesn't add up. I think this is a case of "we saw the beam of light in the sky and assumed it was aimed at us".

      I use the brain I have

      You have not exercised a single moment of critical or individual thought. You have reacted in a fashion that one would expect from doing nothing more than reading the articles.

      anti-government paranoia

      I said nothing which was anti-government. The government is free to go arrest people and subject them to lie-detector questioning if it's plausible that the accusers aren't exaggerating the story or flat out making it up. In all fairness, if you want to strap me to a lie detector, then your accusation better have been made under lie detector questioning first.

      --
      fast as fast can be. you'll never catch me.
  215. Re:"Laser printing could lead to 25-year prison te by kaligraphic · · Score: 1

    Hey, it's in the name of public safety! You could... um... you could burn yourself on that drum in a laser printer! They should be outlawed!

    (well it does get pretty warm)

    --
    You are standing in an open server west of a blue house, with a boarded front door. There is an Exchange mailbox here.
  216. I'm so relieved by dynamo · · Score: 1

    we have the patriot act to protect us from those rogue laser pointer terrorists trying to blind pilots.

    Now when do we get a law to protect from rogue governments trying to point fear colored laser pointers at the public?

  217. Show me the guys victims... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    So you are saying that if someone yells "fire" in a crowded auditorium and it happens that this time nobody got hurt that nobody should go to jail? But if it just so happened that someone tripped because their shoelace was untied, and someone triped over them and got hurt, someone might be subject to jail?

    Perhaps in your democracy, there isn't such a concept as negligence or deterence, but I don't think that's a commonly held position. Which at least in this case means that under a democracy, wouldn't your position be moot?

    Just something to ponder before you use the royal "we" again...

  218. Re:I think it's mostly for yucks. 25 years is absu by Rakishi · · Score: 1

    RTFA, a laser was aimed at an airplane and then at a helicopter trying to find the source of the laser. He did it twice, and the second time wasn't even an object that far away.

  219. bullshit by multiOSfreak · · Score: 1
    What this guy did could have very easily led to the death of 250 people.

    Totally not true. From the CNN article:

    "Banach also initially denied any involvement in the earlier incident, in which a laser beam struck a small aircraft with 13 people aboard as it was landing at Teterboro Airport in New Jersey, 12 miles west of midtown New York City."

    He's still an idiot, but he didn't endager 250 people. The jet was a small, chartered commercial jet, not a 777. And when they say "earlier incident," they mean the jet. The second incident was when the cops were in a helicopter trying to figure out where the first laser incident took place (the dumbass tagged the cop 'copter with the laser, too, effectively punching holes in his "I didn't know what I was doing" defense).

    Now, you could argue that if the plane with 13 people crashed in MidTown it would lead to more deaths, but there's no basis to just randomly grab 250 as a death toll.
  220. My apologies, I didnt' realize there was only one by AzrealAO · · Score: 1

    article on the subject.

    The jet, a chartered Cessna Citation, was landing Dec. 29 with six people aboard when a green light beam struck the windshield three times at about 3,000 feet, according to court documents. The pilot and co-pilot were temporarily blinded but were able to land the plane safely.

    Man Charged Under Patriot Act for Laser

  221. Uh, not quite... by msauve · · Score: 1
    and it's not clear that the charge will stick. The text of the Patriot Act may be found at http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi ?dbname=107_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ056.107.p df

    I couldn't find exactly what law he was charged with violating, but suspect it's 49 USC 49504 (search at http://uscode.house.gov/search/criteria.php), which was amended by the Patriot Act.

    That section deals with "Interference with flight crew members and attendants," and reads:

    An individual on an aircraft in the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States who, by assaulting or intimidating a flight crew member or flight attendant of the aircraft, interferes with the performance of the duties of the member or attendant or lessens the ability of the member or attendant to perform those duties, or attempts or conspires to do such an act, shall be fined under title 18, imprisoned for not more than 20 years, or both. However, if a dangerous weapon is used in assaulting or intimidating the member or attendant, the individual shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life.

    So, is shining a light, especially one which meets US safety regulations (as all laser pointers must) at someone "assault?" How about a flashlight? Seems to me that is going to be quite hard to prove. Doesn't "assault" also require intent to do harm?

    Certainly, a laser light show not deliberately made to point at an aircraft can't be considered "assault."

    The FBI seems confused about the law (no surprise). In this (http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=385589) AP article, it states that "According to the FBI, the Patriot Act does not describe helicopters as "mass transportation vehicles." While the statement is technically true, it's also the case that the Patriot Act doesn't describe anything as "mass transportation vehicles," in fact the phrase never appears at all.

    --
    "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    1. Re:Uh, not quite... by slappyjack · · Score: 1

      So, is shining a light, especially one which meets US safety regulations (as all laser pointers must) at someone "assault?" How about a flashlight?

      Man, I hope flashlights don't get classified like that... our entire lighting crew would have to start filing charges against each other.

      Example [stagehands working 50 feet in the air, in the dark]:

      "Hey! You got that 25 footer i need for this..."

      "What?" [looks up to talk to me]

      "That twenty-fiv... WAAAAUGH! DUDE! Headlamp."

      "Oh, yeah. Sorry."

      "s'cool. I'm just going to sit down a minute so I don't fall off this truss..."

      This is a true story. It happens roughly ... well, all the time.
      Names withheld to protect the semi-innocent
      LED headlamps, greatest thing ever.

    2. Re:Uh, not quite... by t_allardyce · · Score: 1

      Well technically yes, if you point something at someones eyes that has the ability to damage them then its just like firing a gun at them. Obviously its not as dangerous as a gun but neither is punching someone with a 'fist that meets US safety regulations' - its still assult.

      --
      This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
  222. Remember the facts by linuxislandsucks · · Score: 1

    Fact,

    This idiot bought a commercial grade laser, not a laser pinpointer.. nUmber, two when confronted blamed inon his daughter when questioned by FBI..

    I woudl say that is enough illegal intent there to get him the full 25 years..

    --
    Don't Tread on OpenSource
    1. Re:Remember the facts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can get 25 years for your typing and spelling.

    2. Re:Remember the facts by norkakn · · Score: 2, Insightful

      um.. do you have __ANY__ idea what 25 years in jail is? that's one's whole career. that is your life. when you come out, you are old and cannot find work and cannor get a job and a good number of the people you knew a re dead and the rest either don't remember you or don't want to talk to you.

      30 days in county jail for being a jackass sure, but 25 years?

  223. You sound ridiculous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Gene pool safety" ... you're disgusting. Go away and read some actual Darwin. You have been on the Internet for far too long.

  224. Re:coherent (laser) illumination is worse than gla by LiquidCoooled · · Score: 1

    So the pilot is going to sit there staring into the light whilst travelling at hundreds of miles an hour?
    I can quite happily see this laser flashing the pilot, but nothing more than a few seconds at most, and even then, the pilot just needs to do something he has done all his life.

    Blink.

    We arent talking about military or medical lasers, this is a handheld pocket pointer.

    --
    liqbase :: faster than paper
  225. nothing to see here, move along. by bani · · Score: 1

    I just love the wording they chose to describe the stupidity... "hit by a laser beam". They make it seem like the dude was firing a laser gun at them and harming the helicopter.

    doesnt sound that way to me at all, any more than "hit by a spotlight".

    your attempt to assign malicious intent to the journalist failed utterly.

  226. Nope by glrotate · · Score: 1

    I wasn't commenting on the specific case.

    1. Re:Nope by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then what were you commenting on? Because the rest of us are talking about this laser-pointer case.

      In any event, there's a difference between accidentally doing something that can cause harm to others vs. intentionally doing something and just not knowing that it can cause harm to others. The former is an accident, the latter is reckless endangerment.

      To be specific to this case, there was no accident involved. He did exactly what he meant to do. For other cases, well, I hate to generalize... but it can be safely asserted that when someone intentionally does something to endanger others, even if they don't understand why it's dangerous, it's a crime. Lack of intent isn't a legitimate part of the defense, because they intended to do what they did.

  227. Re:Republicans Like and Support Patriot Act! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Patriot act was pushed thru by Bush so fast that most legislators said they didn't even READ IT!

    The REPUBLICANS control congress (and have over the last decade), so the fact the Patriot Act still exists and hasn't been changed, is DIRECTLY THE FAULT OF REPUBLICANS. They even fought a bill that amended the Patriot act to no longer require tracking of every book you read at the library!

  228. You're really going out on a limb there. by i41Overlord · · Score: 1

    So trying to blind pilots in order to cause their aircraft to crash will only net you 25 years?

    Who said he was trying to blind pilots in order to crash the plane? How do you know he wasn't just playing with his new laser pointer, trying to see if he can see the reflection off the plane? Sure, it's not the smartest thing to do, but it isn't like trying to bring down an airliner, either. They will have a tough time proving that his intent was to blind the pilots.

    When I got a laser pointer years ago, I'd shine it at the wall on the building across the street from me. I wanted to see how good it would project a beam. I was not trying to blow up the building with the laser or kill everyone inside of it.

    I mean, if I were to shoot a SAM at an airliner and get caught, I think I'd probably be looking at more than 25 years even if it missed.

    If you shot a SAM at an airliner, that would show malicious intent. For what other reason would you possess a surface to air missile? I'm not a lawyer but I'm pretty sure the law sees a laser pointer and a SAM in a different light, given their purposes and capabilities.

    I think what we are seeing is what many predicted would happen- the government is using powers that it grabbed under the guise of "catching terrorists" against its own people. What used to be a simple criminal offense is now a major offense under new anti-terrorism laws. They are testing the waters trying to see how many things they can apply their new powers to. It seems that everything from smoking pot to teenagers playing with firecrackers to possessing a fake ID in order to get into bars will now have an anti-terrorism charge applied to it. The fact that these people aren't terrorists is irrelevant to a prosecutor trying to make a name for himself. The government has strong new powers and it will use them recklessly and mercilessly against its own people.

  229. Obligatory MIB Quote... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Your proposition is acceptable to me"

  230. "example" != "scapegoat" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Granted, they are attempting to make an example of this man. As long as the punishment falls within the letter of the law, no problem. Perhaps you should use the word "example" instead of "scapegoat." A scapegoat is someone who is blamed for someone else's transgressions. Highly-publicized charges and harsh punishments are one thing, but the man did commit the crime.

  231. Delta Case by dpm · · Score: 1

    At first glance, hitting a plane with a laser pointer from that far away seems unlikely -- trying looking at an airplane cockpit through a handheld telescope and you'll see what I mean. Still, I guess enough people are trying it that some are getting (un)lucky. For example, in September the first officer on a Delta 737 on approach into Salt Lake City suffered retina damage from a laser:

    http://washingtontimes.com/national/20040928-111 35 6-3924r.htm

    I am an instrument rated private pilot myself, and I can attest that night vision is a very fragile thing -- even on a coupled instrument approach (ILS), pilots nearly always have to do the last 200 feet and touchdown manually. Just flashing a camera in the cockpit within a few minutes of touchdown would be very dangerous. Most of the laser problems so far are probably accidental, from laser light shows, etc. Rightly or wrongly, those may be banned within the next couple of years.

  232. Using the stupidity cover??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What if the guy's name sounded like middle eastren? Would you sill be willing to give him the benifit of being stupid? A slap on the wrist?

  233. Re:Planes are not travelling at 600 miles an hour by Newspimp · · Score: 1

    You evidently don't know dick about laser refraction, aiming, positioning, and angling. There is zero percent chance that even if the damn plane was still in the air that anyone could accurately point and shoot a laser through the air that would refract through the glass properly enough to cause any eyesight issues even if they were only 100' away from the plane.

    Stupidity may have been a part of this, definitely. But criminal intent of downing a plane is laughable.

    Go and actually try to maintain a steady laser pointing at a small target from any distance and you'll see how impossible blinding a pilot's eye through a moving plane window would be.

    Not to mention the equipment to blind, only temporarily, a pilot in the perhaps millisecond that the angles would've been proper is so large and almost unattainable, that having such equipment would be almost impossible.

    Think of it this way. The US government can't properly create a ground-based laser system to down missles or aircraft, with all of the resources and scientists at their disposal, but this guy is a threat to aircraft? Bullshit.

    Even the feds reject that there was terroristic intent or threat but still, he's a terrorist prosecuted under the PATRIOT act? Once again, bullshit.

  234. Re:Walking in fear by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, dude, you've given the terrorists the victory.

  235. Uh, anyone remember physics? by feloneous+cat · · Score: 1

    Power is inversely proportional to the square of the distance?

    Oh, yeah, this is /. what in the HELL was I thinking...

    --
    IANAL, but I've seen actors play them on TV
    1. Re:Uh, anyone remember physics? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a coherent beam, Einstein. The square of distance law doesn't apply to lasers.

    2. Re:Uh, anyone remember physics? by blackpaw · · Score: 1

      Coherence has nothing to do with it - the laser beam still spreads, and the inverse square law still applies.

    3. Re:Uh, anyone remember physics? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Coherence has nothing to do with it, but collimation has everything to do with it. Yes the beam diverges, but mostly due to atmospheric scattering; the inverse square law does NOT apply to a collimated beam.

    4. Re:Uh, anyone remember physics? by feloneous+cat · · Score: 1

      Odd, but my construction laser DOES suffer loss of power over distance.

      But then I guess the fact that I don't live in a vacuum may have something to do with it...

      --
      IANAL, but I've seen actors play them on TV
    5. Re:Uh, anyone remember physics? by blackpaw · · Score: 1

      Assuming the lasers in question are collimated, which requires some expensive and sophisticated, not to mention delicate optics.

    6. Re:Uh, anyone remember physics? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      However, to get a collimated beam you either need:

      1) VERY wide apeture (lots of power needed to get the intensity back up) AND good even optical characteristics of the material and lenses.
      OR
      2) A waveguide

      Neither the case here.

  236. Simpsons ObRef by LPetrazickis · · Score: 1

    Sideshow Bob: Hah! Attempted murder? Now honestly, what is that? Do they give a Nobel prize for attempted chemistry? Do they?

    Anyways, I think the general idea was to shine the laser at a plane, so the worst case scenario would have been a pretty green dot on the hull. Pilots complaining about being blinded is just an accident.

    --
    Is this a sigs-optional kind of place? 'Cause I am totally down with that if you know what I mean.
  237. dangerous lasers by kardar · · Score: 1

    they will burn through stuff - they will burn through your clothes, plastic, cardboard (I don't know about metal) but certainly it's not one of those opening your car door things or a little red dot that your dog or cat chases around on the carpet - these types of things will probably burn a hole in your carpet. Pointing it at your skin would be incredibly painful, perhaps lead to some serious burns. It'll burn through your clothing.

    It's more like shooting a BB gun up into the air just for fun. These types of lasers need to be thought of as a loaded gun (i.e. don't point them at people or anything else you wouldn't point a gun at). A cloud, a tree, a brick wall, freshly fallen snow, no harm done. These aren't any kind of expensive government things, they are apparently legal, but powerful. The idea is that you ought to treat it like a gun, not a toy. This probably has a lot to do with the "new-fangledness" of lasers, and perhaps a resistance to think that the science fiction stories would ever come true.

    People just don't realize how powerful lasers can be, and that even legal ones you can buy for a couple hundred bucks can be very dangerous and need to be treated appropriately. We need to raise the awareness that they are dangerous.

  238. And other victory for the terrorists... by CharonX · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Well, guess this is another victory for the terrorists then.
    Everytime citicens lose a bit of their freedom, those who oppose this freedom win. 9/11 till now was a string of victories for the terrorists, even if the Government wants you to believe otherwise.
    How much liberty and peronal freedom have you lost due to "laws against terror"?
    A sad day for the USA.

    --
    +++ MELON MELON MELON +++ Out of Cheese Error +++ redo from start +++
  239. Definition of terrorism... by Abreu · · Score: 1

    Mod parent up, stupidity/and-or/psychosis does not make him a terrorist.

    --
    No sig for the moment.
  240. Re:I think it's mostly for yucks. 25 years is absu by SilverspurG · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    RTFA

    Don't believe everything you read.

    a laser was aimed at an airplane

    An airplane flew past a laser aimed at the stars and the pilots were all stoned and drunk so they reacted in a paranoid manner. In order to gain credibility they had to drum up the story to include "blinding light".

    then at a helicopter

    The police, hearing the pilots yammering on the scanner, noticed the laser across the sky and similarly approached it. As they approached the laser danced about from constellation to constellation, so they figured that close enough counts when writing a report to include probable cause.

    It's called critical reading. Try it sometime.

    --
    fast as fast can be. you'll never catch me.
  241. basic physics misunderstandings by bani · · Score: 0, Troll

    you are dead wrong on both counts.

    not suprising for a typical slashdork though.

  242. Dada by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Quaint. So if I plant a bunch of glow sticks so they spell "LASER" in the flight path of a plane, am I a terrorist?

    What if I project large crop circle like patter at the ground with a laser, am I a terrorist?

    Doesn't "laser" make it sound so much more high tech, so much more nefarious than lets say "MAN MAY GET 25 YEARS FOR POINTING INNARDS OF CD PLAYER AT PASSING PLANE."

    Since when did the Chewbacca defense pass as the unified feild theory.

    Maybe if I do more drugs you will all go away.

    Meanwhile, I'm gonna shoot the next person I see with a bumper-sticker.

    You can never be too sure.

  243. Lessons to Learn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    (a) To be safe, you should never talk to law enforcement personnel. Let your lawyer do that.

    (b) Prosecutors will charge you with anything they can charge you with, whether or not their was malicious intent on your part.

    Yes, the guy was foolish to shine a laser pointer on an airplane, but the prosecution doesn't care that he didn't mean any harm. They're going to go after him with everything they can use.

  244. It wasn't a high powered laser by Rares+Marian · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    I find it extremely disturbing that you think that only high powered lasers exist.

    Where do you get your facts from, Bill O'reilly and Ann Coulter?

    --
    The message on the other side of this sig is false.
  245. ridiculous possible sentence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is an absolutely ridiculous sentence that the man may get. It appalls me to think that this man could lose a quarter of his life, or more, just because he's a dumb-ass. If anyone read the recent Slashdot article about the lasers in a cockpit, they know that it isn't NEAR enough power to harm anyone's eyes. He should get some penalty for his stupidity, but in my opinion, probably not even jail time. If they just gave his a year of probation, he would be sorry enough.

    1. Re:ridiculous possible sentence by fishbowl · · Score: 1

      > it isn't NEAR enough power to harm anyone's eyes.

      The pilots are testifying that it impaired their ability to fly the plane. If you think they are committing perjury, please write an amicus curare brief expressing your opinion. Perhaps you can testify as an expert witness (a physisicist? and Opthamologist? a pilot?) and you can affect the outcome of the trial.

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    2. Re:ridiculous possible sentence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >The pilots are testifying that it
      >impaired their ability to fly the plane.

      Oh, REALLY? Maybe they need to define the word "impaired". What if they just saw a green light on the window, then said "Wow, look at that...I wonder what it is." Then they continued to discuss it, even contacting the airport to investigate it...then that's it. Technically, they could say it impaired them because it took up their time. I would guess that these pilots will make it sound like more than it was just to make an example of this poor guy.

  246. This is the popular notion of scapegoat. by aristus · · Score: 1
    Let's say there was only ONE incident of lasering, instead of the number that have been reported all over the country. I am willing to bet large cash that this man would not have gotten the same amount of publicity or bail, and would not be used as an "example" to boost the efficacy of a draconian law.

    But since there have been many incidents, this IS happening to him. His situation is much worse than it would be because of the sins of others. He is a scapegoat. Scapegoats don't have to be the squeaky-clean innocents TV tells us they are.

    --
    Sometimes seventeen/Syllables aren't enough to/Express a complete
    1. Re:This is the popular notion of scapegoat. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am fortunate enough to have access to the Oxford English Dictionary, the most accurate English dictionary in the world. Its definitions are based upon ACTUAL USE IN PRINT instead of the ramblings of a random Slashdotter. Let us look at what it says about scapegoat:

      scapegoat, n.

      1. In the Mosaic ritual of the Day of Atonement (Lev. xvi), that one of two goats that was chosen by lot to be sent alive into the wilderness, the sins of the people having been symbolically laid upon it, while the other was appointed to be sacrificed.

      2. One who is blamed or punished for the sins of others. (So F. bouc émissaire.)

      This man is NOT being blamed or punished for the sins of others. He is being made an example in order to deter others from being careless with laser pointers.

      Now suppose there were an organization that came under fire for some poor decisions or actions. A scapegoat is a member of that organization who is blamed for these decisions despite having had little or nothing to do with them. This is usually done to avoid making the real leaders look bad.

      So back to the case at hand. This guy has misused a laser pointer and has lied to the FBI is being charged with misusing a laser pointer and lying to the FBI. He is responsible for the charges. He is not a scapegoat.

  247. "Abuse" of anti-terror laws by Deadplant · · Score: 1

    For those of you who seem to be missing the "rights" point of this article I'll point it out for you.

    A man who was being criminally negligent and recklessly endagering other people's lives has been charged using your new anti-terror laws.

    Do we need to recap what it means to be considered a terrorist in the USA these days?
    Briefly: indefinite detention without charges, roaming wiretaps without cause beyond suspicion...secret searches...etc

    Your "anti-terror" laws are now openly being used to prosecute regular criminals as well as "terrorists".

  248. Re:I think it's mostly for yucks. 25 years is absu by Is0m0rph · · Score: 1

    This wasn't a laser pointer. It was a commerical grade green laser used for testing fiber optics. Plus the guy came out multiple nights and pointed it planes/helicopters. He wasn't just goofing around with it one night and boom he's arrested.

  249. rehash of an old issue by hamsterspeed · · Score: 1

    The issue of lasers as a hazard to airborne navigation popped up as a pretty big issue in the laser display industry about a decade ago.

