Slashdot Mirror


HAARP Amping It Up

n6kuy writes "HAARP (the High frequency Active Auroral Research Program) will be adding 132 more transmitters to bring their total number of transmitters to 180. "When the massive planar array for ionospheric research is completed in 2007, it will include a total of 180 Continental Electronics D616G 10-kW combined transmitters, which the company is upgrading specifically for HAARP," the supplier (Continental) stated. The facility is near Gakona, Alaska. The installation began in 1993 with 18 transmitters, expanded to 48 in 1998 and will grow to 180 transmitters. The final expansion will bring the HAARP array to full power, with ERP increasing from 84 dBW to about 96 dBW. 96dBW is about 4 billion Watts. There is speculation that the project is really an "effort to develop ways to jam the electronics of incoming missiles from Russia and/or China". 4 billion Watts oughtta do it."

292 comments

  1. speculation by Trigun · · Score: 2, Funny

    Well, then there's no place for that here. Not on Slashdot!

    1. Re:Speculation by Hasai · · Score: 1

      Yup, and there were claims that the H-bomb would cause the entire planet's atmosphere to ignite, as well.

      --

      Regards;

      Hasai

  2. 1.71 gigawhats? by fatjesus · · Score: 0, Troll

    whazzat?

  3. Re:die whales by Trigun · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Or just f*cking everything that moves. We're going to have a lot of tired whales, and a very protein rich ocean.

  4. Re:die whales by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I for one welcome our new whale masters

  5. Wow big suprise US spending billions on defense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Wow big suprise billions of dollars spent on defense programs, if the US wasnt bent on pissing off everyone else in the world we could spend those billions on more productive things like alternative energy!

    1. Re:Wow big suprise US spending billions on defense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yes and a magical purple bunny might come along and make that alternative energy a reality! Unfortunately, you didn't spend anything on defense so some other country just took your energy source and the bunny. They left your wife, pity.

      Fortunately, the magical purple bunny was the last defense project that the US spent money on. That other country will be in for a surprise come Easter.

      Besides, we all know that there was no war before the US started pissing everyone off. Actually, War was born right after G.W. Bush popped out of Barbara Bush. War is Bush's non-evil twin - The secret is out, now you know what the W in W stands for: W as in WAR. Yes George W(ar) Bush's full name is George War Bush. The non-evil twin is W(ar) George Bush. Strangely, the twins share a common last name. The other twin permutations were lost in a rather nasty incident on the way out of Barb during berthing. It seems that a simple case of negative pressure and a poor US healthcare system led to their demise. The evil Christian priests attending the berthing tried a plunger but it was dirty so Barbara screamed "Get that damn dirty plunger well away from there! Those my special baby berthing pieces and I can't get them that dirty!" By the time the plunger was cleaned the other Bushes were lost somewhere deep in the heart of Texas or Barbara. The search teams never returned so the mystery was never solved. Rumor has it that the lost twins did attend Yale and also received better grades than John Kerry.

      Anyway, Barb serves little importance to the tale. Her duty as the pneumatic tube of War and George served, Barbara returned to a life of drunken debauchery, knitting, and ballroom brawling - ninja style. It must be explained that neither George War nor War George ever really cared for the magical purple bunny. The bunny's soft fluffy fur was of no interest to the War brothers. No, it's simple you see, George War and War George both preferred the prickly stubble of each other's unshaven face. They referred to the prickly intercourse as their love brush. They would often say Love Brush real fast until one would slip and say Love Bush. Given that we're talking about George Bush he would normally fuck it up about half way through the first incantation of his accursed name.

      Good troll. I like to feed 'em. I choose to feed this one insanity with a generous portion of love.

    2. Re:Wow big suprise US spending billions on defense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Righteous

    3. Re:Wow big suprise US spending billions on defense by killjoe · · Score: 3, Informative

      "Besides, we all know that there was no war before the US started pissing everyone off. "

      IN the last few decades the US has been involved in more wars then any other country on the planet. The problem we have with George is that he is waging war for profit, fun, and because "god told him to" (his words not mine).

      --
      evil is as evil does
    4. Re:Wow big suprise US spending billions on defense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fool! What have you done? You have uttered the dreaded evil right wing Christian George War and War George battle cry: the cry for righteousness. You have broken the second seal and the seal is really tired of abuse. First the damn sonar now your unnecessary loud mouth jib-a-jab. This simple refrain has already plunged the Pacific Northwest into quiet a cold spell -- a spell designed to lull the USAsian sheeple into the mistaken belief that George War and War George's global warming is much like the Magical Purple Bunny's singing career: non-existent - well at least until Easter. But all hell will break lose on Easter for Easter is War and George's favorite day of death, destruction, and motor car racing.

      Certainly, reiterating this accursed cry may very well plunge most of the rest of everywhere else into a place not quiet mired in reality but definitely not mired in Barbara - for there be dragons in there. And as Barbara always says "Stay yourself far from my dragons. For my dragons are lusty and will not be as restrained as my will is soft and I cling to reality with scotch tape."

      It is now time for me to reveal more hellish truths. Curse you War! Curse you George! Damn your dead permutations as well. I think we must all prepare for the Easter transformation. For on Easter the Magical Purple Bunny will form a most unholy trinity along with George War and War George. When placed upon the Crawford Texas Big Boy, on Easter, Orthodox Easter to be exact, the George and War will re-enact their secret scull and bones ritual. When done with the beer bong the two will turn upon the hapless bunny and shave all of its delicate perfect fur. Worse, they will bind the poor bunny and refuse to shave its stubble.

      Yes, you guessed it you pathetic fool. They will make sweet Love Bush with the rabbit. This sin against nature will transform the Magical Purple Bunny into Easter Claws. With the unholy right wing, black oppressing, gay bashing, beer swilling, trifacta complete, the War George and George War will begin their unjust actions against toast, terrorists, and that damn snot nosed fool who decided to spend their precious defense budget on foolish alternative energy sources.

      Time is short. The drugs are wearing off. Be warned. Beware! Easter Claws is coming (all over my face). Beware! You will know that the Claws is near by its hellish call: bugga bugga!!!

      Repent now. But stay away from the ball rooms. Prefer the bat room.

    5. Re:Wow big suprise US spending billions on defense by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      Sometimes you have to fight fire with fire. That is, sometimes you have to start a fire in one direction to prevent a wall of fire comming at you from the other direction.

      War is the same thing. Sometimes we have to kill those that wish to kill us. Now what would your rather choose? Islamic facist killing the inocent over and over again in the name of a perversion of Islam the believe? Or, would you rather put them down like the sick dogs they are so as to have them kill anymore.

      You can take humans out of nature, but you cannot take the nature out of humans.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    6. Re:Wow big suprise US spending billions on defense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And you're saying Iraq wanted to kill us? Um, ok..

    7. Re:Wow big suprise US spending billions on defense by killjoe · · Score: 1

      "War is the same thing."

      NO it's not. That's just a stupid childish analogy. Not only is it childish it's also completely irrelevent.

      "Sometimes we have to kill those that wish to kill us."

      So is it OK if I kill my neighbor because I think he wishes to kill me? Is it OK for me to blow up a building because I think three people in it wish to kill me?

      "Islamic facist killing the inocent over and over again in the name of a perversion of Islam the believe? Or, would you rather put them down like the sick dogs they are so as to have them kill anymore."

      Are those my only choices? Lucky for me I have a mind and can think of other options.

      "You can take humans out of nature, but you cannot take the nature out of humans."

      Thank you for admitting that you are a war pig for the sheer bloodlust. How long do your erections last when you hear about dead arabs?

      --
      evil is as evil does
    8. Re:Wow big suprise US spending billions on defense by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      Thank you for admitting that you are a war pig for the sheer bloodlust. How long do your erections last when you hear about dead arabs?

      No, I'm admitting SOME humans embrace bloodlust, but MOST (if not all) are survivalists. In fact, it's genetic through evolution.

      Think about this. You have someone pointing a gun at you. Do you...
      1. Wait and see if they will pull the trigger.
      2. Pull your trigger before they pull theirs.

      I choose option 2. To choose option 1 sets me up for darwin award.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    9. Re:Wow big suprise US spending billions on defense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course the evil United States is involved in more wars. My previous posts should easily explain why, even to someone as foul and dense as you. Does War George and George War ring any bells? "Baby berthing pieces?" I bet you remember that one you encomium twat.

      Let's explore these evil wars of fun and profit. Follow my path through the tributaries of reality. Do not touch the hand rails. For the rails are covered by the unholy snot of the Easter Claws: bugga bugga.

      Damn War George went to Sadam, picked him up, and placed him square on top of a minaret in Kuwait. War George knew exactly where to poke Sadam's juicy little hemorrhoid causing him to start killing hundreds of thousands of people per year. Fear not oh stupid ones, the most evil Dicky Chaney was ready. You see, he owned controlling shares in Hali-Burping International - the largest producers of people shaped shredders. Their flagship line comes in 4 colors - all black like Richard's cold dark heart - or what's left of it. It is detachable and inflatable. It makes a great stress releaver.

      Waiting for his chance George War then invaded the Mediterranean to free the poor oppressed Kuwait citizenry from their briny prisons in that filthy sea. Not to be one upped while searching for his allusive legacy (like the bunny's singing career: non-existent) the semi-evil but hot pants Billyum Clin-ton launched an unprovoked attack against the peace loving Yugos. However, Clinton was easily fooled when Sloban was like "Hey, I just do spring cleaning. Fix country up nice. You see. You come back later. OK" So Clinton did just that. He came back later - all over my face.

      So the next evil oppressive war takes us to some country filled with screaming black people. Warlords everywhere! The George and War could not accept such competition. So one day they dropped a bunch of warkeepers with care packages. But they were devious as evil can be when it is not drunk. The care packages contained those fake plastic sushi pieces you'll find at sushi houses and finer funeral parlors. This enraged the people so much that they dragged one of War's great warriors through the streets as the cute little children danced and poked at the dead bodies. War and George were happy for death and destruction is death and destruction even when visited upon one of their mislead own.

      This bores me. Yadda, yadda, that nuke war with Riceland. Then there was the Keblaro Pequeños uprising of 5882300. Not a good time. Even War got a little tired of the blessed carnage. Oh for fun and profit. Then the great wars were cursed upon the shores of humanity along with syringes of jelly and spatulas of penut butter. Jesus Christ, the most horrible, George H Bush (The H is for hate btw) even fought in that war foreshadowing his evil spawn and the evil his pathetic, racist, hillbilly infested country will unleash upon the formerly perfect and peaceful world. And McDonalds. Oh the horrors of that clown and his big fat blue friend - the Evil Grimace.

