FCC Seeks Tech Donations for Katrina Aid

An anonymous reader writes "BoingBoing is reporting on the FCC accepting donations of tech services and equipment: 'Lack of communications systems has been identified as a critical issue holding back aid, missing persons, law enforcement, etc. in crisis areas. FCC personnel are working throughout the weekend to coordinate these efforts with private industry, with wireless technology groups, FEMA, and state governments in Mississippi, Louisiana, etc.' Efforts are being organized through PART-15.ORG."

Comments

Where does the money go?

[elucido]

Can we depend on the federal government? Should we donate or just let the private sector handle it?

Citywide Wi-Fi

[blastard]

Now would be a fantastic opportunity to install a citywide Wi-Fi network. If the ILEC was ever going to do it and get good press for it, now is the time. Could Intel use another test bed for Wi-Max?

Why, America?

[LkDotCom]

People killed, property destroyed, mass reverted at "Lord of the Flyes" level. And people talking about WiMax and Ham radio.

We, spoiled people of the Old Continent (maybe too old) are much more concerned about the human regression of the citizens of New Orleans that with tech. Did you have a look at Phuket Tsunami?
MUCH MORE TRAGIC outcome, much more dead people and yet a cooperative environment, without people harassing others or pillaging the neighbourhood and without problems with the volunteers.

There must be something really scaring below the thin surface of the common US citizen (or maybe under every "first world" one), something deeply wrong with a lot of people, whose first instinct is to go arming themselves as it was not a catastrophe, but some kind of Apocalypse B Movie.

I've worked with refugees and indeed lend a helping hand in Pukhet zones, but have never ONCE seen the global and total madness generated by Katrina.

ANd I am more than a little scared, you know?

-
Grammar Zealotes, please spare a non-english writer

Re:MOD PARENT DOWN

[evol262]

And you know that how?

Because they did not have the ability to do so. If Iraq had been able to strike the United States, they certainly would have done so in the 10 years between wars. As stated, Saddam was an incredibly secular leader. He only really cared about staying rich and surviving unharassed. He would not have jeopardized it to attack the US.

And he funded suicided bombers in Israel.

Yes, he paid the families of the suicide bombers who attacked in Israel. Everybody in the Middle East hates the Israelis, even westernized countries like Lebanon, and it's not a secret. He paid the families posthumously, though. It wasn't as if he was recruiting them. He wasn't a great guy by any means, but terrorist leader he wasn't.

Yeah, like that's how they would choose to attack the US. Has nothing to do with them funding and homing the terrorists.

See above. bin Laden did do that in Afghanistan, but he could just as easily be doing it now from Chechnya, Pakistan, or wherever the hell he is. The Taliban wasn't really involved in any manner other than getting paid to look the other way.

I said they were unable to attack the US through military means because that's precisely the threat that our government offered and so many people seemed to believe. Remember, though, everybody looks out for number one. The government leaders in Afghanistan and Iraq had no more desire to get ousted, impoverished, and possibly killed than any other leaders anywhere. National governments do not attack the United States as it stands right now. We didn't even catch the Al-Qaeda leaders from Afghanistan, they just moved. Why do you think we're any safer now?

Or maybe the YOU are learning their tactics? I mean, if they attack the US they aren't going to be attacking in a conventional way and therefore aren't going to be confronted by an ARMY force are they?

On the other hand, the military are understanding how the extremists work and at the same time are seeding liberty in countries which could certainly benefit from it. Look at Afghanistan for an example. They've made amazing progress in such a short amount of time and many countries (and the UN) are ensuring success. Admittedly Iraq is not as successful (yet).

Yes, WE are learning their tactics. They like to ambush us in the hills. Couldn't we have learned that from any insurgency or guerilla operations? Make a case study out of what happened to the Soviets in the 80s in Afghanistan. Same effect. All we're learning is that they're very hard to root out and they like to shoot at us. On the other hand, they are learning how we operate, what equipment we use, what tactics we use, when we use airpower, and what we have at our disposal.

Yes, we're seeding liberty all right. We are doing good things in Afghanistan, no doubt. Women have a lot more rights, and there is more infrastructure (though a lot of that is the Caspian Oil Pipeline). Unfortunately, the last estimates I heard from my friends in the military (who were deployed there) were that we maintained a functional control zone of 100m around Kabul. The rest is provisional warlords and druglords.

Try this site instead it has less propaganda