    The issue from a pilot's point of view.

    The SAE G-10T working group took the lead hammering it out; more here.

    The resulting FAA regulation is Chapter 29 of FAA Order 7400.2E.

    Also enjoy a brief video clip providing a pilot's eye view of a high-powered display laser illuminating a cockpit.

    --
    pants
    1. Re:rehash of an old issue by cbdavis · · Score: 1

      I like your sig line. Its my favorite movie line. Well, also maybe the response - "F**king A"

  250. Pilot temporarily blinded by peter303 · · Score: 1

    A couple of these recent incidents the pilots complained of being temprarily blinded. Doesnt sound so innocent to me.

    1. Re:Pilot temporarily blinded by SilverspurG · · Score: 1

      A couple of these recent incidents the pilots complained of being temprarily blinded

      Some people will say anything to get attention and paid time off. "I don't want to fly to Denver tonight, the stewardess and the waitress at the bar are BOTH offering me a threesome, and I've already had five drinks... I know, I'll say that a laser blinded me. That's been a pretty popular excuse, errrmmmm... story lately."

      --
      fast as fast can be. you'll never catch me.
  251. impossible? hardly. by bani · · Score: 1

    there are numerous incidents where airline pilots have had their eyesight temporarily or in some cases permanently damaged from lasers illuminating the cockpit.

    the TSA has a long history of lots of documented cases of cockpits being hit by UV, IR, visible light lasers and the crew being blinded. long before all these fuckin' idiots started buying laser pointers off ebay and pointing them at aircraft.

    it used to be relatively rare, but now you have every fucking moron in the country thinking its a good idea to blind pilots.

  252. Would You People Actually Read the PATRIOT Act? by Wicked187 · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    I am absolutely tired of hearing all of this FUD about the USA PATRIOT Act. Have any of the people that are against this thing even read it? Or, is it that they do not comprehend it? Or, perhaps it is that they just want to lie and mislead of others about it? Surprisingly, the document is written in clear and consice English... and very comprehendable. Also, the document does not make new laws or precendents... is merely makes small modifications to existing laws.


    The best thing about the USA PATRIOT Act, in contrast to other items, is that individual portions can be made invalid if found to be violating rights, and that the document stipulates that the Constitution of the USA should be used to determine anything questionable. Sounds like the same foresight that has let the Constitution itself transcend time.


    The point is, this is all FUD. I do not care if I get modded down; it will just prove what ignorance exists (the people who mod me down will be objected to the USA PATRIOT Act and be offended by what I have stated, but they most likely have not read the document).

    --
    Politics, Life, and More on my Aspiring for the Future
    1. Re:Would You People Actually Read the PATRIOT Act? by t_allardyce · · Score: 1

      Have any of the people that are against this thing even read it?

      Its interesting you ask that, know ask how many senators actually read it before it passed?

      --
      This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
    2. Re:Would You People Actually Read the PATRIOT Act? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not the content of the law - it's the name. Anything with the word "Patriot" in it gives a significant portion of "liberals" the creeps. Thus, The Patriot Act is evil incarnate. Simple.

  253. Point your laser at a faraway license plate by wsanders · · Score: 1

    You'll be surprised how much light is reflected by the little retrorefector beads in the license plate or steet sign. I've illuminated license plates 1/2 mile away with my cheapo red pointer. You might find it's actually quite hard to consistently "paint" a small, faraway target with a handheld pointer. After all, The Man has spent billions on "smart" weapons systems that do this, and they don't always work.

    BTW DO THIS AT YOUR OWN RISK - Make sure there are no people around. Police officers (and anyone that might have a gun around) assume that if they see a red dot, someone is aiming a laser sight at them. You might get shot, and I won't send flowers to your funeral.

    --
    Give a man a fish and you have fed him for today. Teach a man to fish, and he'll say "WHERE'S MY FISH, YOU IDIOT?"
  254. Ummm... this is fair by agraupe · · Score: 1

    I mean, the guy could have caused the death of many people, caused any amount of destruction (if it crashed in a built up area), did it to a search helicopter who was looking for him, and did it all with a commercial grade laser. Either he's a sadist, terrorist, or complete moron. I think it's best that he be locked up, for stupidity if nothing else.

  255. Re:coherent (laser) illumination is worse than gla by Botty · · Score: 0

    FUD and Troll. RTFA it's not a handheld laser it was something he bought to test fiber optics. Green beam at that. Much more concentrated. He even told the Agents not to shine it in their eyes it could blind them while he was being questioned. Another article points out that this laser was in the $100 range. How many hald-held weenie lasers cost $100? Furthermore laser light can burn faster than you can blink.

  256. Re:Republicans Like and Support Patriot Act! by jav1231 · · Score: 1

    Okay. You say that like it's inherently bad. Oh, and BTW are you saying that you would openly support Kerry or Hilary knowing a) they voted for it, b) they didn't even read it? Quite the educated voter, eh?

  257. Re:I think it's mostly for yucks. 25 years is absu by Proney · · Score: 1

    Critical reading, Cynical reading, same difference ;)

    --
    require "something.clever";
  258. Everyone but you... by msauve · · Score: 1

    The inverse square law only applies to point sources (i.e. those which radiate omnidirectionally).

    --
    "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
  259. entrapment! by peter303 · · Score: 1

    All these news articles about a laser could blind a pilot and knock down a plane just incited some bored and stupid people to try to do this. Its like all those kids imitiating MTV Jackass.

  260. you didn't google hard enough... by bani · · Score: 1

    altitude most certainly was mentioned in several articles about the incident.

    you either didnt read them or you didnt google very well.

  261. With great power comes great responsibility by kjenks · · Score: 1

    This is yet another example of a person introduced to a new technology who uses it unwisely. This will only become more common as more fools get newer, more powerful toys. Can you think of other examples? I'll bet you can.

    1. Re:With great power comes great responsibility by Jeld · · Score: 1

      Get out of your car. NOW!!!

      --

      Everybody Lies. But it doesn't matter since nobody listens.

  262. Tom Clancy - The Greatest "Terrist" of All Time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is the second terrorist tactic lifted from the pages of Clancy's Debt of Honor. The first was the jet-liner missile idea. Now, it's the "blind-the-pilot-wreck-the-plane" idea. Someone needs to give these terrorists something else to read. Maybe Clancy books should be export controlled.

  263. Re:Planes are not travelling at 600 miles an hour by fishbowl · · Score: 1

    I am picturing, not a laser into the pilot's eyes, but rather light diffusing laterally into the windscreen glass, impairing visibility. To me that sounds much more likely. If consumer power laser light can do that much damage at kilometers distant, I am now terribly afraid of the glimpse I get at the supermarket, past the mirror on the checkout stand!

    --
    -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
  264. Re:coherent (laser) illumination is worse than gla by LiquidCoooled · · Score: 1

    this isn't even the best/most expensive one, but this is enough proof.
    http://www.thinkgeek.com/gadgets/lights/5a47/

    And yes, I would tell anyone not to look into even a $1 cheapy red laser.

    But theres a world of difference between shining a laser at effectively point blank range, and getting a glancing flash from somebody thousands of feet away moving at hundreds of miles an hour.

    I've said this already, but if ANYONE had intent to damage or injure or cause any sort of problem, they would be shining lasers whilst stood at the end of the runway, or pointing at trucks on the motorway.
    Not from your own backyard, and certainly not from thousands of feet.

    --
    liqbase :: faster than paper
  265. drivel by Coming+soon! · · Score: 0

    Whatever gave you the idea that your personal freedoms included the right to shine a laser at a passenger airplane? Moron.

    1. Re:drivel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Give it a year, there will be a total ban on all laser pointing equipment. Regardless of use.

      A year after that and all I need to do to have you sent to Gitmo for an "indeterminate" stay is a phone call that says your evil, hate freedom, cite the Koran, and have a laser pointer.

      Enjoy Cuba.

      The problem here, is the whole issue is stupid. Granted, lasing an aircraft is idiotic. The guy should be sent to prison just for being stupid. However, of all the methods of causing an accident on a commercial airliner, lasing the cockpit is about the least effective. Think about it. Two pilots at the controlls, flight system fully capable of flying aircraft with no pilot input. Cockpit lased, solution, alter course 90 degrees. Or pull up. Unless the guy with the laser is above you, they can not see into the cockpit with an angle of attack above the horizon. Annoying, yes. Potentially dangerous to the pilot, mildly. Danger to aircraft, almost zero.

      You would stand a better chance of causing a problem if you raised two hundred pigeons, and released them in the approach path.

    2. Re:drivel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Aw hell how they're going to ban pigeons.

  266. Re:Walking in fear by dynamo · · Score: 1

    Actually, the 'terrorists' are also afraid of our own government. Their tactics suck as much as the governments, but frankly, they present much less of a threat to me personally.

    Since terrorism is by definition the causing of terror or fear...

  267. If only we got the whole story by Nkwe · · Score: 2, Interesting
    I really wish such articles would give us the whole story. What is not really being made clear is if all the airplane incidents were done with cheap inexpensive laser pointers, or more expensive, more powerfull lasers.

    If the cheapo pointers that you can buy at Target for a few dollars are a risk then this really is a story. If you have spend several hundred dollars and buy from some sort of industrial supplier then it is not near as much of a story. I really wish such articles would give us the whole story. What is not really being made clear is if all the airplane incidents were done with cheap inexpensive laser pointers, or more expensive, more powerful lasers.

    If the cheapo pointers that you can buy at Target for a few dollars are a risk then this really is a story. If you have to spend several hundred dollars and buy from some sort of industrial supplier then it is not near as much of a story.

    1. Re:If only we got the whole story by Nkwe · · Score: 1

      Apologies for posting both the pre and post spell check version. I tried to cut and paste and ended up forgetting the cut. Guilty as charged for not previewing.

  268. We're forgetting something by Spy+der+Mann · · Score: 1

    What the heck was this guy doing pointing a laser at an airplane? Doesn't he know these things are DANGEROUS?

  269. Re:Only 25 years? Off Topic reply following by cyberchondriac · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    I know, off topic, but I couldn't send a private message. Interesting nick. Tip of the hat to the world famous magician ?

    --

    Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
  270. Stupid by eebly · · Score: 2, Informative

    The whole 'lasers as weapons against planes' hysteria has to be one of the stupidest in memory. It just doesn't work. Salon.com's Patrick Smith, author of Ask the Pilot has written about this. Today an (almost) PhD. Physicist wrote in to support Mr. Smith. Text below for those of you who don't want to view the ad.

    --- Jan. 5, 2005 |

    I'm a few months away from receiving my Ph.D. in physics from a highly respected physics department. A good portion of my work has involved using various types of lasers.

    To understand the improbability of a laser attack, consider the technical requirements involved. A weak laser beam can indeed blind a person. However, hitting a small target like an eye is very difficult over long distances. In order to have a high probability of success the terrorists would need to spread out the laser beam to fill the cockpit window. That isn't so difficult, but when you spread out a beam of light it becomes weaker, so you need a more powerful laser to compensate. Terrorists would need a large laser with a portable power supply and cooling system. Such systems are available, but they are bulky and expensive.

    Next, temporary blindness is certainly dangerous. However, as Patrick Smith pointed out, blinding a pilot for a few seconds is not necessarily enough to bring down a plane. To bring down a plane the terrorists would have to inflict an injury that pilots can't recover from quickly. That requires either more power or a sustained exposure.

    Sustained exposure requires the ability to track a plane. Tracking a moving target is certainly possible, but it would require skilled engineers to develop a system as well as money for parts. To reduce the necessary skill and expense, they would want to illuminate the plane from a point along the flight path. They would also want to do it from a high point that has a line of sight to the cockpit during takeoff or landing. However, takeoff and landing paths are generally chosen for a lack of tall buildings and large hills.

    The location requirement is by no means an impossible resource constraint, but it does add to the difficulty of the task. It is interesting that the alleged attacks are happening around the country. Each site would need to be carefully selected, to ensure a good line of sight as well as easy access for bulky equipment and little scrutiny from law enforcement or other nosy observers.

    Realistically, the complete weapon system would cost a hundred thousand dollars, require at least two people to operate, and would require considerable time to setup. Not to mention considerable time to dismantle before fleeing. (Unless they want to leave behind expensive equipment that authorities can trace.) And all of this would have to be done from one of the few hills or tall buildings in the flight path.

    These are not impossible hurdles for a terrorist group, but most terrorist attacks against America in the past 10 years have involved fertilizer bombs, other improvised explosives, and boxcutter knives. If terrorist groups have money, technological savvy, and a network of operatives to scope out prime sites near airports around the United States, why not do something simple like make conventional explosives and plant them in public places?

    Finally, the fact that the alleged incidents have involved visible light makes me even more convinced that these are not terrorist attacks. Lasers that emit visible light would be a poor choice for a weapon system. First of all, pilots would notice that the cockpit was being illuminated and they could cover or avert their eyes while waiting for the illumination to pass. Second, a powerful laser beam passing through the sky will scatter from dust and water droplets in the air, letting l

    1. Re:Stupid by t_allardyce · · Score: 1

      Im with you on that, its just another stupid media "Tonight on Hysteria, laser pen attacks on planes! could this be the next 9/11? what you don't know _could_ kill you" bullshit. However there have been several cases where pilots have seen lasers including this one, im guessing this guy was just very lucky (or unlucky) and got it in the cockpit for a second, then they managed to find him because he was stupid enough to keep on doing it, just another idiot with a laser.

      --
      This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
  271. Counter-sue by UltimaL337Star · · Score: 1

    That money hungry government ran into MY laser beam I swear!

  272. Re:How can you reach a pilot from the ground? by fishbowl · · Score: 1


    "this may sound like a stupid question, but how is it physicly possible to blind a pilot from the ground?"

    I'm leaning to the theory that the diffuse beam hits the laminated cockpit glass on-axis, and diffuses through it, making enough of a glare problem to reduce visibility.

    I didn't specialize in optics in physics, so I don't feel qualified to comment, but I just can't buy the theory that a consumer laser caused actual retina damage from kilometers away.

    On the other hand, if the pilot is testifying that his vision was damaged by the laser, and if an opthamolgist corrorborates with expert testimony, and if there is some evidence that the New Jersey guy did this intentionally, well, he'd better get used to eating corned beef and working in a machine shop.

    --
    -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
  273. Re:Republicans Like and Support Patriot Act! by Darth23 · · Score: 2, Insightful
    If someone criticizes Republicans, woy would you automatically assume that they are supporters of the Democrats or Hillary or Kerry?

    That simplistic dualistic thinking drives really gets on my nerves.

    'You don't like A therefore you must like B because the mainstream mindset defines A and B as opposites.'

    --

    -------- In Soviet Russia, "Soviet Russia" sigs hate Slashdot.

  274. Reminds me of a page from...... by cbdavis · · Score: 1

    the Demotivators 2004 calendar - "It could be that the purpose of your life is only to serve as a warning to others". This poor guy is a loser and will probably be crucified. Let his experience be a warning to others.

    1. Re:Reminds me of a page from...... by fishnuts · · Score: 1

      There's a flaw with this logic. You see and hear about people getting arrested for driving while intoxicated all the time. Is it a warning to others? Of course. Why does it still happen? You can't prevent people from doing stupid things. It's human nature to make bad judgements occasionally, even when they are aware of the dangers.

      Punishing this guy wont prevent it from happening again... only prevent HIM from doing it again (well, hopefully)

  275. So the pilots only imagined it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And what is with this it's ok to try something harmful as long as there's a minimal chance you actually kill or harm someone.

    1. Re:So the pilots only imagined it? by lucason · · Score: 1

      Look I'm just saying that 25 years is a lot for throwing a pencil from across the room.

      Especially if there was no intent to kill.

  276. Re:Planes are not travelling at 600 miles an hour by Loadmaster · · Score: 1

    You evidently don't know dick about laser refraction, aiming, positioning, and angling. There is zero percent chance that even if the damn plane was still in the air that anyone could accurately point and shoot a laser through the air that would refract through the glass properly enough to cause any eyesight issues even if they were only 100' away from the plane.

    There have been incidents of people having their eyesight damaged momentarily due to lasing. Crews get briefed on lasing events everytime they're going into the AOR because it's happened to us before.

  277. Right tools for the job by Martdc · · Score: 1

    This guy should be prosecuted under the sensibly applicable laws ie for being an idiot with a low power laser. But as a terrorist ? hmmm. Some of the posts say that a jury will sort it out, except that as a terrorist he won't get one or his own choice of council or anything you expect. And even if he does theirs plenty of t word paranoia in the US to convict with. A recent news article here in Europe had a quote that we are in danger of "sleepwalking into a police state" What use are laws or protections from the state if it can void them all with the t word?

  278. So I guess... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > Now, because we're at war a simple act of (admitedly dangerous) stupidity will get you facing the patriot act.

    So I guess we didn't win the war on terror?

  279. We aren't talking a pilot here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The whole point is it's plane load of people. He could have killed several hundred people. Exactly how much should he get for that? Even if you give him a year per attempt it could be several hundred years. Cut it in half for a first time offense and it's still twice what they say. It's not how sentences are calculated but it shows that the sentence wouldn't excessive. What if he tried to set off a nuke and failed? Should he get two years for attempted murder and a try harder the next time from the judge? They have to be held to a different standard when large numbers of people are involved. The fact he used a laser doesn't make him a geek he's simply an idiot.

  280. Madness I tell you by neckdeepinspecialsau · · Score: 1

    This is a complete abuse of power. Nobody believes these were terrorist acts nor do they believe this man is a terrorist so why bring him up on charges of terrorism? More to the point who is this law suppose to stop the terrorists? Does anyone believe that the terrorists would think twice about pointing one of these things at a plane because they might go to prison for 25 years? Hell make it 100 years we are talking about people who are ok with strapping a bomb to themselves and running into a crowd then setting off the bomb. This law is strictly for the purpose of violating the rights of american citizens. I wonder if I can get good pizza in Canada?

  281. Your Rights, Online! by alienmole · · Score: 1

    It's all in the punctuation.

  282. WTF by sulli · · Score: 1

    what are you saying? that the feds shouldn't prosecute this guy for interfering with a flight crew and/or reckless endangerment? please clarify.

    --

    sulli
    RTFJ.
  283. Not to be late to the game here but this isnt new. by NedAtl · · Score: 1

    The US Army(apache pilots) in Kosovo as well as the Canadaian Coast Gaurd off the coast of Seattle have both reported cases of laser Hazing of their pilots in the past by the serbs using russian gear and in seattle the beams always seem to come from somewhere near a russian fishing boat...odd..google to your hearts content this threat has been real for several years.

  284. California law , and school bus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In California they made a law, unlawful to point laser pointer at a policeperson or police car (with intent to frighten). Seems the police took it as a laser rifle sight, and tended to do a little dance to evade it. Otherwise they would be doing nonstop dancing.

    I read that school kids were pointing lasers-on-a-keychain at the rear view mirror of school buses, into eyes of the drivers. Could just cause an accident.

  285. Re:I think it's mostly for yucks. 25 years is absu by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've pointed low powered laser pointer in the air above my house. (long long before this foolishness) It is cool, especially with low clouds and such. I would have never pointed one at an airplane or another person intentionally, knowing that lasers can easily cause damage to the retina.

    This guy is going to get off on the terrorism charges as he should, but go to jail on the lying to the FBI charges. Reminding all of us that the first rule is that you DON'T SPEAK TO THE FBI! The second rule is DON'T SPEAK TO THE FBI! If you get nervous and say something false, even if you correct yourself later in the same questioning then you will go to jail for multiple years if the FBI has it in for you.

    The fact that this happened twice means the guy was probably being recklessly stupid. You just don't aim a laser at someone. It is like aiming a gun at someone. Especially the helicopter incident shows some recklessness in my opinion... But unless I hear otherwise it sounds like he didn't mean to cause harm and that the FBI really just wants to scare all these copycats that are being stupid from dotting airplanes with lasers.

    The terrorism idea is not very realistic though. If a pilot is blinded temporarily they could in most cases probably just level off and abort the descent. It would be a very fluky thing if this actually worked to down a plane... more likely to cause eye problems for pilots. Which is a serious thing and the teenagers that are likely behind the copycating should be aware of the real effects of their actions. That they could be hurting real people and not just causing a hissy fit by the beaurocrats at the FBI and FAA which will only likely add to their teenage amusement.

    But as for punishment, increasing risk of harm is a far cry from actually causing harm and that any punishment should be looked on in that light.

  286. May I Be the First to Say... by josh3736 · · Score: 5, Insightful
    ...I told you so.

    "Don't worry guy, we'll never use PATRIOT to prosecute citizens. We'll only use it to fight terrorism." (Imagine it coming from Saddam in South Park.)

    Now we're using PATRIOT for day-to-day law enforcement. I'm not saying this guy should not be punished for his stupidity; I'm saying we should all be concerned for the day a National Security Letter and a unmarked van take you away.

    1. Re:May I Be the First to Say... by Ayaress · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I considered the use of the PATRIOT act to take down a file swapping site with episodes of Stargate SG1 a lot worse than this. This guy's far from a terrorist, and I swear there must be some other applicable law they could use against him.

      Still, I think the gap between shining a laser on a plane for shits and giggles and shining a laser on a plane to allow a guided weapon to target it is a lot narrower (relatively speaking) than the gap between copyright violations and any kind of terrorism.

    2. Re:May I Be the First to Say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I noted when this article first came out that the mischief was more of the malicious bozo type than the terrorist type. This guy definitely needs to be spanked, as he could have crashed the plane, but charging him under the PATRIOT Act seems to be excessive. "What can we charge him with? How about charging him with terrorism under the PATRIOT act?"

      We seem to be entering a new McCarthy era, with the word 'Terrorist" substituted for the word 'Communist.' Same old stuff - different label.