      Proxy wars with the great red star worshippers followed the rising of the evil McDonalds. During this time a cold war engulfed the world, once again set up to fool the easily fooled USAsians into thinking that global warming was a crock of cold chilly. Someone must have uttered the dreaded call - which I WILL NOT REPEAT HERE.

      Oh then the worst - a little innocent hamlet called Granolla. The evil War and George conquered this Central Texas paradise with only 15 of their cruel warriors. Some dude that has 15 spellings for his blessed name was bombed - we shall call him Katofu. His only crime? Blowing up a civilian airliner. Who hasn't? The evil War in possession of Ronald Biscuits Regan waged this unprovoked attack and killed little tofu. Ma Po Tofu managed to survive in her spicy chili oil sauce and pickeled black beans of power.

      Like a cat that plays with its prey delighting in the snap of bones and cries of pain, War and George returned Sadam to his minaret seat in peace loving Iraq so that they could war with him

    10. Re:Wow big suprise US spending billions on defense by meadowsp · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      I think you're paranoid and should seek medical help.

    11. Re:Wow big suprise US spending billions on defense by iamhassi · · Score: 1
      "IN the last few decades the US has been involved in more wars then any other country on the planet. "

      that's because somehow we've become some stupid global police force so whenever there's an injustice in the world everyone cries to the US to come save their a$$. It kinda started with WWI and went from there.

      Sometimes i just wish we could say "look, i know your people are getting slaughtered by the thousands and it's sad, really, but we're trying to study the properties and behavior of the ionosphere here!" (that's what HAARP does btw)

      hey least i tied this into the article, which is more than i can say for most the posts on here...

      iamhassi
      (email not shown publicly)
      Karma: Excellent

      --
      my karma will be here long after I'm gone
    12. Re:Wow big suprise US spending billions on defense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh I see!

      By pretending to be a cunt you imply that your correspondent is a cunt, thus devaluing his opinions.

      Very clever for a cunt.

      Even cleverer is that we don't actually HAVE TO have a nuclear war with China if we're not competing for the same energy resources.

      See you in the smouldering ashes - I'll be the one kicking you in the bollocks before my leg falls off.

    13. Re:Wow big suprise US spending billions on defense by panxerox · · Score: 2

      Yah cause intercepting nukes just is soo wrong, you will change your opinion if some piddling country launchs an emp nuke from a cargo ship and shuts this country off like a switch. What good is all that computer science education when the highest form of tech in this country is a shovel.

      --
      "It's so convenient to have a system where everyone is a criminal" - A. Hitler
    14. Re:Wow big suprise US spending billions on defense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IN the last few decades the US has been involved in more wars then any other country on the planet.

      So any facts to back yourself up here?

      The problem we have with George is that he is waging war for profit, fun, and because "god told him to" (his words not mine).

      You're free to have an opinion on this, but if it's "for fun" I'd say you're just another crank. And waging war because "god told him to", you probably couldn't even find a respectable source on this one. Chalk another one up for /. conspiracy theorists!

    15. Re:Wow big suprise US spending billions on defense by camusflage · · Score: 1
      40% Insightful
      20% Troll
      20% Funny
      Amazing that something that includes Babs Bush involved in "drunken debauchery, knitting, and ballroom brawling - ninja style" can be moderated such.
      --
      The truth about Scientology, Xenu, and you: Operation Clambake
    16. Re:Wow big suprise US spending billions on defense by PhraudulentOne · · Score: 1

      Sometimes you have to fight fire with fire. That is, sometimes you have to start a fire in one direction to prevent a wall of fire comming at you from the other direction.

      Umm, that's how wars start. Now its you starting the wall of fire for the other side. So then they fight back, so on, and so on. The only way to stop war, is to (are you ready for it?), STOP WAR.

      War is the same thing. Sometimes we have to kill those that wish to kill us.

      No we don't

      Now what would your rather choose? Islamic facist killing the inocent over and over again in the name of a perversion of Islam the believe? Or, would you rather put them down like the sick dogs they are so as to have them kill anymore.

      Neither. It seems you aren't very creative. I don't blame you or anything. See, you just heard this line of thinking from other people, took it as true thinking, and then adopted it as your own. Someday you will see past it. I just hope you don't infect others with your line of reasoning.

      You can take humans out of nature, but you cannot take the nature out of humans.

      Human nature is not killing people, or fighting. Wrong (from the perspective of a free and healthy society) thinking is killing and fighting, and fearing, etc. Human nature can also be about love, tolerance, repect, etc. I see which path you have chosen - pity.

      --
      You create your own reality - Leave mine to me.
    17. Re:Wow big suprise US spending billions on defense by PhraudulentOne · · Score: 1

      And McDonalds. Oh the horrors of that clown and his big fat blue friend - the Evil Grimace.

      Dude, Grimace is purple.

      --
      You create your own reality - Leave mine to me.
    18. Re:Wow big suprise US spending billions on defense by dozer · · Score: 1

      Exactly who is pointing a gun at you right now?

    19. Re:Wow big suprise US spending billions on defense by dozer · · Score: 1

      You didn't even google it? Tons of reputable sources exist. Your tirade is moot.

      http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/ch ronicle/archive/2005/10/07/MNGNVF3SFM1.DTL

      It comes down to who you believe, the White House or a bunch of high-ranking Palestinians. Given the White House's track record on truth telling so far, that's not an easy question...

    20. Re:Wow big suprise US spending billions on defense by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      If we spent "billions of dollars" on alternative energy, and produced a magical bunny, I'd expect it to not only power our society, but also defend us from foreign threats. Besides, you are the one who decided not to spend any money on defense, as some kind of bizarre sacrifice to your weird magic bunny. But your tale of Bush Canal does show that something's coming from your secret Anonymous Coward lab. It's toxic, but maybe it has military applications.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    21. Re:Wow big suprise US spending billions on defense by stupidfoo · · Score: 1

      A reputable source? What a joke. Might as well ask the Iraqi information minister what he thinks.

      But whatever. Someone stated something that attacked Bush, so much of the world will now believe it, no matter how inane and ridiculous it is. Like this absolute BS.

    22. Re:Wow big suprise US spending billions on defense by Metrathon · · Score: 1

      40% Insightful
      20% Troll
      20% Funny

      um, and the last 20%? Insane?

    23. Re:Wow big suprise US spending billions on defense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The translated words from Arabic to English has distorted the tenor of Bush's conversation. The SFGate.com article left that part out. Somewhere in the double-translation the meaning has been lost.

      From:


      Bush frequently speaks of his faith and trust in God. The translation from Bush's words in English into Arabic for the Palestinians, and then back to English again appears to have distorted the tenor of his words.

      In fact, Abbas, now president of the Palestinian Authority, gave the BBC a different version of Bush's words. Abbas recalled that Bush said: " 'I have a moral and religious obligation. So I will get you a Palestinian state.' "

    24. Re:Wow big suprise US spending billions on defense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That should have been...From the Washington Post:

      Here

    25. Re:Wow big suprise US spending billions on defense by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

      Depending on how close you are to a big city, the current list includes China, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria, and various small Islamic groups.

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    26. Re:Wow big suprise US spending billions on defense by Anonym1ty · · Score: 1
      So is it OK if I kill my neighbor because I think he wishes to kill me?

      I would say it's fine to kill someone who has repeatedly said they were going to kill you, and then attempted to kill you. That's not just thinking that person is going to kill you, that's knowing that person is going to kill you. Those are two completely different things, unlike your childish analogy.

    27. Re:Wow big suprise US spending billions on defense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your sig says it all. You are living in a vary naive version of your own reality. Human nature is full of agression. You can see it in how 5 year olds play. War is ALWAYS going to be a part of humanity. Some humans can get past agressions, but I'd reason to guess that most can't. Now, here is a news flash for you. Islamic extremists want to kill you if your not muslim. Go ask one, he'll agree with me right before he forces a conversion or beheads you. I would much rather that our armed forces go kill them, before they come here and try to force my conversion to Islam. Remember though, I am only talking about the extremists. Frankly, I wish the world was like the one you believe in. But I've met enough people to realize it won't ever happen. Either we will kill ourselves off, or we will maintain the same level of warfare and agression as we always have.

    28. Re:Wow big suprise US spending billions on defense by killjoe · · Score: 1

      "No, I'm admitting SOME humans embrace bloodlust, but MOST (if not all) are survivalists. In fact, it's genetic through evolution."

      Iraq never attacked you. You are simply enjoying the killing or iraqis to feed your bloodlust. Afghanistan chummed the waters for you and gave you a boner, you could not help yourself but to attack iraq too.

      The same thing happens to sharks (including the boner part). One you bloody the water they go into a blood fueled feeding frenzy and attack anything near them.

      It will be interesting to see what you (war pigs like you) do once your boner has subsided.

      --
      evil is as evil does
    29. Re:Wow big suprise US spending billions on defense by killjoe · · Score: 1

      "Sometimes i just wish we could say "look, i know your people are getting slaughtered by the thousands and it's sad, really, but we're trying to study the properties and behavior of the ionosphere here!""

      You do this every day. The US is completely ignoring the genocides in africa and has ignored them for decades. Liberia was begging the US to come in and help and we sat on our ass doing nothing. We are also ignoring the starving masses in North Korea, slave labor and human trafficking in India, Thailand, and the balkans, it goes on and on.

      I wish the US intervened in cases of true human misery instead on only when they have oil.

      --
      evil is as evil does
    30. Re:Wow big suprise US spending billions on defense by aminorex · · Score: 1

      Personally, I favor shutting down the U.S. It does a lot more harm than good. I wouldn't mind dying very much if I knew that the rest of the U.S. was also being terminated simultaneously. We has met the enemy and he is U.S. Who would have ever thought that the Ayatollahs were right? The U.S. really is the Great Satan of the world. It took GWB to prove it without room for evasion or excuse.

      --
      -I like my women like I like my tea: green-
    31. Re:Wow big suprise US spending billions on defense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh yes. The enlightened Ayatollahs. Please follow them. Dare not question them. Date not expose an ancle if you are a woman. Yes, the US must be stopped.

