Slashdot Mirror
VoIP for Deployed Soldiers?
rickbassham asks: "With VoIP really catching on these days, I decided to look into it for keeping deployed soldiers in touch with family and friends. I am currently a soldier in Iraq, and have the ability to get satellite-based internet, thanks to a few of the locals. While individually it is prohibitively expensive, a group of soldiers can come together to purchase a decent-to-high-speed internet connection. One of my plans is to link other soldiers to Vonage or another VoIP provider, so they will be able to keep in touch. Understanding the latency issues with VoIP via satellite (not to mention the other disadvantages), what upload speed does Slashdot recommend as a minimum for a QoS enabled connection for about 15-20 soldiers? The same for a non-QoS connection? What recommendations do you have for a good VoIP provider?"
Seems to me, "talkin to the folks back home" has always been a function of aid organizations like USO, or of the Army itself. Soldiers needing to BUY time to talk to loved ones seems a terrible solution. Our soldiers are already putting life on the line, (and for lousy pay too one could add). In older conflicts the two things that armies KNEW you could NEVER be mucked with was 1 Chow and 2 Mail. Seems in today's world this would fall under catagory number 2. Also, in WWII at least; letters to home were free, no stamp.
- Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum, minutus carborata descendum pantorum.
It seems like this would be something basic the government would provide to the people who are risking their lives EVERYDAY.
So, these folks put their LIVES on the line for their country, yet they're still raped on phone charges for calling their loved ones at home?
Something is really, really wrong with this picture.
$1 per minute? Sheesh. That's obscene.
Calls home should be free. Perhaps limited (or everyone would spend their time on the phone), but free.
You're right. A lot of people join just to get a free education. Not that it's wrong. Hell, the military uses it to lure recruits, but that doesn't make you a hero. I was in the Air Force and it wasn't quite as bad because Air Force college benefits sucked (at least they did when I was in the mid 80's). However, a lot of peeps in the Army were definitely there for the education and that's it. Some joined because they couldn't get a job and had nowhere to go.
:)
My favorite was this guy who said he would never shoot someone because he's a born again Christian. When I told him he better start firing if ordered to, he said he still wouldn't do it. I wasn't sure to laugh or cry. Fortunately he was an Air Force dude so he would probably never be put in the position to have to shoot anyone but it still irked the shit out of me that this guy was living a lie (I guess that's a perfectly Christian thing to do) and was in my fucking unit.
I actually joined the military because I wanted to server my country. Of course, I'm still no hero because I was fortunate enough to not have to go into combat.
"Seriously, it's their choice to be out there fighting, why on earth do they need to be treated like heroes? I'd understand if it was conscription, but it isn't."
Being forced into the military makes you a hero? That makes no fucking sense to me. Volunteering to get your ass shot at seems much more heroic to me (or stupid depending on your viewpoint). Being forced into combat just makes me feel sorry for you.
Our society is too obsessed with heroism. The people who are real hero's don't ask for fame or priviledge. Too bad our media has such a desperate need to call anything wearing any kind of uniform (military or civilian) a hero. It's devalued the term to the point of having little meaning.
Sorry for the off topic response, but I wanted to get this off my chest.
Any man who afflicts the human race with ideas must be prepared to see them misunderstood. -- H. L. Mencken
These fine U.S. soldiers of which we speak are in fact putting their lives on the line for the current administration's own geopolitical goals, which is not the same thing as fighting for your country.
I disagree. The soldiers may or may not agree with Bush's goals, but I still believe they are fighting for their country. They're fighting to answer their country's call regardless of the reason the call was made. They're fighting for freedom and many of them no doubt beleive that being in Iraq is a part of securing American freedom--your answer to that or mine aside. They're fighting for their families and their children. They might be in Iraq because of Bush's geopolitical goals, but ask the individual soldiers what they're fighting for and I think you'll get a different picture.
That said, bending the soldiers over on calls home is indeed despicable. I really have a hard time believing that with all the awesome technology the US military has--and all the R&D funding at their disposal--that they can not come up with a good, secure, cheap communications system to let a soldier in Iraq tells his parents he's still alive.
Heh, just noticed this line that I didn't notice before:
h tml (Read the individual reports and linked intelligence analyses from various US governmental and non-governmental sources))
h tml (Read the individual reports and linked intelligence analyses from various US governmental and non-governmental sources))
6 80140.html
0 02Sep18?language=printer3 60-2003Jan23.html
r ight1.html
:P
> 6 months from now, if you were to look back at what you just typed, you'd see it's
> as wrong as predictions of slaughter of the allied forces.
I predicted no such thing; if you'll recall, it was the ones who thought that Iraq had WMDs that were predicting mass allied deaths. In a FAQ that I wrote at the timeon Iraq myths, concerning the myth "Saddam is developing weapons of mass destruction", I stated "Unlikely", and cited as counterevidence:
20) Federation of American Scientists: http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iraq/missile/index.
21) Federation of American Scientists: http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iran/missile/index.
22) Sydney Morning Herald: Oct 3, 2002: "Butler accuses US of nuclear hypocrisy"; http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/10/03/1033538
23) Washington Post: Sep 19, 2002: "Evidence on Iraq Challenged"; http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A36348-2
Washington Post: Jan 24, 2003: "U.S. Claim on Iraqi Nuclear Program Is Called Into Question"; http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A35
24) Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists: Mar 1991, Vol 47, No. 2, pp 16-25: "Making the bomb"; http://www.bullatomsci.org/issues/1991/m91/m91alb
The Federation of American Scientists: "IAEA and Iraqi Nuclear Weapons"; http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iraq/nuke/iaea.htm
Furthermore, I stated elsewhere that the invasion would go like it did in Afghanistan - a couple weeks to a couple months - and then we would declare it some huge victory and most people would buy into it. However, that the Iraqis (apart from the Kurds) were distrustful of the US government and its motives (like the rest of the Arab world) and would resist the US occupation as the Palestinians were doing to the Israelis. It seemed pretty predictable to me; what idiot wouldn't see this coming?
On The Other Hand, go read posts from a conservative forum like FreeRepublic.com (or listen to quotes from the Bush administration, Defense Policy Board, etc) as to what the invasion would be like (according to the Bush admin plans, we were supposed to be down to 40k troops a year and a half ago), after being greeted by flowers and causing a cascade of democracy and peace in the middle east, after siezing Saddam's vast stockpiles of WMDs.
Gee, who got it right? About the only thing that I got wrong was how long it'd take for Saddam to get captured - I thought they'd get him a lot faster. I also didn't see the looting coming - what horrible mismanagement.