    3. Re:May I Be the First to Say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      What exactly did they do that was so special under the patriot act? They arrested him like normal, he'll get a trial like normal. It's certainly not secret. I'm sorry but I do think it should be illegal to point a device you know to be dangerous (he warned the attorneys to be careful with it, as it could blind them) at a plane's cockpit, and then to point it at the police helicopter searching for you!

      If they had quietly whisked him away like you make it sound we wouldn't be here discussing it.

    4. Re:May I Be the First to Say... by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      well.. dangerous vandalism is seperated from terrorism only by what motivates it.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    5. Re:May I Be the First to Say... by frdmfghtr · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Since the original link didn't work..

      http://www.usatoday.com/travel/news/2005-01-04-las er-aircraft_x.htm

      I'll grant you that tossing the word "terrorist" into this case is a bit of a stretch, but let's consider two points:

      (1) He shined it at an aircraft one night; and

      (2) He did it AGAIN two days later, at a police helicopter no less. It wasn't a one-time fluke that he was painting aircraft.

      Now, another story I read recently stated that the FBI/DHS/whomever does not suspect that terrorists are behind this, but then again a laser doesn't have to guide a missile to bring down an airplane, just distract the aircrew or cause them to take evasive action for a non-existent shoulder-launched missile attack.

      Nor does a terrorist have to be a citizen of a country other than the US (as in Timothy McVeigh). Does this guy have a prior criminal record? The story doesn't say. Nor does it say if the laser simply hit the aircraft for a split second or if it traced its path through the sky.

      So, if one thinks about it a little, antiterrorism charges aren't necessarily as far out as one might think. Do I think they are pretty far out? Sure, but not impossible either.

      --
      Government's idea of a balanced budget: take money from the right pocket to balance...oh who am I kidding?
    6. Re:May I Be the First to Say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I now can only think of one thing
      **********WITCH HUNT**********
      Because that is what this is IS NOT anti-terrorism IT WILL NOT improve National Sec. It will only increase the level of paranoia already existing in the US.

    7. Re:May I Be the First to Say... by Moofie · · Score: 2, Insightful

      ...which is why laws about terrorism are such a bad idea.

      Terrorism is a thought crime.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    8. Re:May I Be the First to Say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They didn't get a warrent for his arrest, they just went through houses looking for him.

    9. Re:May I Be the First to Say... by davidj0228 · · Score: 1

      I thought terrorism is: The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons. Some dumbass shining his Class III laser at an airplane is not "intimidation of coercion of a society or government for political or ideological reason." 'nuff said.

    10. Re:May I Be the First to Say... by zors · · Score: 1

      How is what you say correct? Couldn't proving that we take this laser shit seriously, right off the bat, discourage terrorist from using the tactic? Making examples of people is a time honored method of discouraging crime, regardless of the morality or popularity of a particular instance.

      Like if whenever planes had been hijacked their shit had gotten fucked up, they might not have been so hot on using the planes on 9/11.

    11. Re:May I Be the First to Say... by frdmfghtr · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That sounds about right. Mind you, I'm playing Devil's Advocate here.

      Use or threat of force: a laser painting a target could be a threat of force; how does the target know it's "some dumbass" and not a black-market laser-guided missile? If you're walking late at night through a park and you get painted with a laser, how do you know it's some young punk kid out for kicks and not a crazed gunman with a laser sight and a finger on the trigger?

      Also, as you pointed out, it's with the intention of intimidating, not necessarily succeeding. Nor does it have to be for political or ideological reason, but often it is that goal.

      As I said before, does it appear that tossing the phrase "terrorism" into the mix seem outlandish? Absolutely. But it's not absolutely impossible, either. That was my point.

      --
      Government's idea of a balanced budget: take money from the right pocket to balance...oh who am I kidding?
    12. Re:May I Be the First to Say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The point is, would this man be considered a criminal without the patriot act? If yes, then why use the patriot act? If no, then something's wrong, either there's something missing from your country's criminal laws, or the man isn't actually guilty of anything. Either way, the problem is that the patriot act is being used as a catch-all law. That's scary because it basically lets the law enforcers make up their own laws, quite undemocratic.

    13. Re:May I Be the First to Say... by surprise_audit · · Score: 2, Interesting

      So targetting lasers use visible light?? I always assumed they used something like infrared so the target didn't have a clue.

    14. Re:May I Be the First to Say... by surprise_audit · · Score: 1
      antiterrorism charges aren't necessarily as far out as one might think.

      Except that, as the article says:

      Justice Department officials said they do not suspect terrorism in any of the cases
      As for doing it more than once, the guy's attorney says he was playing with his daughter, pointing at stars, etc. That doesn't sound like a one-off exercise to me. If that's what he really was doing, he could have been out there any number of times, pointing out constallations, for example. "See that group of stars? That's Orion. And there's the Pole Star, and the Space Station is over that way somewhere. And that's a Police helicopter... Oh crap, now I'm in trouble..."
    15. Re:May I Be the First to Say... by rtb61 · · Score: 1
      The only threat here is out of control feds, demonstrating their power. Trying to perceive a laser pointer as a threat to aircraft. This just sounds like some senior federal agent is hunting for a promotion and is wasting everybodies time creating a mountain out of a mole hill, with a total lack of understanding about laser pointers, beam diameter or output - not to mention you have to be actually looking directly at the beam i.e. even at the at furthest stretch of imagination the "terrorist" would have to be in direct line of sight - on the runway.

      A modern high tek take on flashing a mirror at a plane ( which can actually dangerous depending on the shape and size of the mirror as well as the suns output). As for the distraction theory, yea we all know commercial airline pilots have no ability to maintain concentration and focus.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    16. Re:May I Be the First to Say... by TWX · · Score: 2, Insightful
      I noted when this article first came out that the mischief was more of the malicious bozo type than the terrorist type. This guy definitely needs to be spanked, as he could have crashed the plane, but charging him under the PATRIOT Act seems to be excessive. "What can we charge him with? How about charging him with terrorism under the PATRIOT act?"
      Well, if we're lucky then the court will exhonerate him on the terrorism charges, which might make it difficult for them to continue any further prosecution. If that happens more than once, the Attorney General's office would be forced to start charging people with the actual crime they've committed rather that something like terrorism, and maybe the legal system would make sense.

      Remember, the courts are, in theory, their own masters, so just because the guy is charged with something doesn't mean that he's guilty of it. The Executive branch, through its lawyers and law enforcement officers prosecute the laws that the legislative branch has passed, or don't if they ultimately don't want to. They then have to convince the judicial branch (through the jury) that 1) the law was just, and/or 2) that the law applies.

      Off topic, but "Judicial Activism" isn't a problem in my opinion, as it's always interpretation of existing law to remove conflicts and remove unjust laws. A Judge can't legislate from the bench beyond striking a law that conflicts with other laws or Constitutional law. Sometimes this does force the legislature to act, like if a judge throws out something passed by the legislature, like a school disctrict budget that doesn't treat everyone approximately equally, but that ultimately is their power.

      The Judicial branch has been rumbling a bit about Guantanamo Bay prisoners, and I suspect that they'll get even noisier if the Executive branch tries to hold people indefinitely, as that is direct violation of habeas corpus.

      we'll have to see what happens in all of this.
      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    17. Re:May I Be the First to Say... by polysylabic+psudonym · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Have you ever tried pointing out a star with a laser pointer? It seems a pretty flimsy excuse.

    18. Re:May I Be the First to Say... by frdmfghtr · · Score: 1

      Actually, yes I have, and green laser pointers are quite effective at it. Any amateur astronomer will tell you that the green ones are much better than red ones for pointing out the stars.

      --
      Government's idea of a balanced budget: take money from the right pocket to balance...oh who am I kidding?
    19. Re:May I Be the First to Say... by Binary+Boy · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Did you not notice that the terrorists who hijacked the planes on 9/11 didn't exactly value the life they might have after committing the act? Why would any terrorist be discouraged by some yahoo getting sent up for something this lame? You realize someone willing to give their life to kill a bunch of innocents isn't going to think twice about a possibly stiff prison sentence, don't you?

      This guy was doing a stupid, possibly dangerous thing. It wasn't terrorism, however, and a multi-decade prison sentence isn't going to discourage actual terrorists (though it will hopefully discourage other idiots who don't have terroristic intent to pull similar crap - though I somehow doubt that too).

    20. Re:May I Be the First to Say... by nwbvt · · Score: 1
      ""Don't worry guy, we'll never use PATRIOT to prosecute citizens. We'll only use it to fight terrorism." (Imagine it coming from Saddam in South Park.)"

      Why do you believe being a citizen and being a terrorist are mutually exclusive? We have had plenty of domestic terrorists from the Klan to McVeigh to ELF to the Unabomber. And those are just the guys who succeeded.

      "Now we're using PATRIOT for day-to-day law enforcement. "

      So arresting a guy doing something which could conceivably take down an airline is "day-to-day" law enforcement?

      --
      Mathematics is made of 50 percent formulas, 50 percent proofs, and 50 percent imagination.
    21. Re:May I Be the First to Say... by Thing+1 · · Score: 1

      Well, it might be tough to see, but the lasers the Ghosts use are visible...

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
    22. Re:May I Be the First to Say... by jrockway · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What difference does it make? If they have a missile, they will missile you regardless of whether or not you like the laser.

      The worst a laser can do is scare you. If you're going to be shot, you're going to be shot regardless of whether or not you see the laser beam...

      And BTW doesn't beam divergence come into play here? How did they know it was a laser and not a bright green light? I say, if they don't like the laser then don't look at it.

      Sending some photons at someone (at long range) shouldn't be a crime. Missiles and bullets are illegal, but weak lasers, no. Just no. :)

      --
      My other car is first.
    23. Re:May I Be the First to Say... by jrockway · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I have an assignment for you. Using only this green laser from ThinkGeek, take down a commercial airline.

      I'll bet you can't do it. Wonder why.

      --
      My other car is first.
    24. Re:May I Be the First to Say... by Everything+Else+Was · · Score: 1
      OK, let's forget about those movies depicting security systems with plainly visible laser beams moving around the room...

      In order to see a laser beam, or any light beam for that matter, some of the light must hit something and bounce back to your eyes. The stars are too far away to reflect anything, so unless it's a particularly foggy (or dusty) night, you won't see anything and you'd be better off pointing with a stick!

      And as an optical physicist who has often worked with lasers, I've never seen a laser (even a green one) that has a visible beam.

      --
      My other account has mod points!
    25. Re:May I Be the First to Say... by Mad+Bad+Rabbit · · Score: 1
      Have you ever tried pointing out a star with a laser pointer?

      Yes, Alpha Centauri, and I had to wait 8 friggin' years for the little dot to appear
      (plus at that distance you could barely even see it). Totally not worth the trouble...

      --
      >;k
    26. Re:May I Be the First to Say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So am I hallucinating here?

    27. Re:May I Be the First to Say... by frdmfghtr · · Score: 1

      In order to see a laser beam, or any light beam for that matter, some of the light must hit something and bounce back to your eyes. The stars are too far away to reflect anything, so unless it's a particularly foggy (or dusty) night, you won't see anything and you'd be better off pointing with a stick!

      How often do you work with lasers outdoors at night? I ask not to imply that you don't know what you're talking about, but because I don't know the answer and have to believe that if you have used a green laser at night outdoors, you would see what I mean.

      And yes, I realize that the light has to hit something to see the beam. There's enough dust and moisture in the air at night to make the beam clearly visible against the black sky. The beam does eventually fade out several hundred feet in the sky, but it does make for a good pointer as long as you are carful with it. It can't be too foggy out, or else there's nothing to point out since the fog would obscure the stars.

      It works. I've seen it done. I've done it myself. Astronomy catalogs will list green lasers because they work better than red ones.

      --
      Government's idea of a balanced budget: take money from the right pocket to balance...oh who am I kidding?
    28. Re:May I Be the First to Say... by Everything+Else+Was · · Score: 1

      Good point... I work indoors in a darkened room. Although the area in which I live has very low humidity. Probably not enough to be able to see the beam... but I'll give it a go (once I've checked there are no planes around! ;-)

      --
      My other account has mod points!
    29. Re:May I Be the First to Say... by nwbvt · · Score: 1

      And I have an assignment for you. Look up the word "conceivably", which I deliberately inserted in my post.

      --
      Mathematics is made of 50 percent formulas, 50 percent proofs, and 50 percent imagination.
    30. Re:May I Be the First to Say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      here goes another colossal waste of taxpayer money for foolishness. Keeping that man who could have been a credit to society in prison is doubly bad and worse. Say you have a 4 cylinder bike and one plug fouls. Now instead of contributing 25 percent of its horsepower to the movement of the bike, it is now a 25 or more percent drag, and the bike now has only half its normal power. you do the math. California is now having second thoughts on its 'get tough' legislation since its policy of life without parole for theft of a slice of pizza or some such nonsense has shifted the cost growth of its corrections department into maximum overdrive. But then our pres has some thoughts on this as the new Atty gen wants to legalize torture. whats next, death for jaywalking? the rack for looking sideways at whoever? one of these days the flow of wetbacks across the rio grande is going to reverse and those abandoned little towns in old Mexico will fill up with people like us. Have a feeling Mexico will welcome us.

    31. Re:May I Be the First to Say... by quarkscat · · Score: 1

      Judging by the difference in tone between your
      first and second paragraph, either two different
      people wrote them, you have stopped taking your
      meds for bipolar disorder, or you are a troll.

      The idiot that illuminated the aircraft in NJ
      with a laser could have blinded the pilot and
      caused the plane to crash. The Patriot Act is
      an ideal tool for use in such cases. Personally,
      I think he should wind up breaking large rocks
      into pea gravel for about 10 years for his
      "shits & grins", preferably at Gitmo. In fact,
      one of the conditions of his release from prison
      at the end of 10 years should be castration, to
      help weed the "nincompoop" gene out of the gene
      pool.

      We are a compassionate people -- if he had been
      caught doing this in the PRC, he would have
      gotten a speedy trial and a bullet to the back
      of his head.

    32. Re:May I Be the First to Say... by MoriaOrc · · Score: 1

      What was that you were saying about trolls? It's not okay to say, "Well, atleast we're better then them." I don't see much compassion in your post personally.

    33. Re:May I Be the First to Say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wonder why it is that people still believe that the PATRIOT act is only about terrorists? If you actually take the time to read it, you'll notice that it refers to committing acts against mass transportation vehicles, whenther you are a terrorist is irrelevant. Pay close attention to part 5. Blinding a pilot with a laser fits very nicely don't ya think?

      SEC. 801. TERRORIST ATTACKS AND OTHER ACTS OF VIOLENCE AGAINST MASS TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS.

      Chapter 97 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

      '' 1993. Terrorist attacks and other acts of violence against mass transportation systems

      ''(a) GENERAL PROHIBITIONS.--Whoever willfully--
      ''(1) wrecks, derails, sets fire to, or disables a mass
      transportation vehicle or ferry;
      ''(2) places or causes to be placed any biological agent or toxin for use as a weapon, destructive substance, or destructive device in, upon, or near a mass transportation vehicle or ferry, without previously obtaining the permission of the mass transportation provider, and with intent to endanger the safety of any passenger or employee of the mass transportation provider, or with a reckless disregard for the safety of human life;
      ''(3) sets fire to, or places any biological agent or toxin for use as a weapon, destructive substance, or destructive device in, upon, or near any garage, terminal, structure, supply, or facility used in the operation of, or in support of the operation of, a mass transportation vehicle or ferry, without previously
      obtaining the permission of the mass transportation provider, and knowing or having reason to know such activity would likely derail, disable, or wreck a mass transportation vehicle or ferry used, operated, or employed by the mass transportation provider;
      ''(4) removes appurtenances from, damages, or otherwise impairs the operation of a mass transportation signal system, including a train control system, centralized dispatching system, or rail grade crossing warning signal without authorization from the mass transportation provider;
      ''(5) interferes with, disables, or incapacitates any dispatcher, driver, captain, or person while they are employed in dispatching, operating, or maintaining a mass transportation vehicle or ferry, with intent to endanger the safety of any passenger or employee of the mass transportation provider, or with a reckless disregard for the safety of human life;
      ''(6) commits an act, including the use of a dangerous weapon, with the intent to cause death or serious bodily injury to an employee or passenger of a mass transportation provider or any other person while any of the foregoing are on the property of a mass transportation provider;
      ''(7) conveys or causes to be conveyed false information, knowing the information to be false, concerning an attempt or alleged attempt being made or to be made, to do any act which would be a crime prohibited by this subsection; or
      ''(8) attempts, threatens, or conspires to do any of the aforesaid acts, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, if such act is committed, or in the case of a threat or conspiracy such act would be committed, on, against, or affecting a mass transportation provider engaged in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, or if in the course of committing such act, that person travels or communicates across a State line in order to commit such act, or transports materials across a State line in aid of the commission of such act.

    34. Re:May I Be the First to Say... by CountBrass · · Score: 1

      Yes and he challenged you to explain how you could possibly conceive of a weak laser bringing down an airliner. So over to you for your explanation...

      --
      Bad analogies are like waxing a monkey with a rainbow.
    35. Re:May I Be the First to Say... by dvoosten · · Score: 1

      In fact,
      one of the conditions of his release from prison
      at the end of 10 years should be castration, to
      help weed the "nincompoop" gene out of the gene
      pool.


      You are from the so-called "land of the free" I presume? You do realize how fascistic the above remark is, don't you?

      --
      -- Please put this in your sig if you think /. should stop posting NYTimes articles.
    36. Re:May I Be the First to Say... by nwbvt · · Score: 1
      No, that was not the challenge he gave me, as those of us who are literate already know. Go back and read the post. If there are any long words you need help with, let me know.

      Furthermore, since the brand of laser he was using was left out of the article, unless you or the other poster has some extra information you are willing to share with us, we can assume nothing about the particular brand or strength of this laser pointer, and any attempt to do so is a strawman. Obviously it was powerful enough to be seen from an aircraft.

      --
      Mathematics is made of 50 percent formulas, 50 percent proofs, and 50 percent imagination.
    37. Re:May I Be the First to Say... by Raven_Stark · · Score: 1

      You people in those mysterious realms outside the USA are making more and more sense to me.

      When I was a boy I always wondered at how the good German people could let the Nazis take over. I'm beginning to understand. I just wish I knew how to stop it.

      --
      http://www.marxist.com/
    38. Re:May I Be the First to Say... by plague3106 · · Score: 1

      The idiot that illuminated the aircraft in NJ
      with a laser could have blinded the pilot and
      caused the plane to crash. The Patriot Act is
      an ideal tool for use in such cases.


      I'd say you were an idiot for thinking that. Was he purposefully trying to take down the plane, or was he doing something else? (Hint: Something else, like pointing out constilations to his daughter. RTFA).

      Yet in your mind motive makes no difference? You might want to read the definition of terrorism. This isn't anymore terroristic then those kids that poisoned the punch at a school dance. They even did it purposefully, but it wasn't terrorism. Note the part about 'for political or social reasons.'

    39. Re:May I Be the First to Say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And yet the police runs around pointing similar lasers at cars all the time just to see who is going too fast.

    40. Re:May I Be the First to Say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dear fucking asshole,
      What the fuck is wrong with you?
      How the fuck hard is it not to hit the ENTER key at the end of a line, and let the fucking text box wrap the fucking text itself?
      Are you some kind of fucking moron?
      Stupid fuck.

    41. Re:May I Be the First to Say... by SillySlashdotName · · Score: 1

      I'm beginning to understand. I just wish I knew how to stop it.


      You, me, and George Soros

      Money doesn't seem to help.

      --
      Acts of massive stupidity are almost never covered by warranty. --me.
    42. Re:May I Be the First to Say... by Wolfrider · · Score: 1

      --Oh, get real. You really think he was ONLY pointing out stars, when the RESCUE HELICOPTER was also painted?? :P

      "Pointing out stars" sounds like a convenient cover-your-ass excuse to me. Think about how you would feel from the POV of the pilot(s) who were **temporarily blinded**, or if you were in the helicopter while it was being painted by a laser beam.

      You don't *know* what's on the other end of that beam - could be a laser pointer, could be a guided missile, could be a handgun or high-powered rifle, could be an Uzi for all you know.

      The fact that this idiot did this TWICE, to two different *aircraft,* after 9/11 - that alone makes his actions suspicious and open to action on the part of the government.

      I don't think he quite deserves 25 years, but still.

      --
      .
      == WolfriderV6 == I'm willing to admit that *I just might* be wrong... Are you??
    43. Re:May I Be the First to Say... by Wolfrider · · Score: 1

      +1 Funny

      --
      .
      == WolfriderV6 == I'm willing to admit that *I just might* be wrong... Are you??
    44. Re:May I Be the First to Say... by Rakarra · · Score: 1
      The only threat here is out of control feds, demonstrating their power. Trying to perceive a laser pointer as a threat to aircraft.

      Shining a laser into the cockpit of an aircraft is trying to bring down the aircraft. There is no other reason for doing it.

      creating a mountain out of a mole hill, with a total lack of understanding about laser pointers, beam diameter or output - not to mention you have to be actually looking directly at the beam i.e. even at the at furthest stretch of imagination the "terrorist" would have to be in direct line of sight - on the runway.

      I suggest you read up a little more on this, it is not the harmless non-issue you're trying to make it out to be.

    45. Re:May I Be the First to Say... by plague3106 · · Score: 1

      Did you see the green laser pointer on ThinkGeek someone else linked to? Please, check it out, it does list 'sky pointing' as one of the uses. Google some, and you'll see that yes, green lasers are used for such a purpose...and specifically green ones.

      The fact that you don't know whats on the other end of the beam is irrelevent. As somone else pointed out, if i dress in all black with a leather coat and chains, should i be arrested b/c my dress scares you?