      You fucks have absolutely no historical perspective at all do you? I hope you are killed in a terrorist attack.

      No, I take that back. I hope someone you love is killed in an attack. Then you can live with the guilt of fighting the United States when it was doing what needed to be done. What exactly makes the US so evil other than your country's own failure to succeed? You must be from France. You sound so stressed. It must be all those damn car-b-qs.

    32. Re:Wow big suprise US spending billions on defense by PhraudulentOne · · Score: 1

      Human nature is full of agression. You can see it in how 5 year olds play. War is ALWAYS going to be a part of humanity. Some humans can get past agressions, but I'd reason to guess that most can't.

      This is why we need to help people out, love them, assist them, instead of just killing them off without chance. We are scared of them , so we kill them. Basically that's why they are killing us, or trying to.

      I would much rather that our armed forces go kill them, before they come here and try to force my conversion to Islam.

      I'm pretty confident that the Islamic Extremists won't come over to the USA/Canada on planes and boats and try to convert us, or kill us all. It's much more the case that we keep going over there and killing them "before they get the chance." Perhaps thats what makes them want to kill us so much?

      Frankly, I wish the world was like the one you believe in

      It could be, if we tried.

      But I've met enough people to realize it won't ever happen. Either we will kill ourselves off, or we will maintain the same level of warfare and agression as we always have.

      You mean you've met enough "lost" people that the task seems hard enough that you won't try. You just give up. That's the problem. Lots of people have an abundant amount of "good" in them. They see all these problems, only see the problems, and become overwhelmed. Then they just give up and say "Fuck, well this is the way life is I guess."

      Again, it's a pity.

      --
      You create your own reality - Leave mine to me.
    33. Re:Wow big suprise US spending billions on defense by KC9EOW · · Score: 0

      well.... technically your only allowed to use deadly force in equal return with deadly threat, aka you have to reasonably believe that you are about to die immediately to use it as self-defense, you can't think it may happen in the future. you can injure your neighbor greatly but you cannot actually KILL him unless he is trying at that moment to kill you. I know, I know, a technicality and I'm only a paralegal/engineer but this is a pretty basic thing you learn when you go over 'active defenses' in basic litigation class. It sucks, and some groups are trying to get it changed, most notably and successfully in Florida. it was bundled into their concealed carry law that went into effect quite recently. I'll go back to my little corner and lurk now.... 'The Radish'

    34. Re:Wow big suprise US spending billions on defense by Anonym1ty · · Score: 1
      well.... technically your only allowed to use deadly force in equal return with deadly threat.

      Not entirely true. You are allowed to use deadly force to protect yourself. If I thought someone wanted to cut my arm off, I am well within my rights to kill him if I have to in order to stop him from cutting off my arm. It doesn't have to be just fear of the loss of life. There are also places in the United States where deadly force is allowed to protect one's property. You shouldn't ever compare the use of deadly force specifically with the fear of the loss of your own life. It needs to be considered against other possible alternatives.

      It is considered perfectly reasonable for the use of deadly force in instances:

      • Self-defense
      • Defense of another person
      • Prevention of certain crimes
      • In law enforcement

      Depending on where you are, many US states allow deadly force against:

      • Murder
      • Burglary of a home
      • Burglary by a person who is armed (Armed doesn't always mean guns)
      • Sexual assault
      • Armed robbery
      • Kidnapping
      • Arson of an occupied structure
      • Assault involving deadly force.

      In many states, the law may make a distinction between movable property and real estate. You may be allowed to use reasonable non-deadly force to protect movable property from theft or criminal damage, whereas real property and trespassing may have different requirements altogether.

      That being said, yes there are states that will probably put you in jail, or even to death for using deadly force for almost anything short of not ending up dead yourself. And no I didn't specify which states I was talking about. These laws are different in each US state. I leave the specifics as an exercise for the reader.

      And after all that, we were originally talking about war here.

  6. Ah conspiracy... by pookemon · · Score: 2, Funny

    "effort to develop ways to jam the electronics of incoming missiles from Russia and/or China"

    And Elvis is overseeing the project. I'm sure he hates those damn russian missiles... Oh wait, aren't they friendly now?

    (The russians, not the missiles).

    --
    dnuof eruc rof aixelsid
    1. Re:Ah conspiracy... by temojen · · Score: 1

      There's also speculation that it, along with "chemtrails", is being used for mind control. Just don't point out that it's a crazy idea to those who believe it. They'll think you're part of the conspiracy (or worse, a psychiatrist).

    2. Re:Ah conspiracy... by ian_mackereth · · Score: 4, Funny
      Well, it can't be aimed at missiles from anywhere in the ex-Soviet bloc.

      The most famous haarp practitioner I know of was definitely a Marx-ist...

    3. Re:Ah conspiracy... by Sensible+Clod · · Score: 1

      Am I really the only one who got the joke? Kudos to you, sir!

      --

      The difference between spam and poop is that you don't have to dig through septic tanks looking for real food. -- Me
    4. Re:Ah conspiracy... by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      They sould be friendly. They weren't back in the 80 when reagans starwars project created this. The initial funding for HAARP came from the starwars initiative. I guess the might have found better uses for it.

    5. Re:Ah conspiracy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      not just mind control, I believe the ability to randomly make people sick, control the weather and cause earthquakes are also part of the conspiracy.

      I hope this is really anonymous or "they" will come get m........

      **CARRIER LOST**

    6. Re:Ah conspiracy... by CrazyDuke · · Score: 2, Informative
      Too Late

      The single-warhead RS-12M Topol has a range of 6,900 miles. The Topol carries on-board steering rockets that allow it to make evasive maneuvers in flight on the way to its target, meaning it can evade any terminal phase interceptors.

      The warhead is shielded against radiation, electromagnetic interference and physical disturbance, and designed to be able to withstand nuclear blasts as close as a third of a mile away.
      --
      Any sufficiently advanced influence is indistinguishable from control.
    7. Re:Ah conspiracy... by Rolo+Tomasi · · Score: 1

      You're just being glib. You don't know the history of HAARP, I do.

      --
      Did you know you can fertilize your lawn with used motor oil?
  7. Yes but... by Ctrl+Alt+De1337 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Does it go up to 11?

    1. Re:Yes but... by Jozer99 · · Score: 1

      Even if it doesn't, a 4 Billion watt PA would work great for my band, as of now, some of the people who survive our concerts eventually regain partial use of their ears, its rediculous!

    2. Re:Yes but... by ozbird · · Score: 1

      Does it go up to 11?

      "... 10-kW combined transmitters ..." - apparently not.

    3. Re:Yes but... by iceperson · · Score: 1

      Perhaps it's time for Remo to investigate...

  8. From TFA (and other materials on the subject) by Senes · · Score: 5, Informative

    HAARP is a United States defense project, one of the many defense measures against nuclear warfare. For more information, see this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HAARP (Wikipedia.org)

    1. Re:From TFA (and other materials on the subject) by deglr6328 · · Score: 5, Informative

      HAARP is being upgraded by the DOD as a "defense measure against nuclear warfare", but not in the sense that you or the other hundred odd Art Bell quoting posters here seem to think. Specifically, it is not being used to "jam" or "shoot down" any ICBMs or some such nonsense because that is impossible and is well...what's the phrase here that I'm looking for...oh right...fucking retardedly impossible.

      So why is the Pentagon interested in upgrading HAARP to ~4 GW? Well, if you do some research on HANEs (high altitude nuclear explosions) you will find that a nuclear explosion of even modest energy (100 KTons) is sufficient, when detonated at an altitude of greater than a couple 100 Km, of flooding the Van Allen belts with high energy electrons. (the native electron population of the radiation belts is "heated" via inverse bremsstrahlung from the hard X-rays emitted by the nuclear detonation) It is even capapble of creating NEW radiation belts at lower altitudes than normally found and it is thus estimated, extrapolating from experiments such as starfish prime in the 50's, that virtually ALL sattelites in LEO would be destroyed within days by ESD and radiation damage if an event like this were to occur.
      HOWEVER! HAARP is capable of irradiating the ionosphere with VLF EM radiation of quite high intensity and thus can alter the so called "auroral electrojet", creating a ginormous "virtual VLF antenna" in it by altering its temperature (and thus its conductance). The HAARP is thereby capable of depopulating the radiation belts of high energy charged particles in a fraction of the time it would ordinarilly take for them to calm down on thier own and thus potentially saving the many sattelites in LEO. Sound crazy? Well, sometimes truth is stranger than fiction, and THAT is why the Pentagon is interested in this thing, not for some kooky mind control/weather control/ray gun type kookery.

      --
      - "Hear that?! The percolations are imminent! Cease your ingress!"
    2. Re:From TFA (and other materials on the subject) by Columcille · · Score: 2

      so HAARP will be the first nuke target? *HAARP general gets a funny look on his face* "Mr. President, maybe we should have given those interceptor missiles a bit more funding after all."

      --
      I love my sig.
    3. Re:From TFA (and other materials on the subject) by uradu · · Score: 1

      > HAARP is a United States defense project

      Well, duh! That was obvious right away from the contrived acronym. After all, they're all a bunch of LOSARs (Lovers Of Silly AcRonyms).

    4. Re:From TFA (and other materials on the subject) by Gyorg_Lavode · · Score: 1
      Having watched the video from the seeker on a Hit to Kill interceptor, I can tell you it does work, (when they can get the missiles out of the hole =P).

      And given even your concession that your description sounds crazy, maybe you should be a little more forgiving of other technologies.

      --
      I do security
    5. Re:From TFA (and other materials on the subject) by eno2001 · · Score: 1

      And you know this because you personally tested and evaluated every aspect of what you stated... Right? ;P Interesting prospect but it's likely "just a theory", so I don't know if we should believe it or not. Who's with me? Let's BURN THE WITCH!!!

      --
      -"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
    6. Re:From TFA (and other materials on the subject) by cluckshot · · Score: 0, Troll

      Have you ever considered the effect of this much of an electromagnetic field on the flow of sub atomic particles in the atmosphere? Have you considered the effect of such in regards to the formation of clouds and similar. How about the effect on lightning discharges? This definitely has enough energy to affect weather events. If you short out region of the atmosphere near a thunderstorm it might well either damp or amplify depending on where the storm.

      It is a published intent of the US Armed Forces to dominate the weather shortly. Obviously this could be beneficial or hazardous depending upon events and the point of view of the affected parties.

      --
      Never Politically Correct ~ I prefer the facts If you don't like what I say, get a life, or comment yourself.
    7. Re:From TFA (and other materials on the subject) by PhraudulentOne · · Score: 1

      So does this thing have a capability to alter weather at all? Does it have the capability to mess with (enemy) VLF communications, while amping up the US VLF communications (for subs, etc)? Are both of these questions simply conspiracy theory BS? Is it safe to be pumping all this energy, or can it have negative effects on the planet? Should I be running up to Alaska and blowing this thing up before the USA fucks up the world?

      --
      You create your own reality - Leave mine to me.
    8. Re:From TFA (and other materials on the subject) by Juuso(t3d) · · Score: 1
    9. Re:From TFA (and other materials on the subject) by Prometheas · · Score: 2

      I've been a relatively long-time listener of Coast to Coast (the show is no longer named after Art Bell), and I've heard about a dozen different guests speak on the topic of what HAARP "actually is"... and while your explanation is more than possible, it doesn't seem to hold water particularly better than a number of other explanations I've heard.

      I'd remind you that there is no complete official explanation to what HAARP does (it is after all largely classified), so you can really just stop thinking you know "why the Pentagon is interested in this thing."

      Point is, we don't know.

      Now, since it's "kookery," you might get a kick out of discovering that there is a UN treaty -- ratified in the 1977 -- that makes specific stipulations about forbidding the use of weather modification tactics (and earthquake weaponry) in international warfare. The treaty is called "Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques."

      Find the whole treaty text here:

      + http://www.state.gov/t/ac/trt/4783.htm

      Not to be overly sarcastic about this, but notice the absolute lack of any international treaties regarding the uses of teleport chambers, portals, and care bear stares.... It's a serious treaty.

      I would like to follow this up with Senate Bill S. 517, introduced by Sen. Kay Hutchison [R-TX] in March of 2005. Funny that HAARP's suddenly getting larger in the very same year, isn't it?

      While weather modification has yet to be completely openly demonstrated, there *is* plenty of public record that weather modification isn't exactly seen as a joke by people spending our tax dollars.

      On a related note, Nikola Tesla accidentally caused an earthquake in New York, experimenting with his Tesla Coil (it's why he had to shut that lab down and move it out of the city). Before I go too far with this, let me tie up the Tesla tangent by noting that anyone seriously thinking about what HAARP could be would find more detailed information about Tesla's work very, very interesting; there is more than a little that HAARP and the Tesla coil have in common. (Tesla himself seemed sure he would be able to manipulate all sorts of natural phenomena, but that's another story.)

      Quickly about the HAARP ideas you've dismissed:

      1 - Mind Control. This idea comes from the fact that ELF (extremely low frequency) waves have allegedly been found to make humans more complacent, or agreeable. I have no specific evidence to point anyone to confirming or denying this. Though I will say that you all have a Mind Control device in your living room called a "television" that operates at 60 Hz and sends you consumeristic and/or propagandistic messages all the time... I don't see how HAARP can be more effective, but I suppose my point is you never know! ;-)

      2 - Weather Modification. This is the most plausible of the three ideas you suggested as being silly. I don't see why not, really.

      3 - Ray Gun. Never heard that one before from any guests; though more than one caller to the show has suggested it. Also, I just started listening 3 years ago, so there's plenty of past material I've missed.

      Ultimately, I'm not trying to convince you (or anyone) about what HAARP *is*. Rather my point here is that *you just don't know* what it is, and there's *plenty* of room for speculation about it, including the speculation that the "Art Bell posters" have to share.

      As parting thoughts, I'd like to remind readers that there weren't aviation laws until the airplane was invented.

    10. Re:From TFA (and other materials on the subject) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I just wanted you to know that I modded you up just for using the term "starfish prime".

      The images that conjures are absolutely sublime.

    11. Re:From TFA (and other materials on the subject) by WalterODimm · · Score: 0

      3 - Ray Gun. Never heard that one before from any guests; though more than one caller to the show has suggested it. Also, I just started listening 3 years ago, so there's plenty of past material I've missed.

      [tinfoil hat]
      Some links to theories of HAARP as a weapon.

      http://www.viewzone.com/haarp00.html

      http://www.haarp.net/
      Both sites are jam packed with general kookery, and stuff that makes for funny reading on alt.conspiracy.blackhelicopters. But there you have it.

      The first article is a bit on the light side as far as details go, and it IS from a site known for it's kookery, scary thing is, if the HAARP's energy is directable, it's plausible, if not probable. It would be just as easy to punch a hole in the ionosphere as it would be to create a lens effect. (see article)
      On a side note, if it is a weather manipulation platform, interesting that they decided to upgrade it so heavily after the year of killer hurricanes and tornados. [/tinfoil hat]

    12. Re:From TFA (and other materials on the subject) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I believe the poster was saying that it was impossible for HAARP to shoot down ICBMs, not that it is impossible to shoot down ICBMs.

    13. Re:From TFA (and other materials on the subject) by geomon · · Score: 1

      On a related note, Nikola Tesla accidentally caused an earthquake in New York, experimenting with his Tesla Coil (it's why he had to shut that lab down and move it out of the city). Before I go too far with this, let me tie up the Tesla tangent by noting that anyone seriously thinking about what HAARP could be would find more detailed information about Tesla's work very, very interesting; there is more than a little that HAARP and the Tesla coil have in common. (Tesla himself seemed sure he would be able to manipulate all sorts of natural phenomena, but that's another story.)

      Earthquakes are caused by the episodic release of energy from the crust of the Earth due to compression or extension, or by isostatic realignment of sediments in large depositional regimes.

      Which of these mechanisms are affected by Tesla's electromagnetic experiment?

      If an earthquake occurred at the same time as one of his experiments it is a "coincidence".

      --
      "Rocky Rococo, at your cervix!"
    14. Re:From TFA (and other materials on the subject) by iamlucky13 · · Score: 1

      Tesla did an experiment with harmonics in steel beams which ended up damaging the building he was in and knocking dishes off shelves for an area covering several blocks. It had nothing to do with electromagnetism. I'll grant that harmonics is somewhat complicated at the theoretical level, I'm amazed at the number of conspiracy theorists who have never seen an off-balance washing machine. I thought only the Warcraft geeks didn't do laundry...

    15. Re:From TFA (and other materials on the subject) by Lectrik · · Score: 2

      I don't think you can run fast enough.
      The US has been fscking up the world for how long now?

      --
      --- As to make my comment seem, by comparison, more intelegent... doodie doodie doodie poop poop poop!
    16. Re:From TFA (and other materials on the subject) by Lectrik · · Score: 1
      Not to be overly sarcastic about this, but notice the absolute lack of any international treaties regarding the uses of teleport chambers, portals, and care bear stares.... It's a serious treaty.

      Actually the only reason there's no treaty regarding Care Bear Stares is that we've been unable to establish an embasy in Care-a-lot due to it's unique local geology being incompatable with our current building technology. As such we've never had a chance to normalize political relations.

      That and a Care Bear Stare would only be offensively effective against an enemy that is apathetic or even emotionally hostile.

      They also have no oil.
      --
      --- As to make my comment seem, by comparison, more intelegent... doodie doodie doodie poop poop poop!
    17. Re:From TFA (and other materials on the subject) by leighklotz · · Score: 1

      "virtual VLF antenna"...
      The HAARP Wikipedia entry shows the HAARP operating at 3-10Mhz, which puts it squarely in HF (3-30 MHz, 100-10 meters wavelength), not VLF which is 1000 times lower in frequency (3-30 KHz, 100 kilomter to 10 kilomter wavelength)

    18. Re:From TFA (and other materials on the subject) by o'bedlam · · Score: 1

      This is certainly one of the main functions of HAARP. You don't have it exactly correct, but A for effort. Not only are the existing electrons heated by x-ray interaction (inverse Bremsstrahlung), but new electrons are injected by the Compton effect knocking electrons off stray gas atoms. The result, as you state, not only "livens up" the existing belts but also creates new temporary belts in the inner magnetosphere. Where you go slightly astray is in stating that HAARP can radiate VLF. The article you quote is a trifle misleading. They don't directly radiate VLF, they cause the ionosphere to radiate it. This is done by patterned local heating of the ionosphere that "redirects" the auroral electrojet. In effect, they borrow the electrojet's flow and throttle the current up and down by a combination of pulse width modulation to vary the array HF power output and fast beam steering to pick where the power goes, think of it as sort of painting a VLF pattern that the electrojet has to flow through. The VLF that is radiated then causes what is known as cyclotron-resonant wave particle interactions with belt electrons. The intent is to increase the electron pitch-angle scattering rate. Minus the gobbledegook, it's a sort of multiple bank shot. The array "steals" the electrojet and causes it to convert some of its power to a very strong VLF emission with very specific characteristics. The emission interacts with trapped electrons looping around magnetic field lines. The electrons make bigger loops, the loops touch the atmosphere, and "precipitate", incidentally forming pretty lights. Presto, the HAND-induced electron belts are dissipated. Well, maybe not exactly that easy, but that's how it works. For the interested, the original test work was done at Siple Station, Antarctica, by Dr. Helliwell. I'm pretty sure you can find some info on the work done, although you probably won't find all of it unclassified yet. They were using direct VLF. That's tough to do efficiently, and you can't aim it with any precision. If you want really good control over the wave you have to generate it in situ, if you will, so you can either induce it to happen like the Gakona array does, or you can do it from space using satellite assets.

    19. Re:From TFA (and other materials on the subject) by deglr6328 · · Score: 1

      uhmm wow. my hat's off to clearly a superior depth of knowledge. you obviously work on this sort of thing.....

      --
      - "Hear that?! The percolations are imminent! Cease your ingress!"
    20. Re:From TFA (and other materials on the subject) by o'bedlam · · Score: 1

      Urm, well, yeah. I don't work on this project a lot, but we have, and have done a bit of ... peripheral stuff related to it. We have the job specs for the two types of satellites related to it, for example, and that tells you a lot as well.

      So while we're probably not privy to everything you CAN do with it, I suspect we are, at least to the bulk of it. There are lots of really interesting uses. None of them "mind control", btw, but a lot of interesting uses. Some I've heard mentioned, some not. Some is in 'plain sight'. Actually quite a lot of it is. You just have to understand what projects relate to what other projects, and who's running the show, and what their personal hot buttons are in terms of research, and you could pretty much have the whole thing.