      Also as others have pointed out, guided missles wouldn't use the visible spectrum, and any kind of gun wouldn't really matter i'd think. You'd have to be a hell of a shot to overcome wind, gravity, the movement of the plane (they go pretty fast you know). Even if it was a gun, what does it matter, the pilot couldn't do anything about it anyway.

      The fact that it happened to two aircraft tells me that he likely lives near an airport (and maybe not even that, since the police were purposefully looking in the same area as the first incident). If this is something he does alot, then yes, its possible it was an accident.

      The only gov't action I'd recommend here is a stern "don't do that anymore, you live under a flight corridor." (FWIW, it doesn't really matter to me that this happened before or after 9/11..the world was always dangerous, and always will be..nothings changed.)

    46. Re:May I Be the First to Say... by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1
      Something else, like pointing out constilations to his daughter.

      With a laser pointer?? Last I looked, you had to have a lot of smog (hence no constellations) to see the beam. So he and his daughter were waiting the many years for the light from his pointer to reach out to a nearby star, which they would then see some years later?

      Makes no sense at all. You can't point out constellations with a laser pointer, unless you're inside a planetarium.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    47. Re:May I Be the First to Say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "The stars are too far away to reflect anything"

      You're just not waiting long enough.

    48. Re:May I Be the First to Say... by khrtt · · Score: 1

      how does the target know it's "some dumbass" and not a black-market laser-guided missile?

      Who the fuck would be stupid enough to use a visible beam of green light to guide a missile when you'd be much safer with IR, or even visible red?

      You don't have to worry until your IR detectors see a modulated beam. I imagine a warplane's defense systems would then shoot something at the source of the beam, like they shoot a HARM at the source of radar.

    49. Re:May I Be the First to Say... by plague3106 · · Score: 1

      Hmm...please, try following the link I referenced, which is here.

      Notice the sentence "And unlike a red laser, the green beam itself can be seen in mid-air in dark conditions, not just the laser beam dot. This allows the green laser pointer to be used for pointing to star constellations (skypointing) and also just generally look cool as hell," near the end of the second paragraph.

      Stop talking out your ass and actually try to read peoples' posts.

    50. Re:May I Be the First to Say... by Equinox11 · · Score: 0

      Lets put this in context... Rape: 5 years Selling Crack: 10 Years Manslaughter: 2-20 YEARS(see below) Shining a laser pointer: 25 years This is stupidity. --- SEC. 97-3-25. Homicide; penalty for manslaughter. Any person convicted of manslaughter shall be fined in a sum not less than five hundred dollars, or imprisoned in the county jail not more than one year, or both, or in the penitentiary not less than two years, nor more than twenty years.

    51. Re:May I Be the First to Say... by Datamonstar · · Score: 1

      Wait a min. Wait wait wait. Did you just say shoot down a plane with a rifle? An UZI? LOL You're probably better off odds-wise in hijacking another plane and shooting down the target plane with it!

      --
      The eternal struggle of good vs. evil begins within one's self.
    52. Re:May I Be the First to Say... by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 1
      With a laser pointer?? Last I looked, you had to have a lot of smog (hence no constellations) to see the beam.

      Depends on the strength of the beam. While your typical laser pointer won't show up, a stronger beam is quite visible in ordinary atmosphere. This guys sells a 5 mW green laser for just that purpose.

      When I was a student at the University of Maryland College Park (late 80s/early 90s), there was a small building (between the Institute for Physical Science and Technology and the old Computer Science Building) from which you could sometimes see a green beam shooting up into the sky. IIRC it was a laser targeted at a reflector on the moon for precise rangefinding.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    53. Re:May I Be the First to Say... by Wolfrider · · Score: 1

      If plane - Yes, you're prolly right. However, the diffused laser is obviously still bright enough when it reaches the plane to potentially blind or injure someone who sees it.

      But a helicopter... That could be close enough for an Uzi or a HP rifle to shatter the cockpit and injure/kill the pilot, causing a crash.

      Note that I also said "guided missile". ;-) I think we've all seen the videos of laser-guided missiles in Iraq and how effective they were at demolishing their targets...

      --
      .
      == WolfriderV6 == I'm willing to admit that *I just might* be wrong... Are you??
    54. Re:May I Be the First to Say... by rossifer · · Score: 1

      I bought a 5mW green laser for easier pointing at star parties, thereby bringing new people into astronomy. The fact that the beam is visible in air is the primary benefit of the green laser pointer.

      Perhaps he thought it was harmless to paint an aircraft "way up in the sky", but to paint a low flying helicopter sounds like jackassery to me.

      Regards,
      Ross

    55. Re:May I Be the First to Say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What the hell is it with you and strawman arguments, anyway? It's as if you were unfamiliar with any other sort of logical fallacy, and instead of making a modest effort to learn about the many other fouls you could (erroneously) call on your betters, you're content to gleefully scream "Strawman! Strawman!" And this intellectual indolence of yours, Nick, is disgusting.

      Just so you know, you ain't exactly a master logician, neither. Reference the first link in my sig:
      --
      Sick of pompous windbags, especially those whose automatic defense mechanism is to lash out with bizarre and easily refuted accusations? Change "Karma Bonus" modifier to -1 penalty.

    56. Re:May I Be the First to Say... by JofCoRe · · Score: 1

      This guy was doing a stupid, possibly dangerous thing. It wasn't terrorism, however, and a multi-decade prison sentence isn't going to discourage actual terrorists (though it will hopefully discourage other idiots who don't have terroristic intent to pull similar crap - though I somehow doubt that too).

      Exactly!

      This is a ridiculous, and in my opinion "cruel and unusual" punishment for this guy being stupid. I'm all for stupid people being accountable for their actions and all. And I would be singing a different song if some person/people were hurt by his actions.

      However, as far as I can tell, nobody was hurt. The punishment should fit the crime, and in this case, it most certainly does not.

      Fucking child molesters get 1 year in county jail, and this dumbass is getting 25 years? What the fuck?

      --

      Place sig here.
  287. P.S. by kfg · · Score: 1

    . . .so if you're basing this off of what you've done with a red one, you might want to think again.

    Oh, and I commonly use red, green and infrared lasers. I'm using red as my example because it the sort of hand held laser most other people can relate to, and the color/power of a laser are completely irrelvant to the issue of targeting.

    Targeting, is, in fact, my primary preoccupation with lasers, and if you are hand holding you cannot reliably target a motionless and inanimate object the size of a retina only feet away from you. At twenty feet you'll need a mount to hit it for more than a quarter second at a time, and from 100 you'll need a shockproof mount of some sort, or someone walking across the floor might cause enough vibration to throw the beam off target.

    An airplane is relatively easy to hit using the "firehose" method. And completely pointless for any reason other than goofing around.

    KFG

  288. Lasers: More dangerous than the Slashdot Effect? by geekotourist · · Score: 1
    Submitting a story to Slashdot is the equivalent of using a green laser for astronomy lessons, and the PATRIOT Act should equivalently be used against those who instigate the Slashdot effect.

    Sure, you claim your only motivation was to show the audience something new. But people don't really need a group lesson and nifty pointers to learn where comet Machholz or the Andromeda Galaxy are- they should search them out on their own. And ditto with Slashdot. Did you think about what happens when millions of (in)coherent eyeballs go slamming against a website all at once? That site can go down for minutes or hours- customers could be bounced; money could be lost (and as time is money and everyone has only so much time, really, lives could be lost...).

    In fact, anytime you bring too much attention to any one site or any one person you could be distracting them and keeping them from doing their necessary work. That's almost as bad as FOIA requests. If only the PATRIOT Act existed before Woodward and Bernstein: they'd have been lucky to only face 25 years. (sarcasm mode off)

  289. Off topic, but interesting by slappyjack · · Score: 1

    All this laser pointer talk reminds me...

    A work associate of mine was telling be about this art installation he once worked on. They took about 600 laser pointers and hung them from a ceiling (pointed down) on small springs in a smallish room. When people walked on the floor of the room above, it made the pointers jiggle all over the place in a not-so-quite random way and "draw" little designs on the floor.

    Very interesting effect.

    Sorry, I can't find any images of it, but it's cool to think about.

    No, I didnt ask if thay had to put big signs everywhere telling the unwashed masses "DO NOT STARE INTO THE POINTERS, YOU STUPID FUCKTARDS."

    you may now mod this out of existence

  290. Re:Planes are not travelling at 600 miles an hour by Newspimp · · Score: 1

    There have been incidents of people having their eyesight damaged momentarily due to lasing. Crews get briefed on lasing events everytime they're going into the AOR because it's happened to us before.

    Oh, I completely understand that the capability for instantaneous blindness does exist, but it simply doesn't with the methods and equipment used.

    Industrial lasers, putting out 1kW to Military Laser/ABL/SBL/THEL putting out between 100kW and 10MW could easily blind with a millisecond of exposure. That is if they don't burn right through your eyesockets... :)

  291. Telescope Optics by mikewhittaker · · Score: 1

    Better suggest police helos don't fly over astronomy sites using adaptive optics - they shine lasers into the sky to allow their optics to compensate for atmospheric fluctuations.

  292. Re: Dai Vernon by 25thCenturyQuaker · · Score: 1

    Who else might that be a reference to? I met that old geezer back in the early 1970's when I went to some lectures at Tannen's in NYC. Also learned some stuff from Slydini, and met a real young, real obnoxious and very dorky David Copperfield (he's from NJ).

    --
    My Human Gets Me Blues.
  293. Huh? by Winkhorst · · Score: 1

    The real question is, how do the bozos in charge think this kind of prosecution is going to make anybody safer? Won't it actually make most of us less safe because it takes resources away from bona fide terrorists? This all harkens back to the McCarthy witch hunt. While Crazy Joe located exactly zero (0) actual Russian agents, the real Russian agents were laughing themselves sick at how easy the guy was making it for them. In both cases, it was about political and monetary gain, not about the phony hunt for spies/terrorists.

    --
    "Is this Winkhorst a nova criminal?" "No just a technical sergeant wanted for interrogation."
  294. Yes, your rights online. by twitter · · Score: 4, Interesting
    anyone who is flashing a laser pointer off at a POLICE HELICOPTER these days is obviously a complete idiot/jackass.

    Most people would agree with you, there, but what's not obvious is that the defendant is guilty. It's possible that what he says is true, the he and his daughter were out pointing a laser at trees and the sky when the FBI swooped in.

    There are two rights issues at stake here, libel and the banning of harmless devices. How would you like for your picture to be published by the USA Today online with a highly incriminating description? Fun, fun, fun online. Second, the whole thing may be a stupid stunt to get you to believe that laser pointers are dangerous and should be controlled like firearms. If distractions really were dangerous, there would be no billboards on public highways.

    It's garbage like this that shows how sorry mainstream media is. It's slanted and poorly researched but it has power due to self advertisement and a perception of proper editing. Understanding these issues is a critical part of your ability to defend your rights online.

    --

    Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.

    1. Re:Yes, your rights online. by salesgeek · · Score: 1

      Most people would agree with you, there, but what's not obvious is that the defendant is guilty. It's possible that what he says is true, the he and his daughter were out pointing a laser at trees and the sky when the FBI swooped in.

      It's a frickin' laser beam. It can blind people. It is actually a really dangerous choice in toys. You don't let you kid take a handgun out back and shoot in the air...

      --
      -- $G
    2. Re:Yes, your rights online. by feloneous+cat · · Score: 1

      Second, the whole thing may be a stupid stunt to get you to believe that laser pointers are dangerous and should be controlled like firearms.

      Okay, here is the part that bothers me the most about this story: nothing was said about the pilots other than they were "temporarily blinded". Okay, I'll bite, but isn't this rather circumstantial evidence to toss someone in jail for 25 years? Were they able to prove it was his laser? Hell, we can't get people in jail for crimes they commit while being filmed!

      I'm not arguing that it is a good thing to shine laser's in pilots eyes - but I remain unconvinced that this is a valid case that proves anything other than someone has poor judgement.

      Hell, if poor judgement is the case for someone to go to jail, Congress, the President, and most of the Supreme Court would be in jail!

      No, I didn't write the torture memos SLAP Yes, I wrote the torture memos SLAP No, I didn't...

      --
      IANAL, but I've seen actors play them on TV
    3. Re:Yes, your rights online. by hawk · · Score: 1

      It's garbage like this that shows how sorry mainstream media is. It's slanted and poorly researched

      poorly done, indeed.

      Consider the portion of the "occupied" by an aircraft at the altitudes involved here. Now calculate the chance of hitting it with a "random." beam.

      Yes, it's possible that a random beam hits it--but compare those odds to being struch by lightning . . .

      hawk

    4. Re:Yes, your rights online. by Orbital+Observer · · Score: 1

      Actually, I found it alarming that this idiot's face AND his home's street names (!) were shown on the news. Encouraging psychos to attack his family, or what? Unbelievable.

      --
      ---- I have nothing more to add.
    5. Re:Yes, your rights online. by danila · · Score: 1

      It's a fricking plane. It flies fast. Good luck hitting the cockpit (let alone pilot's eye) for more than a split second. Yes, it can distract the pilot, but so can a stupid bird.

      Please, estimate the risks of this stupid stunt leading to a pilot losing the control. Multiply it by estimated probability of a fatal crash. Multiply the result by the expected number of dead passengers. How much is your result? Now you are obvisiouly going to get a different estimate than I, but if it's significantly less than 0.33, please consider the fact that the prosecution thinks taking 25 years off that man's life is justified. I happen to disagree with them.

      --
      Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
  295. Now thats overkill by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Terrorist act, eh. Oh wow. I mean sure, get the idiot locked away before he really hurts someone, he just doesnt seem fit for a laser toy, but TERRORIST ACT? How the hell would he have been punished before some genius even conceived the "terrorist act"? I don't know.

  296. not a green laser by JimmytheGeek · · Score: 1

    Those are off the menu as of now...

  297. Am I the only one that read the word maximum? by dracocat · · Score: 1

    What is the minimum? I know it doesnt make for good news, but could probably help the discussion here. Is the minimum a fine?

    Everybody seems all pissed that this guy is getting 25 years. No, actually he is not. He is has been arressted. The charge carries a maximum sentance of 25 years. There is still a trial, and then if found guilty will be sentanced. Besides the paranoid readers, who really thinks any judge will sentence him to the maximum? I would say there is a VERY good chance he would be sentenced to the maximum.

  298. Wrong by Presence1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    First, lasers do spread (although a lot less than incoherent light), so the dot several miles away is larger than the dot several feet away.

    Second, aiming is not as difficult or impossible as you make out - -the plane is moving, but in a steady and not erratic way. He reportedly succeeded in temporarily "blinding" or at least dazzling the pilots fo the first plane. That was just with a hand held laser -- add a good mount and scope, it'll become trivial for any good rifleman. Remember, a good long distance rifleman can put a bullet in a 10" target at ranges of thousands of yards, and the bullet doesn't expand and is affected by wind. The laser is not significanlty affected by wind, and does expand.

    Third, some kinds of lasers can blind you in microseconds, especially infrared lasers. They are well refracted by the human eye, and just being in the visible range unprotected will blind people literally before they know it. This is so bad that there are specific prohibitions in war crimes for using any type of laser to blind the enemy, and the spectrum on some weapons programs have been changed to prevent blinding from reflections (which would generate war crimes charges).

    Fourth, you don't have to actually cause permanent blindness, just bounce enough light around the cockpit that the pilots cannot see well or focus consistently, and you have a good chance of crashing the plane.

    Just because you aren't smart enough to figure out how to make something work doesn't mean that other people can't figure it out.

    I don't have any great love for the government, and I'm against the Patriot act and especially misuse of it. But give credit where credit is due; they are right in this case. Even if this guy is merely an idiot -- he is a very dangerious idiot.

    1. Re:Wrong by winwar · · Score: 1, Interesting

      "That was just with a hand held laser -- add a good mount and scope, it'll become trivial for any good rifleman. Remember, a good long distance rifleman can put a bullet in a 10" target at ranges of thousands of yards..."

      So why not just use a rifle? And we are not arresting people who point rifles at planes....

      "Fourth, you don't have to actually cause permanent blindness, just bounce enough light around the cockpit that the pilots cannot see well or focus consistently, and you have a good chance of crashing the plane."

      Well, it's good thing pilots don't have sunglasses :)

      Second, pilots land all the time in bad weather. If that doesn't qualify as an inability to see well or focus consistently, why aren't planes crashing left and right? Perhaps because it isn't that easy? And perhaps the fact that pilots don't HAVE to see where they are going to land (visual landings are nice but not required).

      Look the guy is an idiot. But he isn't a dangerous idiot. Not even close.

      Look, if a terrorist wants to bring a plane down, they will use a weapon. Not a toy that could be used as a weapon. Rifles and bombs are much more effective. Not to mention bringing a plane down by a laser pointer wouldn't inspire much terror (the point behind terrorism) because it would be virtually impossible to prove.

      Of course, exactly why he was charged under "anti-terrorism laws" when he wasn't suspected of terrorism (according to the article) boggles my mind. I imagine a good lawyer could/will have a field day with that....

    2. Re:Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      just bounce enough light around the cockpit that the pilots cannot see well or focus consistently, and you have a good chance of crashing the plane

      A "good chance", eh? I call BS. Maybe you're right during a critical few seconds or two close to takeoff or landing. But that's not the scenario being described here. Can you back up your claim with personal credentials (pilot, military, mechanical, optical, etc.) or some stats?

    3. Re:Wrong by evilviper · · Score: 1
      So why not just use a rifle?

      As he already said, bullets are affected by wind, and do not spread out over distance. Plus, bullet-shots tend to give away your position to people on the ground, and let them know you're doing something seriously wrong.

      And we are not arresting people who point rifles at planes....

      Now this has got to be the dumbest thing I've read in quite a while...

      Point a laser-pointer at a plane (with the beam off) and you won't get arrested either. However, a laser-pointer turned on is the equivalent of FIRING a riffle at an airplane, and people certainly do get arrested when they do that!

      Second, pilots land all the time in bad weather. If that doesn't qualify as an inability to see well or focus consistently, why aren't planes crashing left and right?

      Bad weather is only outside the plane... If you blind the pilots, they can even see the instruments INSIDE the cockpit, which is absolutely necessary, no matter if the weather is good or bad outside the plane.

      Look the guy is an idiot. But he isn't a dangerous idiot. Not even close.

      He's about as dangerous as a guy waving a gun around in public... Not likely to kill hundreds of people, but still dangerous. 25 years would be quite excessive, but that's the maximum, he's likely to recieve very little jail time.

      Look, if a terrorist wants to bring a plane down, they will use a weapon. Not a toy that could be used as a weapon.

      Oh? So box-cutters are weapons now? They're about as much of a toy as a laser pointers is. If "toys" are effective enough to kill several hundred people, there is no reason a psycho wouldn't use it. Getting a bomb on a plane isn't easy, and getting rocket-launchers into the country isn't easy either. That means lasers are certainly easiest, and they could be effective.

      bringing a plane down by a laser pointer wouldn't inspire much terror

      And bringing a plane down with boxcutters would?

      First of all, bringing one plane down by unexplained circumstances might not inspire terror, but make, say, 4 or more crash at once, and you've got yourself some terror!

      because it would be virtually impossible to prove.

      Yeah, they wouldn't be able to figure out that it might have been a laser pointer, when they recover the black boxes and hear the pilot's last transmission: "Agggg, my eyes! I can't see!"

      Of course, exactly why he was charged under "anti-terrorism laws" when he wasn't suspected of terrorism

      The vaguely descriptive name of a set of laws doesn't automatically tell you everything there is to know about the law. They could pass an "anti-public-urination" law, and in it, outlaw the sale of chewing gum, it makes little difference what the title of the law happens to be.

      You can be charged, under the DMCA, for making devices that defeat DRM. Yet, the DMCA is a "copyright" law, and defeating DRM doesn't mean you are involved with copyright infringement.

      I imagine a good lawyer could/will have a field day with that....

      You seem to be wrong a lot....
      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
  299. Re:I think it's mostly for yucks. 25 years is absu by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I believe the max penalty for murder is death. But I guess will a little imagination you can draw a similarity to death and 25 years.

  300. BS is WTF. Let's not jail an innocent man. by twitter · · Score: 2, Insightful
    what are you saying? that the feds shouldn't prosecute this guy for interfering with a flight crew and/or reckless endangerment? please clarify.

    It looks like what he's saying is that this was an arrest for show that has little to do with fighting terrorism and much to do with making the FBI look good. We have the FBI themselves admitting that they do not think any of the suspects are terrorists, but simply think they are pranksters. I'd like to see them even prove the pranksters are guilty, and I doubt they care. What they did was fly around long enough to see a green flash, then they broke down doors.

    It's possible, and we should presume, them man is innocent. He could have been doing just what he said he was doing, demonstrating a laser pointer to his daughter by pointing it at trees and sky. I doubt very much that he intended to blind air crew.

    To prove guilt to me you would have to have recordings of green light from the same location for a long duration and from multiple locations. Anything else to me is an accident.

    It would be reprehensible for the FBI to make a splash like this, and they will prosecute all the harder to avoid the embarrassment of losing.

    --

    Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.

  301. If you didn't vote Libertarian by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    you asked for this!

    1. Re:If you didn't vote Libertarian by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Amen, brother!!!

      Keep voting for Demopublicans, people... and the government will just keep getting bigger, and more invasive, and more totalitarian. Pretty soon they won't even have to bother continuing to promote the myth that we live in a "free country."

  302. I've been hit by laser in my eye by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Several years ago while on a walk at night, I was hit with a laser in my eye. The laser was being used by kids a block away, and my eye hurt the rest of the night.