      Hell, there's so much data and noise on the net anymore if you make any attempt to obfuscate it at all it's tough for the 'unwashed' to reconnect it again. Not that they don't have a few shills injecting BS to make sure it stays that way too. And all this crap is so technical anymore that there's very few people with the specialized education to really understand what they're reading, either. So you get a lot of guys reading stuff they don't understand, distorting it a lot, mixing it up with their personal paranoia, and passing it on in a sort of "telephone" game.

      Are you interested in the basic methodology? I have some open source cites, you will probably have to go to an engineering university library to find the journals though. It's tough reading but interesting.

      Dr. Helliwell's work is really interesting research in itself, the stuff that's published in the open. You could get a real education in ionospheric modification by reading and working through his research.

    21. Re:From TFA (and other materials on the subject) by deglr6328 · · Score: 1

      "Are you interested in the basic methodology? I have some open source cites, you will probably have to go to an engineering university library to find the journals though. It's tough reading but interesting."

      YES. The few googled tidbits on Helliwell and Siple Station are very interesting. So do you work here :) :)..? I work here and so I have access to Nature, Science, PRL and am somewhat familliar with the techniques it appears you are using (electron cyclotron resonance heating....?)...

      --
      - "Hear that?! The percolations are imminent! Cease your ingress!"
    22. Re:From TFA (and other materials on the subject) by o'bedlam · · Score: 1

      (big grin) We've worked for them as consultants. I've been to both "-works". We're a small defense contracting firm with pretty good clearances, our own SCIF and an eclectic set of abilities. The guys we work for the most in the military call us "hired gun trouble shooters" meaning we do a lot of "adversarial systems integration", which is what happens when the finger pointing stalls out and you have to bring in someone to sort it out. We do straight engineering contracts too. Hell, as far as that goes, we do commercial stuff to fill in when we don't have a big backlog. But mostly mil or mil related.

      Laser energetics, eh? We got to do some minor stuff on THEL. I got to see them fire it. Ho-oly crap. They won't let me have one, I'm sort of disappointed.

      Again, just a crapload of what they're doing isn't precisely classified, well in a sense that's not true. That they're doing it, or trying, is, but what it is they're doing isn't, exactly. If that makes sense. You can find a lot of data about it if you look in the right places. Enough that you see a press release with an interview by the Dark Prince of atmospheric plasma processes, with dates sort of spooged into the interview like "Well, if we had the ability to direct 2GW ERP, we think 2GW would do it, then we could do x and y, if we had that ability by [date] then we could complete the initial modeling and experimentation in doing [function] by [date]". And you say to yourself, self, I wonder when the upgrades will happen at Gakona, I bet they are going for 4GW just to have the usual 2x margin, and I bet it's going to happen to meet that timeline, and lo! there it is. Like clockwork.

      Well, it's also true that when the satellite system specs and funding hit, it's sort of hard to hide what project group they're for. I mean, you can waffle all you'd like, but there's only one thing that set of specs is for, no matter what verbal crap you wrap around it as subterfuge. It's so much fun to tease the security guys too. "Oh, so they're going ahead with [project]? When are the array upgrades going to start?"

      Anyways, you shouldn't have any problems finding the pubs where you're at. I did find a Helliwell that's open source and is actually one of the major papers on the subject. Here are a handful of cites:

      Journal of Geophysical Research:
      Abel and Thorne: Electron Scattering Loss in the Earth's Inner Magnetosphere: 1. Dominant Physical Processes: 103, 2385, 1998

      Abel and Thorne: Electron Scattering Loss in the Earth's Inner Magnetosphere: Sensitivity to Model Parameters: 103, 2397, 1998

      Inan, Bell, Bortnik and Albert: Controlled Precipitation of Radiation Belt Electrons: 108, 1186, 2003 (a good article)

      Reviews of Geophysics:
      VLF Wave Stimulation Experiments in the Magnetosphere from Siple Station, Antartica: 26, 551, 1988

  9. Shit by Wes+Janson · · Score: 1, Interesting

    The conspiracy theorists were right all along, as we're about to learn for ourselves very shortly.

    Be afraid. Be very afraid.

    1. Re:Shit by Yaa+101 · · Score: 1

      Conspiracy theorists are often right when looking back on things, often the reality turned out even worse than expected by the theorists.

    2. Re:Shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uhhh... okay, let's hear a list of cases where the conspiracy theorists were right.

      Does this list include mind-control chemtrails? Area 51 aliens? NASA Moon hoax? AIDS being generated by humans?

  10. Jamming missiles, don't be silly... by mkraft · · Score: 5, Funny

    It's obviously a time travel experiment.
    4 Gigawatts is enough to power 3 DeLoreans with power to spare.

    1. Re:Jamming missiles, don't be silly... by sergiorepo · · Score: 1, Funny

      Um, More like 1,809954751 DeLoreans. As everyone knows, time travel requires an even 2.21 GW

    2. Re:Jamming missiles, don't be silly... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uh, its 1.21 gigawatts. I've seen the movie about 1.21 giga-times

    3. Re:Jamming missiles, don't be silly... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's really 1.21 jijawatts as shown in the script. A big difference in power! Hell, I don't even know how much jiga- mean in the SI system? Anyone know?

    4. Re:Jamming missiles, don't be silly... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Jigga Whats?

    5. Re:Jamming missiles, don't be silly... by Kagura · · Score: 1

      Holy crap, that's over one billion DeLoreans!

    6. Re:Jamming missiles, don't be silly... by goosman · · Score: 1

      1.21...come on, 2.21 would be just insane....

    7. Re:Jamming missiles, don't be silly... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As everyone knows, its not gigawatts its Jigawatts!

    8. Re:Jamming missiles, don't be silly... by nazsco · · Score: 1

      > Um, More like 1,809954751 DeLoreans. As everyone knows, time travel requires an even 2.21 GW

      plus more 400w for the shower, so you can visualize a flux capacitor.

  11. Maby.. by NIK282000 · · Score: 4, Funny

    They can use it to boost the new nintendo wifi coverage.

    --
    Dear aunt, let's set so double the killer delete select all
  12. Tinfoil Hats Won't Save You Now! by Guysmiley777 · · Score: 1

    Art Bell, paging Art Bell...

    --
    Coding with assembly is like playing with Legos. Coding an application in assembly is like building a car with Legos.
    1. Re:Tinfoil Hats Won't Save You Now! by kimvette · · Score: 1

      Don't forget your tinfoil hat! Oh wait, that will amplify the signals they're using to search for your porn collection --- or so "they" want you to believe.

      --
      The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
  13. Re:die whales by ScrewMaster · · Score: 2, Funny

    It's overlords, dude ... overlords.

    --
    The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
  14. That's WAAAAY too much... by no_such_user · · Score: 3, Funny

    You only need 1.21 Gigawatts.

  15. idle spec by Red+Flayer · · Score: 4, Interesting

    FTFSpeculation: "it seems to me like it's some efffort to develop ways to jam the electronics of incoming missiles from Russia and/or China (I don't think it's an accident HAARP's initial funding came from Reagan's "Star Wars" initiative)"

    It could also be that the Star Wars Initiative was based on satellites being able to communicate, and communication in the ionosphere (with endemic electrical currents) was thought to be possibly very tricky, especially in latitudes where the northern lights are a visible manifestation of such.

    /tinfoil (not aluminum foil) hat half-off

    --
    "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
  16. This only works at night? by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Did I read this correctly: that HAARP only works at night?

    "Ionospheric heating cannot be performed while the sun illuminates the ionosphere for two reasons:

            * Solar UV creates the ionospheric D-region, which absorbs the radio waves used for ionospheric heating.
            * The solar flux overwhelms any effect of ionospheric heating. "

    1. Re:This only works at night? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Actually, to be more specific, the D-region is formed by solar Lyman alpha photoionization of nitric oxide (NO), with a smaller and more variable contribution from soft X-rays ionizing N2 and O2.

      HF radio waves are absorbed mostly in the D-region, and at times can be completely blacked out by elevated electron densities caused by various ionospheric disturbances, including solar X-ray flares and "Polar Cap Absorption" events caused by solar proton events.

      The solar (extreme ultraviolet, shortwards of Lyman alpha) flux photoionizes the neutral atmosphere (mostly N2 and O2) creating ions by ejecting photoelectrons from the neutral molecules. These photoelectrons have energies typically up to about 100 eV (electron Volts). The "hot" photoelectrons collide with the cold ambient ionospheric electrons through the Coulomb interaction thereby heating the ionospheric electrons.

      The radar heats ionospheric electrons to only a fraction of an eV. However, there are enough electrons in the tail of the heated Maxwellian distribution to excite the atomic oxygen auroral "red line" emission at 6300 Angstroms (630 nm), which has an excitation threshold of 1.96 eV. This red glow produced by radar heating is visible from the ground (with instruments).

      I'm one of the "experts" quoted on the HAARP site, although I have absolutely nothing to do with it. However, I find the conspiracy theories regarding HAARP quite amusing. Why? because I can calculate exactly what the radar is doing - that's how I make my living.

    2. Re:This only works at night? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      An article about HAARP and then someone who explains it gets a score 2 Interesting?

      Slashdot sucks

    3. Re:This only works at night? by SuprCzr · · Score: 1

      So then, what is it doing?

      If you're able to calculate it, and have "nothing to do with it", surely you could be so kind as to educate a curious nerd such as myself.

      --
      SUPRCZR
    4. Re:This only works at night? by deglr6328 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Supposedly the HAARP-aurora interaction DOES create naked eye visible scintillations when at 1 MW.....

      --
      - "Hear that?! The percolations are imminent! Cease your ingress!"
    5. Re:This only works at night? by PTK502 · · Score: 1

      Oh Great so you mean to tell me that ill be awake when we get the crap shot out of us? I just keep think 4 gigwatts... hrm that is a hell of a micro wave ... Screw that we will cook our own before the missles get here.... Stop the world I want to get off.....

    6. Re:This only works at night? by slackerboy · · Score: 2, Informative

      When correcting others, it's usually good to have a clue yourself.

      "The IRI would transmit radio waves over the frequency range 2.8 to 10 MHz." from "Effects in the Ionosphere" http://www.haarp.alaska.edu/haarp/ion5.html

      This is NOT a radar! It must be difficult to make a living calculate exactly what the radar is doing if you don't know the difference between radar frequencies (in the gigihertz region) and HF in the range 2.8 to 10 MHz.


      Actually radar stands for RAdio Detection And Ranging. It is not specific to a frequency range. While most current radar systems may be in the microwave range, many early radar systems were, in fact, in the HF portion of the spectrum. (Scroll down to the "Frequency Bands"section of the above wikipedia article for more info.)

      --
      Things to do today: See list of things to do yesterday
    7. Re:This only works at night? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's why they put it in Alaska - ensuring it will only work during half a year. (and working full-time the other half year).

    8. Re:This only works at night? by EMUPhysics · · Score: 1

      No it works during the day. All three sets of my experiments run there have been run during the day.

    9. Re:This only works at night? by TropicalCoder · · Score: 0

      When correcting others, it's usually good to have a clue yourself. Actually radar stands for RAdio Detection And Ranging. It is not specific to a frequency range.

      I stand corrected then - technically. However, I think the vast majority associate radar with gigihertz frequencies. I certainly do, and I was once a ham, and worked in the field of electronics. I think I "have a clue". These frequencies are necessary for the detection of hi resolution targets, such as aircraft and missiles. The story of the development of radar during WWII makes for very dramatic reading. The breakthough involved the ability to generate and detect gigihertz frequencies. It may be that scientists connected with HAARP refer to it as a radar - I have no idea. If one of them should verify this, then I will be much humbled, and offer my most profound apoligies. If this is not the convention, then it is misleading to refer to this as radar.

    10. Re:This only works at night? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative
      I just told you what it does - read it again. HAARP is not the only ionospheric heating experiment, not is it the first. The European EISCAT experiment has been around since at least 1979. But do people worry about EISCAT like they do HAARP? Nope!

      Here's some EISCAT results:

      Leicester Scary, isn't it?

    11. Re:This only works at night? by WalterODimm · · Score: 0

      Not sure about the specific are, but some parts of Alaska have very LOOOOOOOOOOOOoooooooooooooooooooooooong Nights.

    12. Re:This only works at night? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, working with electronics makes you knowledgable enough on radar to critisise somebody working on the project. I guess a welder could then argue with me about aircraft design since we both work with metal.
      http://defence-data.com/features/fpage37.htm
      JORN over the horizon radar operates at HF frequencies. It detects "high resolution targets" like aircraft. In fact, that is what it was designed for. Time to apologise. It is more than merely a technicality

  17. I have no idea... by FuturePastNow · · Score: 3, Interesting

    ...how much RF energy it takes to damage a missile. But, by the time it flies over Alaska, the missile would be a ballistic warhead that has to do nothing more than detonate at a predetermined altitude. I imagine it could be made pretty simple, and therefore hard to kill.

    But, four billion watts is a lot of power. The HAARP power page says that for every four watts of power transmitted, ten must be generated (40% efficiency). That's ten gigawatts, and the six diesel generators mentioned on the site produce only fifteen megawatts. Where does the extra power come from? Capacitors? If so, it would only be able to produce a single large pulse. That would be pretty useless against missiles (which wouldn't all come at once).

    --
    Give a man fire, and you warm him for the night. Set a man on fire, and you warm him for the rest of his life.
    1. Re:I have no idea... by mpoulton · · Score: 4, Informative

      But, four billion watts is a lot of power. The HAARP power page says that for every four watts of power transmitted, ten must be generated (40% efficiency). That's ten gigawatts, and the six diesel generators mentioned on the site produce only fifteen megawatts. Where does the extra power come from?

      It's not actually 4GW. It's only 3.6MW peak envelope power. 4GW is the max ERP, or effective radiated power, under optimal conditions. ERP accounts for antenna gain. In other words, the field strength is the same as that from a 4GW transmitter with an isotropically radiating antenna.
      See the HAARP site's technical info on phases of completion at: http://www.haarp.alaska.edu/haarp/phases.html

      --
      I am a geek attorney, but not your geek attorney unless you've already retained me. This is not legal advice.
    2. Re:I have no idea... by Ironsides · · Score: 2, Informative

      I have no idea how much RF energy it takes to damage a missile. But, by the time it flies over Alaska, the missile would be a ballistic warhead that has to do nothing more than detonate at a predetermined altitude. I imagine it could be made pretty simple, and therefore hard to kill.

      All modern warheads use precision timed, placed and shaped explosives to turn a subcritical amount of uranium/plutonium into a supercritical nuclear explosion. If any part is damaged sufficiently, you will (at worst) not have a nuclear explosion but a dirty bomb. If the electronic controls are damaged sufficiently, there would be no explosion at all. All modern warheads use electronically controled explosives.

      There are two types of bombs where there would be no electronics in it. Even in this, there is the possibility of an RF weapon causing enough damage. The first is where, instead of using explosives to cause an explosion, the two pieces of nuclear material are jammed together upon impact with the ground. A sufficient ammount of RF would still be able to distort the material of the warhead enough so they do not jam together properly and go supercritical.

      The second part, involves a critical ammount of Plutonium. Take 16kg of plutonium, put it together, and you get a nuclear explosion. During flight, the halves would have to be kept seperate. I'm not sure if there is a way that does not involve electronics that would move the pieces together that is not similar to the way above. Either way, if you warp/melt the material enough it won't explode.

      Two final things. A lot (if not all) of ICBMs make course corrections mid flight. If the guidance electronics are messed up prior to the final corrections, it will fly off targe. Second, MIRVs would also be messed up in a similar way. I'm not sure there is a type of nuclear missle/warhead that would not be messed up by a sufficient ammount of RF.

      --
      Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
    3. Re:I have no idea... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's simple to explain - it's a doomsday weapon. You only need it to go off once in that case. Someone tries to nuke the US and they trigger it generating a planetwide EMP burst and knocking humanity back into the stone age in one fell swoop.

    4. Re:I have no idea... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      It wouldn't be hard for the military to procure nuclear reactors to produce the electrical power and fund them via the vast black budget, but if they're indeed planning on running the array at its maximum output, that would require a huge power plant and a cooling array to match it. No such cooling array is evident from any photos, nor are there any obvious excavations nearby where such a power plant would be.

      Of course, as a lifelong conspiracy theorist and raving lunatic, I am of the opinion that given the huge amounts of black budget funding they have been consuming over many decades, that it is quite possible that they have developed, among other things, a source of power more efficient and less conspicuous than nuclear fission, and if they did, there's no way in hell that they'll ever tell anybody about it.
       

    5. Re:I have no idea... by falken0905 · · Score: 0

      The final output was quoted as being ERP. ERP is Effective Radiated Power. ERP = ((Transmitter output power) - (transmission line loss)) x (Antenna Gain). Approximately. The extra output comes from antenna gain. Making the antenna directional gives effective gain. The more highly directional the higher the gain. Then aim it at something (muhahahah).

    6. Re:I have no idea... by goodmanj · · Score: 2, Informative
      pretty simple, and therefore hard to kill.

      So I worked a few numbers, assuming that the radio transmitters had a wavelength of 100 meters (shortwave), which puts a limit on how tightly you could focus the radio beam. If tightly focused, this array could create an electromagnetic wave with an intensity orders of magnitude more powerful than sunlight, and the electric fields associated with the radio waves would amount to millions of volts per meter. With this kind of power, your goal isn't to zap sensitive microchips: you're thinking about vaporizing thick copper wiring in milliseconds. Maybe even damaging the exterior structure of the warhead.

      fifteen megawatts. Where does the extra power come from? Capacitors?

      Duty cycle. Charge up capacitors at 15 MW for a couple seconds, zap at 10GW for a couple milliseconds, cook one missile, find another one, recharge another couple seconds, zap again. You might not have time to take out an entire World War III strike this way, but a handful of North Korean nukes? Not a problem.

      And anyway, it's possible that the generators are just local redundant backups. Wouldn't be too hard to hook this thing up to a civilian power grid and have access to gigawatts of electrical power. (Okay, Alaska doesn't exactly have gigawatts lying around on street corners, but still, delivering power a few hundred miles from Anchorage is probably doable.)

    7. Re:I have no idea... by goodmanj · · Score: 1

      Meh. I though a bit more about the size of the transmitter, and there's no way to actually focus the power that tightly with an array this small in acreage. You'd need something that stretched for miles. The upgrade will cover more ground, but not *that* much more, if it's just more of the same.

    8. Re:I have no idea... by FuturePastNow · · Score: 1

      Thanks. I was hoping there was a mistake in there somewhere (it should be pretty clear that I'm no expert on this stuff, just a bit interested).

      --
      Give a man fire, and you warm him for the night. Set a man on fire, and you warm him for the rest of his life.
    9. Re:I have no idea... by Gordonjcp · · Score: 1
      The second part, involves a critical ammount of Plutonium. Take 16kg of plutonium, put it together, and you get a nuclear explosion. During flight, the halves would have to be kept seperate. I'm not sure if there is a way that does not involve electronics that would move the pieces together that is not similar to the way above. Either way, if you warp/melt the material enough it won't explode.


      Clockwork. You could use a mechanical timer to control the fuse in a weapon using the gun method to fire a pellet of fissionable material into a suitable target, thus bringing together a critical mass. It's inefficient and requires quite a lot of the material to work, compared to modern weapons. Does it work? Ask anyone around Hiroshima on 6/8/45...

      If you wanted to detonate at a certain altitude, use a barometer to hold an escapement back, which would release the firing mechanism at a predetermined altitude.

    10. Re:I have no idea... by Bruha · · Score: 1

      What about the resistance of air. For every 3 feet your power is cut in half.. So 4 billion watts at 3 feet is 2 billion.. 1 billion at 6, 500million at 9, etc etc..

      Course I think that depends on frequency and other factors but that's the equiation used in the cellular industry..

    11. Re:I have no idea... by Detritus · · Score: 1

      The problem is that it doesn't work with plutonium (high level of background neutrons) and it has severe safety issues (accidental criticality).

      --
      Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
    12. Re:I have no idea... by Detritus · · Score: 1
      Your numbers, and the implied equation are incorrect. Air doesn't have "resistance" to EM radiation. There is an absorption factor that is frequency dependent. At the frequencies in question, absorption is minimal. Field strength is inversely proportional to the square of the distance.

      Free Space Loss (in dB) = 20 * Log10 (frequency in MHz) + 20 * Log10 (Distance in Miles) + 36.6

      --
      Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
    13. Re:I have no idea... by govt-serpent · · Score: 1

      You mean it's like 4 GW PMPO?