    Having said that, I think 25 years is a bit long, but this idiot was obviously doing more than pointing out stars. I think arresting him to make a point to everybody else out there is a good idea.

  303. It takes a very steady hand... by WarPresident · · Score: 1

    Oops, butterfingers! Now you're a terrorist!

    Who really knows what the guy was doing? Maybe he was pointing out stars to his kid and the airplane crossed the path of the beam. Can you track the cockpit window of a plane a few miles away moving over a hundred miles an hour? Sure, he was an idiot for pointing at the helicopter, too, but there's apparently no law against that.

    And how likely is it that the type of handheld, battery powered laser pointer used at star parties can blind someone from a mile or more away? The beam would have diverged at least an inch, too much to cause retinal damage unless it was a pretty expensive, much less portable model. At best, the pilots were momentarily startled by the beam momentarily hitting the glazing of the window. They're lying or embellishing the story, the moron is pressured by the government to cop a plea (or we'll make life really difficult and expensive for you and your family) and everybody thinks the gummint is looking out for the real terrorists.

    Someone should find out the specifics of the distance between the plane and the moron and do some tests before the "PATRIOT" act claims another victim.

    --
    Here come da fudge!
  304. Ok so what? by chunkwhite86 · · Score: 1

    Someone intentionally tried to blind the pilot of an aircraft in an attempt to cause a crash. Why shouldn't the scumbag get a stiff prison sentence?

    --
    I'd rather be a conservative nutjob than a liberal with no nuts and no job.
    1. Re:Ok so what? by HairyCanary · · Score: 1

      Okay, how about this. I will stand outside my house and throw rocks at the planes passing over. My intent is to bring one of them down. It's about as likely as doing it with a laser pointer, so should I not also receive a stiff prison sentence? It's not all just about intent, you have to have the means as well.

  305. The reason we've heard so much about this lately by rayd75 · · Score: 1

    Setting this specific case aside, is it possible that the reason we've heard of so many incidents lately is that green laser pointers have become more widely available? I suspect that many of these cases (again, this one aside) result from people pointing their green lasers in the sky randomly just to see the beam. I imagine that it can easily look like someone is shining a laser at you if the beam is visible. Add in the difficulty of determining distance when looking horizontally out of a cockpit window and you have the ingredients to fuel serious paranoia.

  306. No it can't by brunes69 · · Score: 2, Informative

    The worst your average consumer-level laser pointer can do is cause "flash blindness". That is, if you point the thing *directly* into your eye, at a closer distance, you could be blinded in that eye for ~10 minutes.

    They aren't high powered enough to permanatly blind you. However, obviously, they are still dangerous to people driving vehicles and aircraft!

  307. factually incorrect (Re:Only 25 years?) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I know you're trolling, but guns have MANY MANY uses besides killing people. In fact, very few guns are ever used for that purpose, % wise. I've fired many thousands of rounds personally, and have never killed anyone or anything as a result. In fact, I have an absurdly higher chance of killing someone with my car than with a gun.

    Please get your facts right before spouting off the same propaganda the media spouts.

    1. Re:factually incorrect (Re:Only 25 years?) by 808140 · · Score: 1

      Whoa, slow down there, cowboy!

      I believe the GP's point was that guns are machines designed for the sole purpose of killing people. Now, mastering a weapon (be it a gun or a samurai sword) is a typical form of rewarding recreation in many societies, and will remain so, and I support that (in fact, I'm against gun control). But the fact remains that weapons are designed for killing people (or at least, living things).

      Laser pointers, on the other hand, are not designed for killing people (and neither is your car). They both have the capacity to kill people -- but then as was demonstrated in the John Waters classic, "Serial Mom", you could kill someone with a leg of mutton, too.

      There's so much anti-gun rhetoric these days that for those of us that support the second amendment it's tempting to read hysterical gun-phobia into everything that doesn't explicitly support our right to bear arms. But let's not go too far.

      Fact: guns are designed to kill people. This does not make them, as tools, responsible for the act of killing -- the old adage about guns not killing people is completely true. But guns do little other than shoot at things for the purpose of killing something. If you use them for target practice or skeet shooting, that's great. But these are essentially just training exercises so that you can use them more effectively at what they're designed to do. Those exercises just happen to be fun, more fun in fact than actually shooting living things, in most cases.

      Laser pointers are different because, like cars, killing things isn't even their intended use. The GP was pointing out the irony here -- we won't outlaw things expressly designed to kill, but will discuss outlawing things that aren't, but might just be used that way, in an extremely inprobable situation, by some nut.

      I don't read his post as suggesting we ought to outlaw guns, or that gun laws are stupid. Rather, I see him as pointing out that outlawing laser pointers is stupid. And I agree with him.

  308. Re:Misunderstanding in why the feds track this dow by niconorsk · · Score: 1

    I was not saying that using lasers should be illegal. However to use your gun analogy, this situation relates to someone walking around in an airport pretending to have a gun in their pocket. Allthough essentially harmless, the security services have to check that your not actually a threat. This wastes time that they could have spent finding real terrorists, which I'm sure you would want them to be doing. In the end, I was just pointing out that the feds probably don't see the blinding of the pilot as a serious possibility, they just don't want people to be wasting their time, as they have to check every laser pointed at a building to see whether it is some terrorist with a missile.

    --
    Nothing is impossible. We just haven't quite worked out how to do it yet.
  309. Re:Your Rights Online? --the RICO ACT by GreyGeek · · Score: 1

    Maybe you should review the efffects of the RICO Act. It is a law passed 30 years ago to help prosecutors fight the Mafia and "Organized Crime".

    Police raid homes at 3 AM and confiscating 'guilty' property without due process more than 10,000 times per year, making the RICO Act the primary source of 'extra' funds and equipment for local law enforcement today. Even if the address the snitch gave was mixed up by the police and they hit the wrong house they often still keep the booty. The RICO Act is a license to steal and it is making theives of a good many police. Even if the victims prove their innocence the police do not have to give the property back, and many do not.

    It is as aggregious as the Patriot Act and no doubt the PA will be abused even more, especially by politicians who do not want opposing views to be heard, or police chiefs who don't like to hear their work being critcized.

  310. Laser MAME now illegal? by hiroshi912681 · · Score: 1

    So now it's illegal to play Asteroids on the clouds?

  311. Nope... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    *cannons* are needed by fighter aircraft against other wartime aircraft because such craft are *armoured*.

    Gunships are proofed against 30mm rounds, etc.

    Do you think that the jumbo is going to be carrying several tons of ceramic (lightest for the strength) armour?

    Nope.

    A decent calibre *can* ignite aero fuel, and on take-off, the wings are *full* of fuel. Several rounds are probably more necesessary to get a good explosion likely, however.

    1. Re:Nope... by Headw1nd · · Score: 1
      ok..you are very, very, wrong.

      Most military aircraft are not armored in anything like the conventional sense of the word- usually they have one or two hardened spots-usually related to hydraulics and crew compartments. The hydraulic lines themselves are considered armored, but most of the aircraft is a very, very soft target. A high powered rifle could easily shoot through an apache helicopter. The trick is, it wouldn't do anything. Aircraft are big- and except for a few components, very little of the aircraft isn't protected by redundant systems.

      As for fuel, it's not as bad as people think. The fuel cells of combat aircraft are self sealing, I wouldn't be suprised if civillian craft were similar in this regard. Contrary to popular belief, aviation fuel is very difficult to ignite, and doesn't burn well outside of high pressure enviroments. This is one reason why aviation fuel fires are as messy as they are, the fuel takes its time burning. Aircraft will frequently take damage to fuel cells, usually the biggest problem is the loss of the fuel itself (ie. How're we gonna make it home now, Chief?)

      These are the reasons aircraft take so much to bring down, not some armored covering.

  312. Re: The Right to Bear Lazers by freezin+fat+guy · · Score: 1

    I had a bear that was well behaved until he learned to use a lazer. Would've shot him but he fried my retinas every time I pulled out the Weatherby.

  313. alternative explanation by commodoresloat · · Score: 1
    My wife is afraid for me to even pull out my Leatherman in public

    Did it ever occur to you that she might be jealous of your leatherman?

  314. Re:I think it's mostly for yucks. 25 years is absu by commodoresloat · · Score: 1
    25 years is a long time. This is an equivalent penalty to MURDER

    Actually many murderers get much less than 25 years.

  315. This is wrong. by rufusdufus · · Score: 2, Informative

    The aircraft he is charged with disturbing are a helicopter and a cessna citiation. Neither have automatic landing capabilities. Most planes do not.

    1. Re:This is wrong. by Gordonjcp · · Score: 1

      True, but the discussion was about bringing down large commercial aircraft.

  316. Re:Comparing apples and lasers. by Minstrel+Boy · · Score: 1
    > But if they could do this, why not outlaw all guns and rifles in the US!

    Because of a little thing called the Constitution. If you can muster enough support to (legally) overturn the 2nd Amendment, go right ahead. Until then, stop trying to do end runs around it. (http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm)

    Also, you'd better be straight in front of or behind that aircraft if you intend on shooting at it. Your lead from any kind of angle at a plane going more than 150mph would be - significant. Sure as hell wouldn't have much in common with where the laser beam was pointed.

    KeS

  317. not hollywood by commodoresloat · · Score: 1
    power-crazed traitors who will steal an election and jeapordize 200+ years of democracy don't count, becuase I'm sure we could find some of those in Hollywood too.

    Not in hollywood anymore - we sent his ass to Sacramento.

  318. Sad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There was a time when I was really looking forward to work in the US sometime in the future. Now I wouldn't live there even if I would get paid for doing so.

    1. Re:Sad by fishbowl · · Score: 1

      "There was a time when I was really looking forward to work in the US sometime in the future. Now I wouldn't live there even if I would get paid for doing so."

      I'm sure that if you consider only the sensational press of any place, you would reach the same conclusion. Despite the bleak picture painted by the media, or the homogenized conception of the US you may have, the US is a very diverse place with a lot decent stuff going for it.

      Despite what you may have read, not everybody is unemployed, obese, drives an SUV, or suicidal.

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
  319. Wrong and Wrong by EspressoMachine · · Score: 1

    The US government taxes everybody who lives in the US, whether or not they are citizens (even illegal aliens pay sales tax).

    First of all, sales tax is not a federally levied tax. It is decided upon and collected at the state level and lower (County or Municipality level for Local Option Sales Taxes and Hospitality Taxes).

    Second of all, illegal aliens would have a tough time paying Federal taxes, given that they don't have a Social Security Number, which is how your income (and the various taxes you pay on it) are linked to your person. This is the main reason companies hiring illegal immigrants pay them under the table -- without a SSN, the company can't very well pay taxes on them. They also get the added "bonus" of cheap labor, as it's not like the laborer's can call the Employment Security Commission to complain about making $2/hr, now is it?

    --
    Despite conventional wisdom, I've discovered you can blame a guy for trying. It's called "attempted murder".
  320. "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's absolutely timeless wisdom.

    And recursive, too!

  321. Read it again. by MrYotsuya · · Score: 1

    The US Constitution applies to US Citizens ONLY. Foreign nationals are granted NO constitutional protections, unless they become US Citizens.

    Not true. Anyone in the US gets the same rights. The Constitution doesn't say anything about citizenship.

  322. What about D.C.? by PsiPsiStar · · Score: 1

    Well, folks can try breeding in prison, but since they usually segregate the sexes, attempts at breeding rarely work. Doesnt stop some folks from trying, though.

    I don't know about Texas, though. Kindof like shutting the barn door after the horse is loose.

    I think a fence around D.C. would be much more appropriate. That seems to be the soure of a lot of our problems and they already have the high crime rate.

    --

    ___
    It's the end of my comment as I know it and I feel fine.
  323. Sue the manufacturer by PsiPsiStar · · Score: 2, Funny

    After all, they should have had a warning saying pointing the label at airplanes was illegal under the PATRIOT act.

    --

    ___
    It's the end of my comment as I know it and I feel fine.
  324. Re:Do not read if you're paranoid by Thomas+Shaddack · · Score: 1

    Green beam is much better visible than red beam - even for the same energy. A harmless looking dim red can be more dangerous than blinding-bright green. I don't even mention infrared - is it less concentrated when it is invisible?

  325. Positive side effect: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This guy will not be in a movie theatre for 25 years.

  326. 25 years? by PsiPsiStar · · Score: 1

    I'm sick and tired of this 'gotta send a message' shit that lawyers use to dole out disproportionate punishment.

    As soon as anyone with a law degree uses the phrase 'gotta send a message' you know that any standards of justice, proportionality or even-handedness are about to be flushed down the toilet.

    --

    ___
    It's the end of my comment as I know it and I feel fine.
  327. Real Terrorists... by DrKyle · · Score: 2, Informative

    ...would use an infrared laser and remain undetected. The invisible beam would blind the pilot much easier as they wouldn't "see" a bright light and look away, only feel a burning after the damage had been done. Also a beam that couldn't be seen would be harder to track to the source. This guy was obviously an amateur.

  328. remember everyone by focitrixilous+P · · Score: 1
    Lasers don't blind pilots, people blind pilots.

    -LRA

    --
    SAILING MISHAP
  329. True, but I would like to point out a few things: by geekoid · · Score: 1

    1 The grape is moving, a pilot does not sit motionless.

    2. The perpetrator is firing from UNDER the plane.

    3. The wider the spread, the more energy the laser will need to blind someone.

    4. To be effective, it would need to blind both pilots at once, they will change course.

    Not saying it can't be done, or that they shouldn't put away anyone how does this, but it is more difficult then you imply.

    If this guy was just doing it to do it, it was not a terrorist act. Horrible, wrong, but not a terrorist act.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  330. The law needs to be expanded. by jholzer · · Score: 1

    I just wish those little bastards that shine their laser pointers on the movie screens in the theater would get 25 years.

    Ok, maybe just a good caning.

  331. which is why by geekoid · · Score: 2, Insightful

    you don't put a victims family on the jury.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  332. Re:Do not read if you're paranoid by msim · · Score: 1

    I would imagine it's the wattage of the laser that counts. For the ditty little handhelds 3mW of power is still 3mW of power (yes i know this one is a bit more powerfull than that).

    Regardless of the colour of the light the energy is still *there* but just in a slightly different wavelength.

    Then again i know 3/5th's of fuck all about this optical stuff but figured i'd give my useless opinion like the rest of the mob. ;-)

    --

    Life is like a box of chocolates, you never know when your gonna get food poisoning.
  333. Selective quoting strikes again. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I notice you leave out the parts that are required for proper context. What do they call this again? Ah yes, TROLLING.

  334. send it back by geekoid · · Score: 1

    because you are too stupid to own one.
    Do you really think it was the same power as the one used on the plane?

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    1. Re:send it back by NoData · · Score: 2, Informative

      Way to be an asshole, asshole. Yes, in fact it IS the same power as the ThinkGeek pointer. According the the CNN article, Banach claims he bought the laser pointer in question at BigHa.com, which sells a green laser pointer of the same 5mW power as that sold by ThinkGeek. But thanks for the ad hominem anyway. Very classy.

    2. Re:send it back by toddestan · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's not that the ThinkGeek laser pointer could do anything to an airplane, it's the fact that people (including the police) believe it can.

      By the way, you are a moron.

  335. Re:True, but I would like to point out a few thing by Yotsuya · · Score: 1

    YOu are quite right, since he's probably not part of a terrorist gorup, it wasn't terrorism. Just attempted mass murder.
    Further, I dunno if you've read the article, but both the pilot and copilot of the commercial airplane *were* blinded, momentarily.
    Which is why a police helicopter was in the neighborhood a few days later, looking for the source of the beam... And geez, if the moron did not try to blind them too, which is how they found him.

    --
    Claude Angers
  336. STUPID PARANOID ASSHOLES by karnat10 · · Score: 1

    I mean, nobody has ever brought down a plane with a laser pointer.

    I mean, COME ON

    When will the paranoia stop? I can't bear it anymore.

    1. Re:STUPID PARANOID ASSHOLES by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1
      By the same token, on 10 SEP 2001, it was a truthful statement that:

      "Noone has ever crashed a plane into the World Trade Center."

      I don't know much about this particular case, since I decided rather deliberately to ignore the news this week in favour of sensationalism and raving lunacy (in other words, I'm catching up on /. after the holidays), but I won't go so far as to say that a plane couldn't be brought down with a laser pointer.

      I will, however, agree that it hasn't happened yet.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
  337. Re:Your Rights Online? --the RICO ACT by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

    Or people that just want other people's stuff.

    --
    The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
  338. I am a corporate jet pilot by uberskyjock · · Score: 5, Informative

    and this is not an abstract mildly interesting issue of civil rights to me.

    First of all, let me say that all of the above posters who wonder "what the big deal is of a laser hitting the bottom of a plane when the cockpit window is on top" are uninformed. As a pilot on final approach, the only direction I cannot see is directly behind or directly under me, but I continuously scan every other segment of the sky. Especially at night I have to let my eyes pause for a moment on each section in order to discern relative motion, as a quick scan would not allow me to detect the characteristic red/green/white nav lights + strobe of a moving aircraft above the many lights (both stationary of all color, flashing, and more slowly moving ground vehicle) below the aircraft. So a fair amount of our time on final approach is spent gazing downward, since while descending that part of the sky represents the largest risk of collision hazard. This attentive watchfulness is of course an important part of what we do, and if while looking for aircraft below us both pilots are "temporarily blinded" or worse (depending on the type of laser used) we are obviously in a very scary situation.

    Secondly, this idea that pilots fly the approach on autopilot is misinformed. Yes, cruise flight and the initial segment of the approach are usually (but by no means always) performed with the assistance of an autopilot. However, the autopilot is routinely and often given manual commands in a terminal environment to comply with air traffic control instructions all the way up to the very last final intercept of the glideslope. So pilot incapacitation during any descending maneuver before that final segment poses a very real threat to people on the ground below the aircraft's path (a much larger area than the airport proper). Also, with the exception of some large airliners and very few corporate aircraft, most jets do not have autopilots approved for autolandings, so at some point during the last 200 to 1000 feet the pilot will hand fly the plane, adjusting the pitch attitude and simultaneously reducing thrust to make a smooth landing flare. This is not something I want to feel my way through without sight.

    There are many reasons to not use autopilot, some flights are also operational line checks where the pilot in command is being evaluated by a check airman who expects them to hand fly the plane to demonstrate proficiency. I often fly by hand both to keep my skills sharp as well as because it is enjoyable to have the responsiveness of a very powerful jet airplane at my fingers. There is satisfaction in rolling the plane onto a perfectly aligned final approach without the autopilot's assistance.

    As a group, professional pilot's take the safety of our passengers very seriously. We attend recurrent training continuously throughout our careers, and simulate almost every conceivable emergency that it is possible to contend with. However, some emergencies elude constructing nice pat standard operating procedures to deal with. Obviously if an aircraft comes apart in flight then all you can do is follow the arc of the individual parts toward the ground below. Likewise, becoming blind is a situation that we just can't train for.

    Finally, I've also noticed some posts recommending using some sort of film on the windshield that would protect the pilots. This is unlikely to happen soon for several reasons. I would love to hear that such a material exists that is effective over the many frequency ranges that could conceivably be used in a laser. But even if it did exist, each aircraft has a slightly different type of construction and would require a huge amount of research and development. The price would be astronomical. As an example, the windshield of a Learjet is nearly an inch thick, is comprised of multiple layers of various materials (including different types of plastic and acrylic and a layer of gold used to heat the windshield) which have been thoroughly tested for strength, compatibil

    1. Re:I am a corporate jet pilot by Kanasta · · Score: 1

      I totally agree with you and that guy was an idiot for doing it. But 25yrs? So next time someone is agitated, we recommend they go kill some people instead as it has a lower term?

    2. Re:I am a corporate jet pilot by Restil · · Score: 2, Informative

      So the implied logic is that if someone is agitated they should choose which crime they commit as a result of it based upon the most likely sentence, rather than not comitting any criminal activity at all?

      And of course, there's no evidence the guy in the story was agitated anyway.

      AND.... he hasn't received 25 years, that's only the maximum sentence, and he's likely to only get a small fraction of that, if he gets any jail time at all. In fact, he'll probably get more time from an obstruction of justice charge for lying to investigators than he'll get from anything else.

      -Restil

      --
      Play with my webcams and lights here
  339. Name one thing? by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    I'll appeal to your obvious hot-button by noting that the loss of Texas makes the country even more reliant on foreign oil. I'm sure you'll agree we'd have to invade another country to make up for the loss.

    Then of course there's the matter of Mission Control. but I guess you'd be OK with scapping the space program and all.

    Or all the farmland that grows food, but then I suppose you thrive on good feelings from others.

    Or the massive amount of international travel and goods that go through Texas, but I guess you'd rather just spend a few billion to move all that traffic to someplace like New Orleans where it can get washed away by the next major hurricane.

    Or the vast electronics industry there. But I guess you'd rather go live in a cave and commune with endangerd bunnies.

    I'm from Colorado, and if anyone has the right to dislike Texans it's me. You don't even rate man so give up your irrational hatred. Just repeat these words: "The map was purple". Remember that you are putting the hate down on people that AGREE with you (or used to before you decided they were worthless scum), which is really about as stupid as you can get.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  340. gosh editors, way to edit. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    damn, and i was hoping my rss feed was delivering me to an article about the dangers of LASER PAINTING.

  341. Why not? by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    Yes we all know what 25 years means. Heck a lot of posters here may not have been alive that long...

    Gettting a big powerful laser, setting it up as a toy, and shinging it on planes - then lying to the FBI. All those point to a tremendous lack of judgement that you have to wonder about extending to other areas of life.

    ALSO consider the amount of fear things like this have put into people. People get freaked out about stuff like this, a lot of the general populace would probably not get on a plane if you mentioned that you knew someone was going to shine a laser into it for a few seconds on landing.