    14. Re:I have no idea... by Benm78 · · Score: 1
      and the electric fields associated with the radio waves would amount to millions of volts per meter

      If you could by some means focus all this RF power on a volume of air the size of one wavelenght, and the voltages work up to the many-mV/m range, you'd be mostly ionizing air.

      I guess this would result in a very spectacular lightshow, and a missile could be severely damaged by both EM radiating from the discharge in mid air and the heat it delivers to that air.

      However, I don't think that there is any feasible way to concentrate RF energy to a space the size of a wavelenght at any serious distance (i.e. over 100s of waveleghts away).

    15. Re:I have no idea... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      40 GW a lot of power ? Well, I'd say 40 GJ would be an impressive amount of Energy, but remember: basically, P=E/t , so if I take my cell phone battery and press 40 Joules in 1 nanosecond out of it, I reach easily those 40 GW...

      Cheerio

    16. Re:I have no idea... by Ironsides · · Score: 1

      Clockwork. You could use a mechanical timer to control the fuse in a weapon using the gun method to fire a pellet of fissionable material into a suitable target, thus bringing together a critical mass. It's inefficient and requires quite a lot of the material to work, compared to modern weapons. Does it work? Ask anyone around Hiroshima on 6/8/45... If you wanted to detonate at a certain altitude, use a barometer to hold an escapement back, which would release the firing mechanism at a predetermined altitude.

      Both methods, the clockwork one especialy, would still be subject to problems if the metal started to warp and melt. Melt the clockwork and the clockwork is useless, same for the barometer. You'd either have an early detonation or no detonation at all.

      --
      Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
    17. Re:I have no idea... by joto · · Score: 1
      so if I take my cell phone battery and press 40 Joules in 1 nanosecond out of it, I reach easily those 40 GW...

      Good luck doing just that!

    18. Re:I have no idea... by CaptainFork · · Score: 0

      Sounds like "peak music power" to me. Anyone fancy bringing their 1400 watt multimedia sub to my place where I have a 1440 watt pro PA amplifier? When the multimedia speaker goes off like a roman candle it wont be the extra 40 watts that does it, but the extra 1400 watts.

    19. Re:I have no idea... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's because you don't know jack shit?
      If you have no idea, STFU. It is nothing like PMPO. It is quite simple. Radiating in all directions when you are interested in one area isn't efficient (nor is it good to nearby objects at 1.8 MW power levels). So you radiate in one direction. Within the beamwidth, the radiation is as strong as a 4 GW transmitter radiating all over the place. It is not some marketing BS to make stuff seem impressive. When discussing stuff happening inside the beam (interference, exposure, signal strength), all you care about is EIRP. The actual power transmitted is more of a curiosity.

      Or perhaps you just wanted to boast about your 1.4 kW amp? I hope its not a class A amp, power consuption and heating might be a bit nasty.

    20. Re:I have no idea... by CaptainFork · · Score: 0

      Pro PA amps are never class A. But then, you'd know that - if you knew shit.

    21. Re:I have no idea... by pipingguy · · Score: 1


      Alaska doesn't exactly have gigawatts lying around on street corners

      But Canada does...

      Bouncy-bouncy!

  18. Off-topic Megawatt story by crazyphilman · · Score: 4, Funny

    When I was a wee lad, I had a very interesting, somewhat cranky physics professor. I had bought a several-milliwatt helium-neon laser tube via catalog. Due to a typo, they had claimed its power as something like 4MW, which I interpereted to mean it literally was four megawatts. I was ecstatic and couldn't wait to share my great good fortune with my prof.

    I showed the prof the ad, and told him that when the laser came in, maybe we could try it out.

    He repeated "4 megawatts? What are you going to do, shoot planes down?"

    I said, "Nah, I'm a pacifist. Maybe we can zap one'a them light poles around the quad. Besides, it says so right there. 4MW."

    He said "Ah, so it does. And it takes a 9-volt battery?"

    I said, "It's got a transformer."

    He clenched his lips together extremely tightly, and screwed his eyes shut. He looked briefly like he was rumbling. Then, he gained control over it and said, "Well, you'll have to bring that baby in, kid. I'll be right back..."

    Years later, looking back, I'm pleased I was able to give a man his age the belly laugh I'm sure he went out in the hall to enjoy. It's the little pleasures that make life worthwhile...

    --
    Farewell! It's been a fine buncha years!
  19. More conspiracy theories by iamlucky13 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You've gotta love the unfounded conspiracy theories surrounding HAARP. Jamming the Chinese is the only plausible alternate explanation I've heard yet. If people are so convinced that something evil is going on up there, how about asking some of the grad students at University of Alaska? Everybody knows grad students will sing for a mere six pack or an offer to show their resume to your boss.

    The array has so far produced localized auroras (go Google it yourself, I'm not your mother), which is one of the effects it was predicted to be able to achieve in addition to providing a theoretical way to improve radio reception, but I've heard some great crackpot theories. Most come from the tin-foil hat people who think it's a mind control device, but there's some lame stuff like destroying the ozone layer over only blue or only red states so Democrats/Republicans will all die of skin cancer or find oil sources for the big companies with government funding. The best, however, is the suggestion that it controls earthquakes. 'HAARP' + 'earthquake' is an entertaining google search. Iran, Sumatra, you name it. It was a secret government attack. Oh yeah, don't forget Hurricane Katrina. Obviously a creation of HAARP.

    1. Re:More conspiracy theories by onyx+pi · · Score: 0

      but I've heard some great crackpot theories. Most come from the tin-foil hat people who think it's a mind control device,

      And why is that a crackpot theory?
      What if that is an application/useful side-effect of Unified Field Theory?
      Yes, *that* UFT!
      Food for thought...

    2. Re:More conspiracy theories by killjoe · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I have set up firefox with the BBC news liveboorkmarks. Yesterday I saw a headline that said the US army finally admitted using phosphorus bombs against human targets (but of course denied killing civillians and denied the fact that these bombs which deployed chemicals were chemical weapons). Just earlier that day US officials in London had denied using these weapons against humans. They were continuing the same lie they had been telling since the attack on fallujia.

      I then went over to CNN to see what they had to say and it was nowhere on their web site. It also wasn't on the web sites of ABCnews and needless to say it wasn't on the web site of FoxNews either (Fox news web site is hilarious! they should just replace their banner with Republicans RULEZ!).

      Anyway...

      Can you really blame people when they don't take the word of the US govt? Can you really blame the people when they don't trust the so-called free press to give them unbiased news?

      How can you really be sure exactly what HAARP is being used for?

      --
      evil is as evil does
    3. Re:More conspiracy theories by Cl1mh4224rd · · Score: 2

      HAARP: The Swiss Army Knife of Conspiracy Theories.

      I don't think I've heard of any one project being the source of so many "evil" events, natural and man-made. Hell, some people will even claim is was used to steer and strengthen a hurricane to further some mysterious group's plan for global depopulation in once sentence, and in the very next claim it was used to dissipate another hurricane for an "unknown agenda". Wow...

      --
      People will pass up steak once a week, for crap every day.
    4. Re:More conspiracy theories by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I have set up firefox with the BBC news liveboorkmarks. Yesterday I saw a headline that said the US army finally admitted using phosphorus bombs against human targets (but of course denied killing civillians and denied the fact that these bombs which deployed chemicals were chemical weapons). Just earlier that day US officials in London had denied using these weapons against humans. They were continuing the same lie they had been telling since the attack on fallujia.
      If you can call white phosphorus a chemical weapon, than so are guns and bombs.
      I then went over to CNN to see what they had to say and it was nowhere on their web site. It also wasn't on the web sites of ABCnews and needless to say it wasn't on the web site of FoxNews either (Fox news web site is hilarious! they should just replace their banner with Republicans RULEZ!).
      The reason there was no mention of it is that it was covered several news cycles ago. It turns out it's crap. Who knew?
      How can you really be sure exactly what HAARP is being used for?
      Because we're not goddamned idiots.
    5. Re:More conspiracy theories by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Informative

      Phosphorus bombs are considered incendiary/marking devices, not chemical weapons. By your definition, a Molotov cocktail is a chemical weapon because it deploys chemicals. What's really great about WP is that it's heavier than air and it seeps into foxholes, tunnels, bunkers, etc and forces the occupants out into the line of fire. Yet another bullshit issue championed by the Marxists on behalf of their Islamic allies.

    6. Re:More conspiracy theories by killjoe · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "If you can call white phosphorus a chemical weapon, than so are guns and bombs."

      Mmmm. It's a chemical, it's deployed with bombs, it melts the skin off of it's victims. Nope, it could not possibly be a chemical weapon, no way, no sir.

      "The reason there was no mention of it is that it was covered several news cycles ago. It turns out it's crap. Who knew?"

      Appatenly not you. Because that day it was on the front page of asia.cnn.com. cnn.com didn't have it on their front page while asia.cnn.com did.

      "Because we're not goddamned idiots."

      Maybe not, but I can sure make a case for the fact that you are ignorant if you don't read the news sites from other nations.

      --
      evil is as evil does
    7. Re:More conspiracy theories by killjoe · · Score: 3, Insightful

      " Phosphorus bombs are considered incendiary/marking devices, not chemical weapons."

      This is a common republitard tactic. When the facts are clearly against you simply redefine the subject. Clorox is a household chemical so is ammonia, mix them together and you get a dangerous chemical, put it in a shell and lob it at people and it becomes a chemical weapon. In this case the US military lied over and over again saying that they only used it for smoke and marking. Yesterday they admitted that they were lying and that they used it against human targets. That's what makes it a chemical weapon the fact that they used it against human beings.

      If it was not they would not have lied to you for months and months, they would not have waited will there was film to admit it.

      "Yet another bullshit issue championed by the Marxists on behalf of their Islamic allies."

      Sorry to put a wet blanket over your orgasm dude. Just ignore me and go back to stoking yourself while you look at pictures of dead muslims.

      --
      evil is as evil does
    8. Re:More conspiracy theories by Derling+Whirvish · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Yesterday I saw a headline that said the US army finally admitted using phosphorus bombs

      The Army has never denied that.

      Just earlier that day US officials in London had denied using these weapons

      There was only one official making that claim. He is Ambassador Tuttle -- a crony of Bush. His last job was an auto dealer for goodness' sake. He is not qualified to comment on Army weaponry, much less be the ambassador. He's clueless.