    So yes, 25 years does not sound too unreasonable given the total lack of judgement, and lack of concern for other peoples feelings. I'd feel the same way about a similar sentance for spammers.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Why not? by norkakn · · Score: 1

      both spamming and this are crimes of fucking up. perhaps you fucked up one day and emailed an al quaeda guy a copy of matlab because he seemed cool on irc and it was connected to making a bomb and your life was put on hold till you were 60...

  342. Re:Comparing apples and lasers. by sgant · · Score: 1

    Exactly...I was simply pointing out that if they're silly enough to ban these lasers because of something that has only a potential to be harmful. I wasn't trying to say "ban guns". Not in the least.

    Was only saying...so, they ban lasers. Yet anyone with a gun could do much more damage if they really wanted to. I mean, if someone REALLY wanted to bring down a plane with a rifle, they could. Then what will we do? Nothing of course. And you're right, you'd have to muster enough support to overturn the 2nd Amendment. Would someone bringing down an airliner with a gun bought at Walmart do that? Who knows. Personally, I don't have a issue with owning guns...OR lasers for that matter. I just have issues with people wanting to ban things..yet keep other things. Hypocrites and such.

    Stop trying to ban everything under the sun because it "might" be used as a weapon. What's next? Banning pens on airplanes? I mean, let's think about it...you could kill someone with a pen if you REALLY wanted that person dead. BAN THE PENS! HOw about those forks used in the meals on airliners...I'm sure you could jam that into someones neck and hit a major artery. BAN THE PLASTIC FORKS!

    SO you see, I was trying (and I guess failing) to point out how silly banning these lasers would be.

    --

    "Leo Fender was in a 'state of grace' when he designed the Stratocaster." -- Paul Reed Smith
  343. NEVER talk to feds without a lawyer present by Animats · · Score: 4, Informative
    This case reminds us that one should never talk to any federal law enforcement official without an attorney present. If you do, they can bring "lying to a federal official" charges. (18 U.S.C. 1001), as they've done in this case. This has become a common ploy of Federal law enforcement. If they can't prove anything real, they entrap people by interrogating them, and any change in the story during interrogation means a "lying to a federal official" charge. Then they use this to get a guilty plea on the original charge, so they get credit for a conviction. Or a deportation.

    This is relatively new. Until the 1990s, it was safe to talk to the FBI. But it no longer is.

    So just keep insisting that you want your lawyer present. And you have to be very clear about it. Courts have held that "I think I should talk to a lawyer" is not sufficient to invoke the 6th amendment right to counsel. You have to make an unambiguous statement.

    That's supposed to stop interrogation, but it doesn't always. Eventually, if you keep insisting, they usually give up and let you talk to a lawyer.

  344. In fact...from the article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "A New Jersey man was charged Tuesday under federal anti-terrorism laws..."
    "Justice Department officials said they do not suspect terrorism in any of the cases, but said Banach's arrest shows how seriously they take the matter."

    In other words the Justice Dept just explicitly stated that that they intend to abuse the PATRIOT act in exactly the fashion they promised that they wouldn't back in '01.

  345. Harmless fun... by capaman · · Score: 0

    I don't believe that the laser pointer being dangerous is the issue they are taking here. It is the fact that missles can follow a laser pointer to a target. Now I think the possibility of someone having a missle with these capabilitys are pretty slim, however it still could happen. That being said, rockets arent exactly a new technology anymore
    and the electronics needed to apply this technology are pretty easy to come by as well. Terrorists are capable of getting plenty of funding to build such devices and the knowlege is easily attainable. Sound far fetched? Perhaps, but the possibility is still great enough to take the risk seriously.

    Who the hell needs a sig?

    1. Re:Harmless fun... by fishnuts · · Score: 1

      most laser-guided weapons use IR lasers, anyway. They're cheaper to make for the amount of power needed to work over the 5-10 mile span they must traverse, and IR gets absorbed the least by the atmosphere (blue gets scattered much more, so invisible UV lasers are out of the question if you need accuracy)

      You'd be dumb to use a visible laser for missile guidance, anyway. any human in the vicinity would be able to follow the beam back to its source with their plain eyesight.

    2. Re:Harmless fun... by fgb · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure if this is true. If the sky is clear, I don't think you would be able to see the beam. You cannot actually see a beam of light. This is why they need fog machines in laser light shows: to make the beams visible.

  346. Re:I think it's mostly for yucks. 25 years is absu by Rakishi · · Score: 1

    Critical reading would require there to be information to back up the inferences, for example of neighbors or the man himself saying so or inconsistencies in the accounts. In addition, to make the inferences you made one would need to have first hand (or similar level) knowledge of the behavior of pilots in such situations.

  347. Re:I think it's mostly for yucks. 25 years is absu by SilverspurG · · Score: 1

    Critical reading would require there to be information to back up the inferences

    That's under editorial license and selective reporting. It never would've made the headlines if it weren't reported to paint the guy in a bad light now would it?

    Watching the mod points stack up, none of you could ever work at Google. You're incapable of thinking outside the box.

    --
    fast as fast can be. you'll never catch me.
  348. I stand corrected. by Fantastic+Lad · · Score: 1
    Found the damned info seconds after hitting 'submit'. Ain't it always the case?


    -FL

  349. You know you can... by doctorfaustus · · Score: 1

    You know you can buy these lasers on ThinkGeek, don't you?

    http://www.thinkgeek.com/gadgets/lights/5a47/

  350. You are far too obstinate, accept the truth. by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    And while Banach was subjected to the intense scrutiny of an FBI lie-detector tests, the pilots weren't. Why should we believe the pilots?

    Why wouldn't you? What would they have to gain from lying - and remember there are multiple pilots reporting the same kind of thing. Furthermore remember that the pilots statement came BEFORE they found this guys, so it's not like the pressure came from that angle to make this up. Banach was the one that said he shined the light at a jet, that accusation DID NOT come from the pilots report - it just backs up what they said!

    Also, why arbitrarily trust lie detector tests? I don't. I don't see why that would "force" you to confess to something you did not do.

    I've been wondering about the police helicopter. Apparently the cops and the pilot went out to try to find the source of the light. Wouldn't that be done in the daytime? Isn't it also kinda tough to see a dot of light on the outside of a helicopter if you're inside the copter?

    Flip your statement around. think how powerful the light had to be to see it during the daytime! (If that was when they were out, I believe it was at night though) As others have said this was not a laser pointer from WalMart.

    Also if you look at a copter (especially a police copter) a lot of the copter is windows so it would be quite easy to see a dot aimed at you unless you were directly above it.

    You also conveniently ignored the fact of a laser being seen in a jetliner requires it to move with the jetliner, which backs up the whole "specifically pointed at a plane" thing that he confessed to. Did I mention he confessed? I think that's just a little important.

    There's too much here that doesn't add up. I think this is a case of "we saw the beam of light in the sky and assumed it was aimed at us".

    There is NOTHING that does not point to this being the truth. Why do you think they would set up some random guy? And remember (again) that he confessed! It's not like they are pinning the jet thing on him from some sketchy evidence. The pilots report just lets them know which jet he actually used the light on. If he were innocent do you not think his lawyer might have mentioned that? Nope, instead she just says his punishment is unfair given what he did. When everyone, including the accused, agrees with the charges and you don't than I fail to see how you can arrive at the conclusion the charges are wrong.

    You have not exercised a single moment of critical or individual thought. You have reacted in a fashion that one would expect from doing nothing more than reading the articles.

    And all you've done is thicken the cloud of paranoia that surrounds you. You failed to address a single one of my points, instead continuing single-mindedly down the track that you will not deviate from. That sir is not any kind of reason or critical thought at work.

    I said nothing which was anti-government. The government is free to go arrest people and subject them to lie-detector questioning if it's plausible that the accusers aren't exaggerating the story or flat out making it up. In all fairness, if you want to strap me to a lie detector, then your accusation better have been made under lie detector questioning first.

    In what way is accusing them of fabricating witnesses and setting them up not anti-government? I guess you could just say anti-law enforcement, my apologies for incorrectly noting the nature of your personal boogeyman.

    You're not paranoid when they're really out to get you. But sometimes (perhaps even often) they REALLY ARE NOT OUT TO GET YOU. I don't see why you can't accept the reality of a police investigation actally coming up with some results, especially when the suspect sends them a beacon and then confesses. Do you believe they tortured the confession from him? Think carefully before you answer, for the answer you give to that question wil linger and bee seen by others.

    There are plenty of other things in this world that are genuine coverups, you cheapen them all by crying foul in a case so clear-cut.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:You are far too obstinate, accept the truth. by SilverspurG · · Score: 1
      Banach was the one that said he shined the light at a jet
      You're guilty of misinterpretation. Banach said he had hit the jet with the beam. The article does not report if the answer included modifiers such as "incidentally" or "while pointing out a constellation".
      think how powerful the light had to be to see it during the daytime
      I don't think that fits the type of laser used in this incident. Never skip the reality check.
      Did I mention he confessed? I think that's just a little important
      Admitting that the beam hit the jet is a lot different from confessing to even targeting the jet. I'm not the only one making inferences here.
      Why do you think they would set up some random guy?
      It wasn't random. The police canvassed the neighborhood asking the residents if they knew anything about a laser. This was the only guy with a laser. I'll lay 100-to-1 odds that he didn't even know that the laser made contact with anything until the police told/grilled him about it.
      If he were innocent do you not think his lawyer might have mentioned that?
      It's tough for his lawyer to argue that his laser didn't hit the plane. That says nothing about whether or not he was even targetting the plane. That's what lawyers do, especially relatively low-to-middle paid lawyers. They don't make any statements which aren't absolutely true.

      When playing baseball, if you bean the batter, you are indeed guilty of hitting the batter with the ball. You are not guilty intending to hit the batter. You're not even guilty of recklessly throwing a ball. The only FACT we have here is that some pilots claim laser contact was made.

      What of a quarterback throwing an interception? Is that a crime? Brett Favre does it all the time. He's not trying to hit the interceptor. He's trying to hit his receiver. He doesn't see the interceptor until it's too late.

      This fellow was out at night, looking at stars, and doesn't notice a small Cessna going past at 3000 feet. Stargazing can be good on even a moderately cloudy night. What were weather conditions on the night of the incident? None of this is reported. I'm doing nothing more than forwarding reasonable doubt to counter all the hate mongers whining for this guy's head.
      I guess you could just say anti-law enforcement
      Law enforcement is free to question the guy. What's with the lie detector?

      Do you know anything about the pilots or the man? Are they related in any social context? Has the man in question ever had personal conflicts with any members of the local law enforcement? There is a human factor to all of this.

      What makes you think that two online stories can even come close to giving you all the facts, or that they would even choose to do so if it reduced the glam factor in the story?
      --
      fast as fast can be. you'll never catch me.
  351. Didn't you get the memo?? by toby · · Score: 1

    Charges and trial are now completely optional; you can be imprisoned FOR LIFE without them. Oh, and torture comes free with the package: the terrible weight of the Geneva Convention, resolutions against Torture, etc, have been lifted from your friendly hotelier.

    The Bush administration's decision to ignore the Geneva Convention and assert the right to hold captives indefinitely under the legally ambiguous category "illegal combatant" has left it with a nasty dilemma. What do we do with these people?

    One thing we don't do is build a network of secret, extraterritorial prisons where terrorism suspects that U.S. authorities don't want to free or bring before U.S. and foreign courts can be held for life. According to the Washington Post, this proposal is among those being considered ...

    Indefinite, incommunicado incarceration without the right of trial is a horrible affront to American ideals. It certainly makes a mockery of what we purport to stand for in the eyes of the world. And as details about the treatment of Iraqi prisoners and the detainees at Guantanamo leak out, there have to be grave doubts that a system operated in secret would be humanely run. ... As for secret prisons where inmates are held for life without trial, the old Soviet Union bequeathed us a name for such a system -- gulags.

    --
    you had me at #!
  352. about terrorists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Do you think "the terrorists" really care if you walk around in fear?

    Terrorists use terror as an instrument to get governments to change their policies. Short of that, they certainly have not "already won".

  353. Attitude by Mark_MF-WN · · Score: 1
    That's exactly the kind of attitude governments and police forces take to civilian ownership of encryption software. But it's not their place to decide what tools I should or should not have.

    But a gun is indeed a tool. Just because you don't like what that tool is intended to do doesn't mean that it isn't a tool.

    I don't like guns -- in fact, my instinct is to agree with you about abolishing guns. Guns disgust me. I don't even like being near police officers, knowing that they are carrying a lethal and destructive tool. But you know what? It's no more my place to tell gun nuts that they're wrong than it's their place to tell me that I can't encrypt my mash notes to my girlfriend.

    Guns do have recreational uses, and there's nothing that makes hunting any worse than any other form of animal killing. Meat from wild animals is actually the ultimate cruelty-free food. Countless animals are killed whenever a field is plowed or threshed, whereas a single moose or deer can feel a number of people.

  354. Re:Planes are not travelling at 600 miles an hour by sexylicious · · Score: 1

    You are an idiot.

    If you've ever worked around lasers, you don't have to point the beam directly into an eye to get damage. There's this thing called scattering, and there is this other thing called reflection. Both are possible in an airplane cockpit.

    You don't have to hold the beam on the cockpit window and aim for the pilots' eyes. You just need to strafe it across the window a few times. The window will reflect some of the light, trap some of the light and scatter it in the glass, and transmit some of the light. All you need is some transmitted light to bounce around in the cockpit and you've at least temporarily blinded the pilots.

    And finally, since your statements in your post betray the fact that you DO NOT work around lasers, and have no idea of how dangerous they are to human eyes, your arguments are bullshit. As for a laser system that can down targets (aircraft and missiles) look at MTHEL, the Army's high energy DF laser in New Mexico. That one HAS downed incoming missiles and can down aircraft.

    I know of one person where I work that was blinded by a targeting laser that is used to align another laser. This laser was akin to a HE-Ne laser that you can buy from radio shack for 10 bucks. The guy suffered permanent retinal damage, and this is from a scattered beam that got out of it's containment tube and bounced off a wrench. And the guy wasn't wearing his eye protection, so he's also a dumbass, but his exposure was on the order of a millisecond of scattered laser light.

  355. Wow, this is a great start... by EmagGeek · · Score: 1

    Now, if only we can get murderers, rapists, and child molesters this kind of sentence?

  356. Re:I think it's mostly for yucks. 25 years is absu by Feanturi · · Score: 1

    My first thought on seeing the current article was that the guy reads /. and was testing some of the theories thrown around here in the very recent past. We've been talking about whether or not you can intentionally get a laser dot into the cockpit of a passing/landing plane. And now this all of a sudden, mentioned along with a rash of lasers being pointed at planes around the country. What, have we Slashdotted the sky now?

  357. eye damage not possible; within FAA regs by SuperBanana · · Score: 1
    now, if at 100 meters if a laser can damage your eyesight 200 meters it will not. because the amount of laser light entering your eye is dropping extremely fast as the beam spreads further.

    On any of the FDA-classed devices below Class 3B, the brain and eyelid react fast enough to prevent eye damage from point-blank range.

    By definition 3B or above means the brain/eyelid reaction time is too slow and the eye can't protect itself. 4 means eye/skin/fire danger.

    Even a class 4 laser would be unlikely to do anything except be annoying at a couple miles, as everyone has pointed out.

    Oh, also- do you know how hard it would be to keep a laser trained on a plane at that distance by hand? Nearly impossible. I strongly suspect that either he or his daughter really WERE just waving it around...and if the class of the device is low enough, he's perfectly within legal FAA limits; only lasers over a certain class being operated outdoors require notifying the FAA.

  358. Terrorism = whatever antiterrorist agents fight... by geekotourist · · Score: 2, Interesting
    There are some bad psychological cognitive dissonance feedback loops showing up here.

    If you're an anti-terrorism agent of some kind, and you're sent to investigate green lasers pointing at airplanes, which mode of thinking will make you feel better?

    • "Terrorism is dangerous and an act of terrorism could kill many people. My very important job is to prevent that, and I want to spend as much time as possible working on the important stuff. We've spent days tracking down a father who was showing his kid how nifty lasers can be. He's been embarrassed in the news for being an idiot and in for some community service, but, boy, I'm not going to get those hours back, what a waste of time." or
    • "...We've spent days tracking down a father who was showing his kid how nifty lasers can be. This has to be very important, else I wouldn't have spent all those hours working on this. I caught you and you are going down, mr. terrorist hiding as a techie guy. Oh, you're not a terrorist? Well, I caught you and you are going down, mr. example-to-terrorists hiding as a techie guy."
    Just in general people don't like admitting that they've put a lot of time and energy into something that didn't help their main mission. Very hard to get people to believe that old statement of economists: "Sunk costs are irrelevant." Much easier on the ego to think that "What I'm doing *must* be important and relevant, else why would I be doing it?"

    And so specifically if legislative bodies threw in DOS attacks, taking pictures of bridges, paying train tix with cash, or failing to know all the lyrics to 'God Bless the USA' into the PATRIOT Act, it *must* be because those are all related to terrorism, not because the FBI hornswoggled them into shoehorning 20 years worth of Xmas wish-lists into the Act during a month of extreme grief and emotion. Nope.

    And so if the TSA puts every every Carlos Garcia, John Lewis and David Nelson on the Watch-List it *must* be worth doing, those repeated time-consuming checks on all 10 thousand of them each time they fly rather than doing the actual random checks that keep us safer.

    If you're doing important anti-terrorism work then it just isn't possible that you'll get side-tracked. (which is why, had the PATRIOT Act existed in the 20th century, Tesla, the "October Sky" rocketeer, and pretty much every member of pyrotechnics guilds and model rocket clubs would have ended up with SSSS's on their plane tix and plenty of long, recorded talks with the local constabulary. Especially Tesla- scaring the neighbors like that, potentially taking down the grid, born in a foreign country. How'd he even get in? Thank goodness now we're keeping out all those foreign engineering grad students: maybe our science and economy will suffer, but we'll feel safer.)

  359. mod parent up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Slantdot
    News for Paranoid Liberal Communist Hippies. Stuff that fits our groupthink.

  360. Penalties should depend on results... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Did the guy kill somebody? Is somebody actually blind here? Did your mom die in a crash?

    None of these things happened. I grant you that they could have, and that this guy is a fucktard who deserves some punishment, but let's use some damn sense, eh?

    I got up and went to work this morning. Along the way I could have slain fifty men with the knife in my pocket. I should go to prison!

    Nobody was seriously hurt. A lot of people in power were seriously scared by a possible threat. The media overhyped the shit out of the story, and a lot of people were inconvienced. Great, fine him, stick him jail for a short time, and make sure he damn well learns something from it. I'm all for that. But 25 years seems a bit stupid, don't you think?

    He deserves more than a slap on the wrist, but a kick in the frickin' head is going too far.

  361. Actually (the NRA) by Genady · · Score: 1

    Any bets on if there will be a special exemption for lasers used as gun aiming devices?

    --


    What if it is just turtles all the way down?
  362. Innocent until... by zaphodchak · · Score: 1

    Well, it looks like the 'Justice' system is no longer about 'innocent until proven guilty.' In fact, it's looking more like guilty of your crime, and several others, until who-knows-when. You're going to have to prove there was malicious intent to lock this guy up. And even then, not the PATRIOT act, oh please not the PATRIOT act. Like was said, criminal mischief would be more accurate. His intent seems noncriminal, just stupid, shining a laser on aircraft. Well, if stupidity were a crime, much of the country could be locked up. There was a definite danger, as is often the effect of stupidity, but already on this board I've seen this guy labeled as an attempted murderer. That's a possibility. But it seems a little harsh to judge his intent without having any idea what it actually was, or even an examination. That sort of judgement sounds vaguely like the press rap and charges filed against him. This seems to fall more into the 'don't fire guns into the air' that gets spread around at New Year's and such. You shouldn't have to tell anybody. But people are stupid, so you do. Frankly, the danger posed by guns in the air seems to supercede the danger of lasers in the air, what with decompression, fuel tanks, etc. Ahh, witch-hunting. We are now a much more paranoid nation. I may have said too much, and I meant no offense, but maybe it will be the Thought Police at my door next. Terrorist-sympathetic message board postings will not be tolerated by the regime!

  363. Nothing Else? by Matarick · · Score: 1

    "Ok, all you're allowed to do is go to work, watch TV and shop. Nothing else." "Can I go to the bathroom?"

    1. Re:Nothing Else? by eyeball · · Score: 1

      "Can I go to the bathroom?"

      For free, until they figure out how to charge you for it.

      --

      _______
      2B1ASK1
  364. And of course... by Tuxedo+Jack · · Score: 2, Funny

    Your green laser will not work on the blue police.

    You are promptly shot for twenty-five damage with the additional penalty of a "pound-me-in-the-ass state prison" takced on.

    You are demoted to Red and lose one clone from your six-pack.

    --

    Striking fear in the authors of godawful fanfiction, I am here, appearing in darkness, Tuxedo Jack!
    1. Re:And of course... by dlb · · Score: 1

      uhh... Paranoia?

      I feel really old now.

  365. how stupid are you? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    NO ONE is saying the guy should not be punished. Maybe you'll wake up once they start charging drunk drivers under anti-terrorism charges.

  366. stupidity and hysteria by jeif1k · · Score: 1

    If you truly believe that you have some sort of God-given/Constitutionally-mandated right to shine a high-powered laser into the cockpit of a 747, then you truly need a reality check.

    There is no evidence that he was using a "high-powered laser". Even if he had, for commonly available high-powered lasers, it is highly implausible that it would have injured or even dazzled the pilot.

    Yes, and if the government starts criminalizing stupid but harmless behavior, that is cause for concern.

    It is particularly ironic that the guy was also subjected to a lie detector test. It seems like scientific illiteracy is rampant in the legal system.

    1. Re:stupidity and hysteria by Matt+-+Duke+'05 · · Score: 1
      There is no evidence that he was using a "high-powered laser". Even if he had, for commonly available high-powered lasers, it is highly implausible that it would have injured or even dazzled the pilot.

      So the next time I have roadrage going about 70mph I can just shine a "low-powered" laser pointer in your eye and you're OK with that? Why do you all feel the need to be apologists for this guy? What he did was clearly wrong. Bitch about the severity of his crime if you must, but at the end of the day, what he did was wrong and you know it.
      --
      -Matt
      Duke '05
    2. Re:stupidity and hysteria by jeif1k · · Score: 1

      So the next time I have roadrage going about 70mph I can just shine a "low-powered" laser pointer in your eye and you're OK with that?

      Be my guest--you'll find that it is pretty much impossible to hit anybody's eye that way, and even if, by pure chance, you succeeded, the effect would be negligible (as I can tell you from first hand experience).

      Now, the thing that does bother me is tailgating by high center of gravity vehicles with their lights on (SUVs, pickup trucks), often poorly adjusted. That really does dazzle people and is actually dangerous. It is also illegal, but nobody bothers enforcing that.

      What he did was clearly wrong. Bitch about the severity of his crime if you must, but at the end of the day, what he did was wrong and you know it.

      Bullshit. He appears to have been aiming a class 1 or 2 into the sky. Whether that was because he was doing astronomy, laser-based communications, or just fooling around doesn't matter: those devices are harmless and you used to be free to point them skywards wherever, whenever, and for whatever purpose you liked. And people did.

      The thing that is "clearly wrong" here is that people face 25 years in jail because of hysterical reactions by pilots, police, and people like you, against all practical evidence. The problem is people like you, not some guy waving a laser pointer.

  367. laser beams by jeif1k · · Score: 1

    It's a frickin' laser beam. It can blind people.

    No, it can't.

    It is actually a really dangerous choice in toys.

    No, it isn't.

  368. obvious by linoleo · · Score: 1

    Could someone explain to me what use a laser would be in pointing out stars to his daughter? That was one of the things he said he was doing with it, but I fail to see what the laser would reflect off of that would make it useful.

    The airplane, of course. Duh!

    --
    Be faithful to your obsessions. Identify them and be faithful to them, let them guide you like a sleepwalker. JG Ballard
  369. even Jesus hates Texas by Scudsucker · · Score: 1
    I'll appeal to your obvious hot-button by noting that the loss of Texas makes the country even more reliant on foreign oil.

    Nah, along with the convicts, well take all the people who own SUV's but never drive them out of the city and put them in Texas. We'll slash our dependence on foriegn oil AND get rid of thousands of yuppie urban cowboys!

    Then of course there's the matter of Mission Control. but I guess you'd be OK with scapping the space program and all.

    We'd still have Florida.

    Or all the farmland that grows food, but then I suppose you thrive on good feelings from others.

    Huh? CA has the most agriculture. We could probably feed the entire country by the food grown in California, Alaska and the Dakotas.

    Or the massive amount of international travel and goods that go through Texas, but I guess you'd rather just spend a few billion to move all that traffic to someplace like New Orleans where it can get washed away by the next major hurricane.

    Nah, we'll just build the superhighway in some state that isn't to chickenshit to actually use income taxes to pay for stuff.

    Or the vast electronics industry there.

    We'd still have CA.

    I'm from Colorado, and if anyone has the right to dislike Texans it's me.

    Why's that? My reason for hating Texas is because it seems to produce more than the average number of assholes, and because one of my best friends is from Texas, so I knock it every chance I get when he's in earshot. Like, the time he was wondering why lost his Internet access in his apartment:
    • Bob (non-Texan) "We have a crappy network cable in the switch, so you'll have to reach around the table in the living room to check the connection"
    • Me to Dan (the Texan): "Ahh, the reach-around, a Texan specialty"

    1. Re:even Jesus hates Texas by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Then of course there's the matter of Mission Control. but I guess you'd be OK with scapping the space program and all.

      We'd still have Florida.

      Don't forget Arizona. SpaceShip One launched in the Mohave Desert.

      In a couple of generations they will depart and land at International Airports.

  370. Not so much... by el-spectre · · Score: 1

    I'm with ya on that this is overkill, but the laser IS a threat to the air crew.

    Have you ever been hit squarely in the eyes w/a laser pointer? I have, at a small concert (some jerk on the other side of the stage was shining it across and kept hitting me). It is temporarily blinding. I didn't expect it the first time and all I knew was that my world went bright red and I was disoriented, almost fell.

    It is NOT a pleasant experience, and I'd hate to have it happen while driving, much less flying.

    Taken to an extreme: There is a new prisoner control tech that is basically a super-laser flashlight (green in this case) that overwhelms the senses and makes the prisoner fall down. Not nice, but better than a baton.

    Was the guy lighting up the plane to guide a missle? No.
    Did the pilot know if someone was attempting to blind him? No.
    Did the pilot know if a laser sighted pistol was being aimed at him? No.

    The last 2 are reasonable assumptions, and reason enough to consider the plane in danger.

    The guy was stupid and doesn't deserve to lose 1/2 his life for this stunt, but he did a dangerous and threatening thing and should be punished.

    Doing it again to the police chopper? That was just dumb.

    --
    "Faith: Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel." - A.B.
  371. Your rights *Online*? by fab13n · · Score: 1
    My first reflex wouuld be to rant about this hardly being related to *online* rights.

    But think again: is it really a story about laser beams, or even about the right to be a complete jackass? Or rather about a blatant abuse of PATRIOT act?

    IMHO the key point in this story is the misuse of PATRIOT act, and I'm affraid that such misuse won't take long before happening online.

    So maybe we should stop with the "WTF does this story do in YRO?"...

    1. Re:Your rights *Online*? by Zareste · · Score: 1

      Eh-heh, and what in the world is the PATRIOT Act for, if not to show everyone that the government would gladly throw you in prison at the drop of a hat? Just like the DMCA, I really don't think it counts as abuse when the law is *supposed* to screw everyone up the ass, and does so.

      But that's semantics I guess.

      --
      I am NOT a number! I am a - oh wait, I'm number 761710. Look! 761710!
  372. Looking dangerous isn't a threat. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "how do you know it's some young punk kid out for kicks and not a crazed gunman with a laser sight and a finger on the trigger?"

    When you're walking through the park and you see a guy on a Harley in a leather jacket, how do you know he's just a motorcycle enthusiast rather than a Hell's Angel trying to gun you down because you've just IDed him at the scene of a drug deal?

    The passive form of threat... "I am threatened" is not the same as the active form of threat "He is threatening me."

    If you accept the passive form of threat as useable in that definition, then ANYTHING is terrorism. Muslim stands in an airport? How do I know he's just a muslim and not a terorist? By your argument, just scaring me is enough.

    You're playing at sophistry. Perfectly acceptable for the Devil's Adovcate, but it doesn't always work out.

    1. Re:Looking dangerous isn't a threat. by frdmfghtr · · Score: 1

      The passive form of threat... "I am threatened" is not the same as the active form of threat "He is threatening me."

      I consider being painted late at night walking through the park an active threat, same as if I was being mugged by a guy carrying what he implies to be a handgun but is really a hairbrush in the pocket.

      --
      Government's idea of a balanced budget: take money from the right pocket to balance...oh who am I kidding?
    2. Re:Looking dangerous isn't a threat. by Grendol · · Score: 1
      I agree. When you consider that an airliner has the responsibility for the lives of the passengers, that a laser is classified as a "fire arm" by the BATF, that even simple acts of stacking firewood on a railroad track to have the train cut it netted a senior citizen friend of mine a sabotage conviction at the age of 12 in the late 1930's, and the implications of a laser pointer is that a gun is pointed at you. I believe this jerk should be put behind bars at least for a little bit. Should it be labled 'terrorism'? Well, if his act was designed to incite terror, sure, but that still does not get him out of attempted sabotage charges, and assault with a 'firearm" on a crew operating national transportation infrastructure sensitive equipment. If they crashed the plane, it would put the entire airport out of operation as the FAA would be forced to shut the place down with wreckage on the field. Aside from the innocent people probably injured or killed, and the fiscal harm to the buisiness and its employee's job prospects.

      If I was the pilot, I would want a few minute alone in the room with the guy to help him mend his foolish ways, thats for sure. ...

      I think some level of laser light filtration should be considered cockpit windows maybe, or for pilot eye-wear. Obviously not all spectrums can be blocked at once, but maybe, the frequencies most likely to be used should be selected. With temporary filters that slide in place for near ground operations like take off and landing.

      Society is an animal that survives on trust. Trust of itself not to kill itself. If it cannot trust itself, it will guard itself too vigorously, strangling itself, or it will kill itself because it cannot be trusted to not attack itself.

  373. 25 years??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Am I the only one who is AMAZED and DISMAYED that we live in a country where one even COULD get this amount of time for what amounts to a stupid prank??!?!
    What's next? Life in prison for throwing snowballs at cars? Death penalty for waterbaloons from the roof of the dorm? The electric chair for switching the sugar and the salt?
    I'll grant that this was stupid, but why in the hell would our laws allow one's life to essentially be over for doing something like this? Hello? Does anyone else see the insanity of this?
    Maybe it is time to look into Canadian citizenship...Nah, I'd much rather teach English in Thailand...or maybe Vietnam...

  374. I was shined once with a spotlight... by delcielo · · Score: 1

    ...while in the practice area with a student. We were doing VOR intercepts when the entire cockpit became illuminated in white light.

    It wasn't immediately obvious where the light came from; up, down, behind, etc. My first reaction, of course, was that being several thousand feet in the air, it must be another airplane. The thing is, without knowing where the source was, I couldn't tell what the proper evasive action was. I had no choice but to hold straight and level while I frantically looked around, half-expecting to get hit by another airplane. It only took perhaps a second or two to realize what was happening, and to locate the source on the ground; but it seemed like a lifetime waiting for our lives to end in a mid-air collision.

    I didn't have the luxury of the FBI being interested. For that matter, the police helicopter that was operating over town wasn't even interested.

    I don't know about 25 years; but this guy needs to be taught a lesson, as do others like him.

    --
    Hot Damn! It's the Soggy Bottom Boys!
  375. gun control by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think these situations with lasers and planes could be made up by the people that prosecute and make laws against this kind of thing. Another few years and how hard will it be to manufacture a laser weapon out of commodity parts? This is laying the path for laser weapon control. Does the constitution cover this?

    And yes, I am a coward for not wanting to post this on slashdot with a public pseudonym

  376. Easy solution! by dimethylsulfoxide · · Score: 1

    Laser safety goggles have been around for years. Have a couple in each cockpit. With their financial problems right now, the airlines will probably ask the government to supply them.

    1. Re:Easy solution! by fishnuts · · Score: 1

      laser safety goggles can't be worn full-time if you expect to have useful vision. there are two main types of laser goggles, and neither are practical for this purpose. One type cuts out just one or two wavelengths of light (usually IR and the red produced by he-ne lasers) which wont be useful for diode-pumped lasers which can be 'tuned' to any wavelength, or for any laser beam of another color, and the other type, for broad-spectrum protection, would cut out so many other types of light, the instrumentation would be useless, and things outside the cockpit that are of certain "important" colors would be nearly invisible. red, green, yellow, and blue colors would all be suppressed.

      And having the goggles in the cockpit but not on the pilot's face is useless. you DON'T get any warning before you get a concentrated beam of coherent narrow-spectrum light shining into your eyes.

    2. Re:Easy solution! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about blind pilots instead of drunk pilots?

      Could not be affected by lasers!

  377. Re:Comparing apples and lasers. by Minstrel+Boy · · Score: 1
    I got that your message could be read that way, but didn't seem that's what you intended - sorry! The whole legislative "ends justifies the means" struggle is really offensive to me. Call it an anti-terrorist act one day, use it for domestic transgressions the next. Don't like guns but can't overturn the amendment? Come up with as many proscriptions/restrictions as you can possibly push through, and force the public to fight it out in the courts. Listening to people try to defend the first Amendment while decrying the second would be amusing if it weren't so frightening.

    I didn't follow the whole Petersen case here in CA, but without regard to where you stand on abortion issues; how the hell can you have laws that simultaneously permit third-trimester abortions AND allow murder charges to be placed against an unborn fetus?! I gotta get out of this place.

    KeS

  378. Auric Goldfinger's twin? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This David Banach guy sure looks like it.

    "No, Mr. Charter Jet Pilot, I expect you to go blind!"

  379. Not too useful for shoting down planes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ok, bozo somehow lines up a (1mm?) laser beam a mile away into both eyes (or the guy could see out of the other eye) of the pilot, keeps it there until blindness occurs; then do the copilot.

    Yeah, right. L. H. Oswald couldn't make this shot.

    To easily bring down a plane, a stinger missile (100K suppossedly floating around in the world and available to anyone except Palestinians) fired at the end of runway, just outside of the airport at {ORD, JFK, MIA, EWR, LAX, ATL, IAD, BWI...}, could not miss from 300m.

    To try a laser for blinding, try "many" of these http://www.megalaser.com/20.htm/, (or ck Google) bundle them up for some firepower, use a scope and maybe you could blind both pilots, certainly scare them and our overlords.

    This guy was just fooling around with his new toy and painted the plane (a Piper Cub), and now will have the book thrown at him.

    The old "wrong place at the wrong time" screwup.

  380. Laser pointers by alexo · · Score: 1

    > There is no dispute over the fact that it was an ordinary laser pointer
    > involved. I'm not sure what sort of "powerful" laser pointer you have in
    > mind. Go down to Best Buy and try to buy one of these "powerful" pointers.
    >
    > Let us presume, however, that you have somehow managed to get a "powerful"
    > pointer and a monocular. You will still be unable to do anything more that
    > pass the beam over the retina of a motionless man 20 feet away by "blind"
    > luck, and only for a fraction of a second at a time. The feat has nothing to
    > do with the power of the laser or any possible optical magnification.


    I can buy a 47mW green laser pointer on ebay.
    I can find a 50mW one or even a 190mW one.

    Note that these class IIIb lasers that *will* damage the eye faster than the blink reflex kicks in (read: fraction of a second) on a "sweep" -- no monocular required; and can even cause damage if viewed indirectly (reflected).

  381. Pilots never really felt danger. by Stopher2475 · · Score: 1

    I don't believe the pilots ever really felt they were in danger. While it is annoying, distracting, and wreckless it was just a moron screwing around with a laser pointer, not an act of terrorism, and the government knows this. They obviously were not really threatened by it. If they were, they wouldn't have sent another aircraft to hover around in the same place looking for him. If a guy was shooting off stinger missles you wouldn't send a helicopter to float around in the area. You'd send in someone by ground. They were just pissed off and they wanted to set an example to the hundreds of people who do this a year. There was never an actual feeling of a threat. I think he should have some punishment, but they need to keep it in context. 10 years and 250 million seems excessive for a prank.

  382. Laser blinded pilots...? by Himuraken · · Score: 1

    Just curoius becuase no one else has asked this question, how can a laser from the ground blind a pilot through the windsheild? The physics seem off to me, I can beleive a helicopter would spot a laser, but a plane? The guy would be beaming at the bottom of the aircraft right?

    --
    "If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face -- for ever."
  383. Read it? Nobody did! That's the point. by Fantastic+Lad · · Score: 2, Insightful
    --At least not before it became law.

    You have no problem with that?

    Anyway, since then it HAS indeed been examined, and you'll pardon me if I don't share your rosy assessment.

    As for being easy to read. . . The USA PATRIOT Act may indeed be written in "clear and concise English", but it is nonetheless damned hard to work through as it constantly references other laws and statutes to which it makes dozens of wording changes and amendments. --And you'll pardon me again if I don't share your feeling that "small modifications" to existing laws are no big deal. In law, it's all about the wording; the difference between words can kill a man or set him free.

    --Indeed, in order to make sense of the PATRIOT Act, one has to have numerous other legal documents available, and more importantly, understand in context those other laws which are being altered. Reading the Act is by no means an easy task, and that you describe it as such is just plain baffling.

    --And beyond all of that, one of my favorite parts is how the Sunset clause (section 224) includes a whole string of exceptions which leave a variety of those amendments snuggly in place after the December 2005 cancel date.

    The fact of the matter is that a large amount of American law has been significantly altered without any review. This kind of law-making should never be done without scrutiny or debate. --At least not in a country claiming to be democratic. But instead it was deliberately pulled off during a time of high emotion; deliberately made unavailable for proper readings.

    I have a problem with that, and if you don't, then you are the last one who should be calling anybody ignorant.


    -FL

  384. Enough already! by Fantastic+Lad · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Note: I am NOT concerned about the $15 consumer lasers mentioned in the USA Today article but about the much stronger lab types, so please don't waste your time explaining to me why I shouldn't be at all worried about this.

    Okay. Thank-you for posting, "uberskyjock". I'll try not to waste your time.

    Your notes, while fascinating and informative, have little bearing on the fact that somebody has been arrested and threatened with 25 years imprisonment for posing a non-threat.

    Everybody is needlessly scared, the media is doing an irresponsible over-hype job and the authorities are over-reacting. --Yes, playing with lasers and airplanes is rationally arguable as being similar to joking about bombs in an airport, but that has little to do with what this is really all about. . . That is, the maintaining and increasing of the fear levels across the U.S. populace.

    It should be remembered that movements toward stricter laws are always rationally arguable, but the laws once made are nearly always irreversible.

    A little care is needed here.


    -FL

    1. Re:Enough already! by Xepherys2 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well, care is needed indeed. In fact, the US Patriot Act as a whole is an afront to the rights that the Bill of Rights put forth. However, I do believe that this is a serious issue and that the man in question does deserve his day in court. I wish the fed could find charges that did not invoke the USPA.

      However, calling this a non-threat is akin to saying it shouldn't be illegal to put pennies on passenger rail tracks. While it appears harmless enough 99.99% of the time, the one time it does kill 500 people is worth it being illegal to begin with.

      I agree, giving up personal freedoms is NOT acceptable. I want to reiterate this strongly! I do not believe the USPA has citizens best interest in mind. I do believe this man (and other doing the same thing) are/were wrong and should be dealt with accordingly.

    2. Re:Enough already! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      posing a non-threat
      Whoa. FL, you usually make some good points in your posts, but come on, this is just nonsense. It certainly was a threat. As this guy points out, lasers interacting with aircraft were a concern prior to 9/11 and the Patriot Act. It is not just a recently made up phantom boogeyman. It is a real concern, and has been for a long time. Yes, applying the "terrorism" label is an abuse of the law (and they even admit it), but to call this sort of thing a "non-threat" is to ignore a serious danger.
    3. Re:Enough already! by Shadowlore · · Score: 1

      However, calling this a non-threat is akin to saying it shouldn't be illegal to put pennies on passenger rail tracks. While it appears harmless enough 99.99% of the time, the one time it does kill 500 people is worth it being illegal to begin with.

      Hmm so you say it happens once in 10,000 times? You may want to send your proof/references to snopes cuz it has it listed as an urban legend:

      http://www.snopes.com/science/train.htm

      Now, that said. Intentionally interfereing with an operating aircraft was already illegally. The catch is, by the authories' own admision, the guy wasn't trying to: he had no intent to whatsoever.

      The fed could have found charges that were applicable if the man intended to do what /.-ers are accusing him of because laws already exist to do that. Indeed, the news agencies were reporting on the non-PA law before the guy was caught.

      --
      My Suburban burns less gasoline than your Prius.
  385. Re:I think it's mostly for yucks. 25 years is absu by TheLittleJetson · · Score: 1

    25 years though. come on. i bet he gets less. a stiff fine would do, maybe a year or two with it.

  386. Since you continue to ignore my main points... by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    I see no reason to attempt further reason. If he had a fixed laser the jet would (or small plane) never have seen it as I said repeatetly. the idea that somehow two pilots had a grudge against some guy in a suburb...

    in your haste to reach for any solution which fits your mental model, you ignore Occams Razor. Keep hunting, I'm sure you'll find what you're looking for. You always do.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  387. Actually I have been... by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    Actually I have been to New York. Really I have nothing against it, I just simply wish to point out the fallacies of people who seem to hate Texas so much just because it's a bit redder shade of purple. And New York is an easy alternative, primarily because of the movie. And of course the people that are raging against Texas would be the ones it would tweak most to suggest using New York instead... so fram that standpoint it's a choice of levity (for me).

    New York does have some kind of scary areas though, you have to admit. I lived in Houston for a while and although it has some pretty bad areas too, I'd have to say there are areas of New York from my wanderings there that I'd less rather be in than the bits of Houston that were not very safe.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  388. Garbage in, Garbage Out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's IT !!! I'm keeping my Car Headlights on HIGH from now on. This is silly, stupid and insane ! We are Blinded everyday from a multitude of sources and we recover. This "laser" (diode) would be too far to cause any eye dammage, or serious distractions, HEY ! have you forgotten all the Drunk and sex stories from the 70's and 80's ?! They almost never land manually anymore, this is NOT an issue, this is another Red Herring to distract the bored and gullible public, leading up to legislating "laser devices" out of the hands of the public...c'mon mom, we're breaking open that Blue Ray CDwriter tonight....

  389. Sure... by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    Pull all sorts of conjecture about possible mistakes I could make from wherever.

    We are talking in both cases about repeated acts, not just one time mistakes. And of course the repercussions of an action you take. I actually think pointing a laser at a helicopter is a lot more serious deal as it requires more pilot intervention to keep under control and land safely.

    Also, I disagree that either are really cases of "fucking up". Both are acts done knowingly which makes them worse. People do not accidentally send spam that they profit by; you do not accidentally put a very powerful laser outside and start shining it on things passing by in the sky.

    The guy has a kid so of course there is some cause for compassion. But again this is a really stupid act and requires some level of punishment. Instead of critizing me, offer some constructive suggestion as to what YOU think is an appropriate level of punishment and why.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  390. two events. by twitter · · Score: 1
    Consider the portion of the "occupied" by an aircraft at the altitudes involved here. Now calculate the chance of hitting it with a "random." beam. ... compare those odds to being struck by lightning

    Lightning strikes happen all the time but let's not confuse the issue.

    It might have taken a deliberate effort to cause the first event. That's not what was chased, however.

    The chances of being hit by a random beam when you are flying a helicopter looking for beams over a heavily populated area might be better than you think. If the helicopter follows the first flash, the odds only get better. They might be as good as your chances of chasing actual gunfire. Where my mom used to live, you could hear the shots all night long.

    We shall see what happened later. There's a chance this man did what's reported. There's also a chance he was in the wrong place at the wrong time and all of us are going to be slapped and denied the ability to own a usefull and mostly harmless tool. We don't have any dwell times or expert opinions of it. Right now, all we know is the defendants name, face and that the FBI had an axe to grind.

    --

    Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.

  391. Re:Planes are not travelling at 600 miles an hour by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    You are an idiot. If you've ever worked around lasers, you don't have to point the beam directly into an eye to get damage. There's this thing called scattering, and there is this other thing called reflection. Both are possible in an airplane cockpit.

    Fine. Surely you can account for the in-air attenuation of a 2mW 532 laser at 8000 feet and can say without doubt that the laser power at such a distance would be strong enough to cause out-of-medium scatter.

    What is much more likely is that any small amount of laser that did happen to get past there would've been attenuated and would predominantly refract into the glass pane. Not to mention that the angular reflection of the laser to transmit through the a singluar glass pane would have to be between 1 and 30 degrees, because beyond that point the attenuation caused by the glass would negate most anything that could get beyond that.

    And finally, since your statements in your post betray the fact that you DO NOT work around lasers, and have no idea of how dangerous they are to human eyes, your arguments are bullshit. As for a laser system that can down targets (aircraft and missiles) look at MTHEL, the Army's high energy DF laser in New Mexico. That one HAS downed incoming missiles and can down aircraft.

    Your use of examples shows that you have zero knowledge of the scaling of lasers and the power used. Now, also bear in mind that the MTHEL is currently a one-shot system, as it requires 1 Megawatt of input energy for a 10KW blast. A lot of heat and power to contend with. Not exactly backyard, three-shot equipment.

    Yes, the MTHEL has taken care of aircraft and missles. If I said no lasers had done this, I simply meant to say that the threat of lasers that he possessed is so small it's negatable.

    The MTHEL is a 10KW Neodymium doped laser system. This guy had, at most a 2mW laser pointer, but I'll grant you a 10mW laser.

    Do the math. The power of 100 of his would "equal" 1W, and 10,000 of those would equal the MTHEL capabilities, which would be easily and legitimately a weapon. So, I guess if he fired 1 million of his laser pointers at once, then he'd have a legitimate weapon.

    If I throw a pebble at someone, it's miles of difference from throwing a SUV-sized boulder at someone.

    I know of one person where I work that was blinded by a targeting laser that is used to align another laser. This laser was akin to a HE-Ne laser that you can buy from radio shack for 10 bucks. The guy suffered permanent retinal damage, and this is from a scattered beam that got out of it's containment tube and bounced off a wrench. And the guy wasn't wearing his eye protection, so he's also a dumbass, but his exposure was on the order of a millisecond of scattered laser light.

    And I'm going to go ahead and say that while it was "akin" to a RadioShack He-Ne 1mW system, it was akin only in type, but was orders more powerful, which can definitely have eyesafety problems.

    FWIW, since you asked, I *do* work with lasers on a daily basis as part of a Free-Space Optics communications system, operating at 785, 808 and 850 nm, through a pulsed wave 100mW (on our 3R product; ~67mW on our 1M product) infrared laser system.

  392. Re:Planes are not travelling at 600 miles an hour by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 1
    FWIW, since you asked, I *do* work with lasers on a daily basis as part of a Free-Space Optics communications system,

    Would you be willing to have a laser shined in your eyes, from a mile distance, while driving your car at speed?

  393. Lasers are used for target designation by crovira · · Score: 1

    You paint a beam on the target (anything with the beam WILL be the target) and the incoming missile/projective will aim for it.

    THAT'S why I don't want some joker with a laser tagging my flight, so some other joker with a shoulder mounted missile, in another location can triangulate in and blow my ass out of the air.

    Throw the book at him and get the laser pointers off the street. Its not a question of boring a hole through the planes. Its a question of lighting 'em up for a targeting system.

    --
    MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
  394. siz-packs and bug zappers by chazmims · · Score: 1

    Punishing the foolish will not remedy the situation. Relatively inexpensive lenses (compared to tracking down pen-laser owners) are available which filter out specific laser wavelengths; so as to prevent eye damage or distraction form effecting the flight crew (http://www.elvex.com/laser-spectacles.htm). A man who unintentionally jeopardizes a flight through ignorance is being prosecuted as a man who was attempting to target for a missile. 25 years!? This sounds familar. I'm still waiting to see those WMD's in Iraq.

    --
    Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies.
  395. What about the children by DrSpirograph · · Score: 1

    And if he was just stupid and gets locked up for 25 years, I doubt his daughter will be thanking the Government for taking her father away from her. Strike 1 more off the list of patriots.

    (i can't believe I just wrote a "what about the children" post)

  396. Focus of the legal system by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Punishment. And reassuring paranoid citizens.

  397. Re:Planes are not travelling at 600 miles an hour by sexylicious · · Score: 1

    Exactly.

    And since no one asked, I *do* work with weaponized laser systems.

    The MTHEL is a 10KW Neodymium doped laser system

    As for MTHEL, it's a Dueterium-Flouride laser. It has multiple shot capabilities as long as it's supplied with enough chemical fuel. Read up on it:
    MTHEL Article

    As for attenuation, that's totally dependent on the laser wavelength and the medium it travels through. This has a good diagram of attenuation curves:
    Free Space Optics presentation

    And yes, I *do* understand the attenuation problem. But a guy with a pointer is just as dangerous to a pilot's eyes as a guy with a MW class anti-missile laser. The pilot will still get his eyes irradiated, and he'll still be blinded. A pilot trying to land blindfolded is a rediculous idea, yet that's what would happen should the flight crew lose their eyesight if only for a few moments. Landing an aircraft is tricky, even if you are flying by instrument and have your glideslope outlined for you by your landing autopilot.

  398. Re:Planes are not travelling at 600 miles an hour by sexylicious · · Score: 1

    You also forget that it's not only the power output in the utility of a laser as a weapon, but the beam area. 1mW incident on a square mm is the same irradiance as a 1kW laser with an irradiance area of 1 meter squared. In both cases, you are putting 1kW of energy into an area the size of a square meter. (Assume that the angle of incidence is zero so there are no losses due to reflection... cos(0) = 1. In other words, a perfect hit.)

    I guarantee that that 1 mW laser on that 1 mm squared of retina is still deadly to those cones and rods in your eye.

  399. No malicious intent by ^BR · · Score: 1

    Someone yelling "fire!" in a crowded theater is trying to get people hurt, this guy wasn't.

    And frankly I doubt the story of the temporary blinded pilot, it's hard enough to keep a laser pointer to a small target a few feet away keeping focused on a moving plane a few thousands yard away is just not doable handheld...

  400. Here's a question. by lucason · · Score: 1

    While putting up a fence, I used a rotating laser to mark the strait line to guide me.

    The laser was happily rotating 360 at several 100 RPM s a plane flies over my house as they do about 10 times a day.

    Should I be worried about a 25 year prison term for that?

  401. that would be illegal by willCode4Beer.com · · Score: 1

    A 12 bang bang (combat engineer) with a spork is generally considered to be a WMD. Thats why MRE's only come with a spoon.

    --
    ----- If communism is a system where the government owns business, what do you call a system where business owns govern
  402. a nick-name I can never get away from... by willCode4Beer.com · · Score: 1


    They'll get my duct tape when they pry it from my cold dead fingers.

    --
    ----- If communism is a system where the government owns business, what do you call a system where business owns govern
  403. Already on the books. by Fantastic+Lad · · Score: 1
    It seems to me from reading the various stories available on this item that it is already illegal to opperate a laser device above 3000 feet near an airport. Just the same way you can fire a model rocket near an airport.

    Cooler heads and existing laws should be able deal with this one without all the added drama.


    -FL

  404. holy moly, by jago25_98 · · Score: 1


    better buy my dad some oakleys to replace the standard top gun affair style shades

  405. Prosecuting Office by outernet2 · · Score: 0

    This was sent to me by David Banach's defending attorney:

    The Office of the United States Attorney in Newark is headed up by Mr. Christopher Christie and you may direct any letters to his attention at:

    United States Attorney's Office
    970 Broad Street
    Newark, New Jersey 07102

    I am glad to see there are still some civil libertarians left!

    Just in case anyone wanted to gripe to an outlet that may actually accomplish something.

    --
    This .sig is a .fig of your imagination
  406. The best defense... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...is a good offense. I'm sure someone of the /. crowd could come up with a cost-effective laser-guided weapon that could be released from the aircraft when triggered by coherent light. Nothing incendiary, but perhaps a gallon of orange da-glo to mark the point of origin (stupidity) and let the local law enforcement take care of the rest. We don't need to waste taxpayers money imprisoning people for their stupidity, just tag them with some bright color so that everyone knows who the boneheads are!

  407. Sorry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That should fucking be "hit the fucking ENTER key at the fucking end of a fucking line". I fucking apologize for any fucking confusion that my fucking omission may have fucking caused.

  408. Re:I think it's mostly for yucks. 25 years is absu by gfreeman · · Score: 1

    Immagine[sic] you just bought a $700 laser pointer. You're amazed that you can see a reflection from stuff really far away. Hey look, I can even shine it on that plane overhead!
    Really, I bet that's the extent of it.


    And this doesn't cause you concern? How about ...

    "Imagine you just bought a $700 driver. You're amazed that you can hit golf balls really far away. Hey look, I can even bounce them off that commuter train over there!"

    Now, physical bashing and smashing aside, the possible ensuing wrecks are both worthy of some law forbidding similarly stupid acts.

    What about your right to free speech/expression? Nah, your right to expression via golf balls into trains or lasers onto planes fits nicely along side your right to express yourself by shouting "FIRE!" in a theatre.

    Face it, lasers can temporarily affect the vision of people, and all it takes is a temporary lapse in vision for those in control of a landing aircraft for nasty things to happen. This guy is a moron, but shouldn't be locked up for that. This guy endangered people's lives - and THAT'S why he should be locked up.

    --
    Ceci n'est pas un sig.
  409. Please learn how to make links. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Please learn how to make links.
    <a href="http://cbsnews.cbsig.net/stories/2004/12/10/ terror/main660268.shtml">5 more laser incidents</a>
    (without any spaces put there by Slashdot) yields: 5 more laser incidents

    If that's too much typing for you,
    <URL:http://cbsnews.cbsig.net/stories/2004/12/10/t error/main660268.shtml>
    (without any spaces put there by Slashdot) yields: http://cbsnews.cbsig.net/stories/2004/12/10/terror /main660268.shtml (That's a grand total of six extra characters you have to type, and you don't even have to remember it, since it's described just below the text box you used to type in your comment.)

    Oh, and for you "Well just right-click on the text and click 'Follow Link'." people, tell me how to open a selected-text link containing extraneous Slashdot spaces in a new tab using Mozilla, or shut up.
  410. Re: Dai Vernon by Dai+Vernon · · Score: 1

    The reference is to the man, the master, the professor himself. Myself, I am an amatuer. But a huge fan of the pasteboards.

  411. Re:Misunderstanding in why the feds track this dow by scum-e-bag · · Score: 1

    You have made one of the best posts in this discussion. It is such a shame that I have no mod points.

    --
    Does it go on forever?
  412. Ironic? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Personally I don't mind at all if the guy burns. I viciously hate inconsiderate assholes...

    Says the inconsiderate asshole...

  413. Draco by danila · · Score: 1

    Draco was the first lawgiver of ancient Athens, Greece. His laws, written in 621 BC when he was archon eponymous, were particularly harsh, as the death penalty was the punishment for even minor offenses. Hence expressions such as "draconian punishment" or "draconian laws", and more generally, "draconian measures" (far-reaching). (from Wikipedia)

    --
    Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
  414. Exaclty by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    People sneering at Texans may not realize this - but Texans consider themselves supurior to YOU. And perhaps rightfully so, given that they are the ones free to take the ball and go home if they don't like what is going on.

    Houston alone is worth keeping, if only for the restaurants.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  415. Unlikely. by TechnoFreek · · Score: 1

    This sounds fishy to me. He was pointing out stars, so chances are he'd be shining the laser at a rather high angle. I don't know how much exposure you people have to planes, but I'll point something out: The cockpit windshield is on the top half of the jet. below the windshield, a nose bulges out. It provides better aerodynamics and shit, I guess. It's irrelevant. Now, tell me, how could he paint a jet and somehow manage to shine a lser at a constellation or whatever else and manage to hit a plane at cruising altitude and overcome the nose and the angle of the windshield to hit the pilot in the eye. Even taking off, the plane would be pointed at an angle high enough that the laser should be unable to reach the windshield and hit a pilot in the eye. Landing is more likely, but even then you have the task of dealing with range. I assume he wasn't inside the gates of an airport, which would put him at a minimum of several thousand feet away from the plane. This sounds like a huge load of bullshit to me.

  416. Acluistic... by HomerNet · · Score: 1

    ... a.k.a. - In the state of being without a clue.

    This goes out to everyone that thinks that hitting this guy under the PATRIOT act is somehow too harsh, wrong, or you just don't like the PATRIOT act. (I don't either, but that's a discussion for another post):

    If you have ever even THOUGHT about flying a plane, ever used a flight simulator that comes anywhere near resembling reality, you would know that even the slightest distraction or problem in the cockpit can mean the entire plane goes down. Further, anyone who has been painted from a distance can tell you that it is very disconcerting, especially with the thought that the laser in question could be attached to a potentially lethal weapon. This gives you a shot of adrenaline, which in turn causes you to go into "fight-or-flight," and in this mindset it is very easy to make a critical mistake.

    Finally, terrorists aren't just guys in turbans in the middle-east that learn how to fly a plane but not land it. They can be litterally anyone with any agenda. I don't know if they've hit your necks of the woods, but eco-terrorists are on the rise here in California, and they are proving even more dificult to find than "regular" terrorists because they often have no criminal record outside of "disturbance" arrests, and they look just like everybody else . An eco-terrorist gets it into his head that planes are the next big Ozone-Hole-Ripper, one laserpointer is all they need to take down an airplane and all passengers aboard.

    I think 25 years is perfectly fine. He endangered everyone in the air and on the ground, and lives are more important than the jollies of a man who thinks that buzzing planes is fun.

    --
    I have no tag line
    1. Re:Acluistic... by SilverspurG · · Score: 1

      you would know that even the slightest distraction or problem in the cockpit

      Like _that's_ never happened before. No more sex while flying, or drinking while flying, or listening to the radio while flying, or waving to the people on the ground. No more aerial barrel rolls, since flying itself is obviously much too demanding to think about the distraction of flying upside-down.

      He endangered everyone in the air and on the ground

      No, he didn't. According to this link, a similar laser has an approximate range of 9000 feet. The article said the pilots were at 3000 feet in altitude when they were supposedly blinded. Assuming that the plane is nosediving at 45 deg for a landing, that puts the pilots 4200 feet away which is about half the effective range. Factor in the power dispersion and all else...

      No one was endangered. This article, the prosecutor, the FBI, the pilots, and the local police are 100% pure hype.

      I hope they drive this guy to the end of his wits and he ends up rampaging with a bulldozer throughout their entire city. This whole thing is really that stupid.

      --
      fast as fast can be. you'll never catch me.
  417. Who's is responsible? by bitmanx · · Score: 1

    It seems obvious the guy was an idiot but unlikely a terrorist. If he were that I would suspect he would have been hanging around the airport in direct view of pilots landing. Secondly, I can't wait for the lawyers to become involved for the passengers. Let's say I'm looking out the window and I'm flashed, can I sue the airliner now for not providing reasonable protection against a potential threat to me? I was at costco last week and they had a 10 million candlelight powered flashlight. I'm pretty sure this thing could lightup the entire plane at 8000 feet so is a flashlight an issue now? What if I painted a plane at 30,000+ ft totally by accident if at all possible, is that also a terrorist act? What's next, somehow I painted your gps satellite? I think the guy should be treated as if he was on the plane himself and interfering with the cockpit crew. It's interesting to see how the govt. likes to make examples of terrorist acts with our own U.S. citizens such a public display yet the real dangers are rarely discussed until the crisis has occurred.

  418. Re:Only 25 years? Off Topic reply following by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and they actually modded him down for that ! LOL Some mods are so wanting for something resembling a life, itching for an opportunity to knock somebody down a peg to make their geeky pointless asses feel like someone with power. Ooooooh slash karma, ooohh. That's really just pathetic. Like this thread is so important. Like slashdot is so important, god forbid someone wander off topic for a second to ask something. Yes, slashdot, home of the liberal, the tolerant, the progressive. NOT ! DON'T POST OFF TOPIC ! YOU WILL BE PUNISHED ! Welcome to slashthroat.org ! Home of the hypocrite.

  419. How do you know? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Perhaps the aformentioned person was commenting on her hard of hearing aunt's new "fire" red sweater? ;^)

    This of course highlights the fact that you don't know (or neither do I) if this person's intent was to get people hurt or not. Presumably if charges are filed, this is a jury's decision. So any discussion of "jail" time meaning this isn't a democracy is premature at best, right? ;^)

    Never-the-less, just because YOU think a-prioi that if jail time is proscribed, it is therefore not a democracy you live in, there are still a couple of points unaddressed...

    1. If you live in the USA (or many of the "western" countries in the world), you do not live in a democracy, but a republic.

    2. It seems in your so-called dictatorship^H^H democracy if you don't like the outcome, the form of government has instantly changed and due process is something that isn't required if you don't think it is.

    And then there's the other fact that if you re-read the article, the laser in question was pretty powerful (i.e. emits lots of coherent, columnated photons/sec). I'm guessing the dwell time of such a laser would be pretty short relative to the experience you have with your laser pointer at a closer range to cause a similar amount of energy transferred to someone's retina... Something more to think about...

  420. History Channel info by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The History Channel had a show on this not too long ago. Not much info on their site, but here's a small link: http://www.historychannel.com/exhibits/fifties/mcc arthy.html

    The "gist" of the hour-long show (and the implication in the short link above) is that it was a farce, a waste, and even though they caught a few, the Red Scare was mostly just that, a scare. In the show, they provide much history and documentation, and one of the numbers provided was along the lines of "... although over 1200 Americans were accused of being communists, only about a hundred were later proven to have been ..." to paraphrase the show. Perhaps you've been lied to as well?

  421. Mod the above down to "MORON" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See the other guy's post and also, have you ever head of IFR and VFR? Go look it up on google..... sheesh.

  422. On Torture. by Fantastic+Lad · · Score: 1
    And I like how you use the word torture. The goings on in Abu Garab was embarassment, humiliation, and hazing. It was hardly torture. And during war, I think anything up to serious/permanent injury or death is justified in order to get information.

    If you want to live in the comfy Rush Limbaugh version of the world, then that's your choice, but it seems a touch cowardly to me when one can't look reality in the face.

    Austrailan Victim

    Navy Seal says Iraqi who died at Abu Ghraib was roughed up in CIA's `romper room' "[. . .] The military pathologist's report listed the cause of death as blunt force trauma complicated by hampered breathing."

    Amnesty International investigates. "Whenever interrogators brought in a new prisoner, they would always bring in a block of ice. She did not know why they brought the ice or how they used it during interrogation. But the interrogation sessions always included the ice block and were followed, a few hours later, by a visit to the prisoner, who by then would be unconscious, by two doctors, an American and an Iraqi. The prisoners were invariably taken out of the interrogation room unconscious."

    The Red Cross Report on US torture of Iraqi prisoners tells us that, "[. . .] "during arrest, internment and interrogation." The document details gross violations of numerous articles of the Geneva Conventions by US and British forces and paints a picture of widespread and systemic abuse of prisoners[. . .]"

    ""Arresting authorities entered houses usually after dark, breaking down doors, waking up residents roughly, yelling orders, forcing family members into one room under military guard while searching the rest of the house.... They arrested suspects, tying their hands in the back with flexi-cuffs, hooding them, and taking them away. Sometimes they arrested all adult males present in a house, including elderly, handicapped or sick people. Treatment often included pushing people around, insulting, taking aim with rifles, punching and kicking and striking with rifles. Individuals were often led away in whatever they happened to be wearing at the time of arrest--sometimes in pyjamas or underwear--and were denied the opportunity to gather a few essential belongings, such as clothing, hygiene items, medicine or eyeglasses."

    Furthermore, "certain CF military intelligence officers" told the ICRC they estimated that between 70 and 90 percent of those rounded up in these terror raids were arrested by mistake.

    --Now consider that the people who are taken prisoner are generally treated to conditions you call, 'hazing'. --These are the people who the U.S. supposedly went to Iraq to 'rescue'.

    This is not about 'getting information' which they teach as being a necessary evil on dumb-ass propaganda shows like 'Alias'. This is about needless, wide-spread brutality.


    -FL

  423. Business model by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    1. Put story on news for weeks about lasers potentially being used by terrorists to hurt pilots.
    2. Wait for obviously nonterrorist morons to do the deed.
    3. ...
    4. Ratings !