      Here's his bio from the State Dept web site:

      Robert Holmes Tuttle was sworn in as U.S. Ambassador to the Court of St. James's on July 14, 2005. A businessman with extensive experience in the private sector, Mr. Tuttle is Co-Managing Partner of Tuttle-Click Automotive Group, one of the largest automobile dealer organizations in the United States.
      You can't claim a vast government conspiracy to cover-up something simply because one idiot in London spouted off before checking the facts. Well, you can actually, but you will look like an idiot if you do.
    9. Re:More conspiracy theories by Derling+Whirvish · · Score: 1
      In this case the US military lied over and over again saying that they only used it for smoke and marking.

      That's simply a lie. The Army has always had it in their weapons inventory as an incendiary to destroy enemy fortifications to expose their position or to kill them in it. See Army Field Manual 23-90 here (page 3-17):

      Based upon use, the principal classifications of training and service ammunition for the M224 mortar are as follows:
      ... White phosphorus (WP)--Used as a screening, signaling, casualty-producing, or incendiary agent.
    10. Re:More conspiracy theories by TheNarrator · · Score: 1

      The funny thing is , if the crackpots are right and it finds oil this is actually a great thing and money well spent as finding worthwhile oil wells can cost many billions of dollars.

    11. Re:More conspiracy theories by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're very smart, aren't you. Let me point out the blatantly obvious. Phosphorous burns. See, it's a metal which, when exposed to air, burns. That makes it an incendiary weapon. Chemical weapons are poisons. They poison people. Fire is not a poison. You are a lieing leftist cunt.
      By the way, you're also way off base. The Army does not have bombs. Bombs fall from airplanes. The army has artillery. They shoot artillery shells at people when people shoot at them. If you shoot at an army, expect fire and exposions. This is what happens when you try to kill people.
      Now that it's perfectly clear that you're a marxist apologist for genocidal muslims, kindly shut the fuck up.

    12. Re:More conspiracy theories by qubex · · Score: 1

      Isn't a grenade a bomb? Isn't a land-mine a bomb? Doesn't the Army have grenades and mines?

      --
      "Place me in the company of those who seek Truth, but deliver me from those who believe to have found it."
    13. Re:More conspiracy theories by duffbeer703 · · Score: 1

      Semtex is a chemical, deployed with bombs, it rips the limbs from its victims. Chemical weapon?

      White phosphorus is nasty stuff -- and it has been used as a weapon for over a century. Calling it a chemical weapon is hyperbole at best. Also note that the "progressive" crowd wasn't complaining about phosphorous when NATO dropped it on Serbia.

      --
      Conformity is the jailer of freedom and enemy of growth. -JFK
    14. Re:More conspiracy theories by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey folks, let's believe the shoddily constructed arguments of someone who can't even spell "lying"!

      The facts are there in black and white; for over a year, the U.S. government has denied using this stuff, then when caught, they switched to a claim that they only used it for lighting up the battlefield, THEN when caught, they said they were just using it to "flush out" "insurgents", THEN they got caught AGAIN, and now they finally admit that they've been dropping it on people. (but only 'bad' ones; only a terrorist would be evil enough to get hit by our chemical weaponry!)

      Some lowlife trash want to nitpick legal technicalities, but this stuff sticks to you and burns right to the bone, and is applied in urban surroundings where NOBODY really knows who it's gonna hit. The fake-conservatives of the Repug party blather on about morals all day long but when caught, they forget all about that and argue technicalities.

      These denials are just like the ones about napalm. Several officers mentioned in the press that we were using "napalm" against the Iraqis. U.S. gov't denied it. WHEN CAUGHT, they clarified; it's not napalm, because they're using diesel fuel instead of gasoline.

      OK then, if it's not napalm, can we spray some on Cheney?

    15. Re:More conspiracy theories by flyinwhitey · · Score: 1

      "When the facts are clearly against you simply redefine the subject."

      And what would you call redefining phosphorus as a "chemical weapon"?

      "In this case the US military lied over and over again saying that they only used it for smoke and marking."

      Well then it shouldn't be too hard to find some quotes that support this statement. I'll wait patiently until you provide them.

      --
      How pathetic are you that you follow me from topic to topic and waste all your mod points at once modding me down?
    16. Re:More conspiracy theories by Banality · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry, that's bizarre. Apparently, your definition of a "chemical weapon" is one that's composed of chemicals, and is used on people. By that definition, napalm is a chemical weapon, as is high explosive.

      White phosphorus was used extensively in Vietnam and in other conflicts against people as an incindiary weapon. It has never been identified in any treaty as a "chemical weapon".

    17. Re:More conspiracy theories by letxa2000 · · Score: 1
      I don't think I've heard of any one project being the source of so many "evil" events, natural and man-made.

      You forget 9/11. :) I'm not sure which is the more versatile Swiss Army Knife for conspiracy theorists--HAARP or 9/11. The advantage to the 9/11 conspiracy theories is that the event itself is more well-known than HAARP and they can tie into their Bush-bashing whereas HAARP is far more obscure to the general public and they generally can't blame it on Bush since it was launched during the Clinton administration.

    18. Re:More conspiracy theories by skarphace · · Score: 2, Informative

      Clorox is a household chemical so is ammonia, mix them together and you get a dangerous chemical, put it in a shell and lob it at people and it becomes a chemical weapon.

      Yes, that is mustard gas. It is a chemical weapon by definition. See the UN definition of chemical weapons.

      "Chemical weapons, as defined by the 1969 United Nations report entitled "Chemical and Bacteriological Weapons, and the Effect of Their Possible Use," are chemical agents of warfare taken to be chemical substances, whether gaseous, liquid, or solid, which might be employed because of their direct toxic effect on man, animals, and plants."

      While I hate the use of phosphorus bombs on humans, it's not a chemical weapon. And I think the UN should ban it, just like they banned napalm.

      --
      Bullish Machine Tzar
    19. Re:More conspiracy theories by ki4iib · · Score: 1

      No, and no, and Yes. (in that order)

    20. Re:More conspiracy theories by Guysmiley777 · · Score: 2

      Ok, I'm anti-Iraq war, and anti-Dubya, but that is just stupid reasoning. "White phosphorus is bad because it burns people." Yeah, it's used to burn the crap out of people and things, and to create very thick smokescreens. News flash: a 5.56mm round isn't designed to tickle, and hand grenades aren't just a nice way to say "hi". As I've said before, all explosives are chemicals. So are they chemical weapons? No. And neither is WP. Chemical weapons are nerve agents, souped up insecticides, and they are orders of magnitude more lethal than explosives or WP.

      The military's job is to break things and hurt people. Do a search on XM1028. It's a 120mm shotgun shell for an M-1 Abrams tank. You think being in front of one of those is more or less preferable to WP? It's ALL bad. We shouldn't be in Iraq, but we are. Blaming the troops for employing weapons and tactics that they're trained with is the worst kind of stupid.

      --
      Coding with assembly is like playing with Legos. Coding an application in assembly is like building a car with Legos.
    21. Re:More conspiracy theories by iamlucky13 · · Score: 1
      First of all, great username. Is it safe to assume that's "Joe" was a convenient, typical American GI name to kill?

      Second, you've popped up in probably the last half a dozen discussions which even remotely made reference to the US government spewing off your outrage at the use of white phosphorous (incidentally, the stuff is also formed when using strike anywhere matches). While I applaud your dedication to proving that Americans are evil and must be destroyed in a big holy Jihad, I think you're overly focused on white phosphorous.

      If you think the US deliberately attacked civillians with willie peter, you're dead wrong. And while WP is nasty stuff to get hit by and perhaps we should we retire it, if you don't think it has its uses on the battlefield besides sadism, you're also wrong. And if you somehow think that being a hard-working Iraqi civillian standing in line to join the police and make his country safer or even just visiting the market and getting killed by a suicide or car bomber or a few intentionally targeted mortar rounds is in any way better than frying insurgents with incendiaries, you're messed up in the head.
      How can you really be sure exactly what HAARP is being used for?
      Find me one piece of reputable, published research supporting the ability of radio waves to generate earthquakes, hurricanes, or mind control. The Art Bell show and rense.com do not count as published sources, and certainly not reputable research. Besides, if it really were sensitive in nature, why would they let University of Alaska students work on it?
    22. Re:More conspiracy theories by WalterODimm · · Score: 0

      4 gigawatts? To make make the equivalent of an auroral disco ball in the sky for the polar bears? Wow, they really know how to party.

    23. Re:More conspiracy theories by killjoe · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      I am not blaming the troops. I am blaming George Bush. Just like I blame Saddam Hussein for the massacre of the kurds and Osama Bin Laden for 9/11. George Bush at this stage has killed more civillians and destroyed more civillian infrastructure then both of those people.

      --
      evil is as evil does
    24. Re:More conspiracy theories by iamlucky13 · · Score: 1
      This is just braindead reasoning. Bombs kill people by their explosive force. When you are downwind of an exploded bomb, the smoke might not be plesant, but breathing a particle or two won't cause your body to be burned from the inside out, starting with your lungs. Getting hit in the arm by a bullet will be immensely painful, but it won't be anywhere near the agonizing pain caused by WP, and bullets won't continue to slowly burn their way up your arm. WP is DEFINED as a chemical weapon, because it IS a chemical weapon. End of story. If you still can't grasp that simple fact, that's your problem.
      You're wrong. WP is defined as an incendiary (further defined as a flame material, section II). He's not failing to grasp a simple fact. You're failing to do any research. Breathing a particle or two will not burn your lungs from the inside out. Inhaling a large amount can potentially do that, but it's a solid that doesn't exist after being released long enough for that to readily happen. It does not magically burn its way up your arm, either. It produces burns where it contacts but has no way of spreading beyond the initial bursting charge. It is not some magic superweapon, it's not a toxin (at least no more than lead, for example), it's not gangrene (which will "eat" it's way up your arm) and it has a limited combustion energy. When it's burnt up it's burnt up. Additionally, the smoke is irritating but mostly harmless.

      The original point still stands. Dead is dead. Some ways of dying suck a lot more than others, some to the point that their use raises additional ethical questions, but the end result is that you stop caring about it.
    25. Re:More conspiracy theories by killjoe · · Score: 1

      Maybe it wasn't targeting humans in Serbia. I think Bill Clinton was much more humane then George Bush has been. Clinton did not set up secret prisons all over the world to torture people and didn't send people to israel, egypt, lebanon and syria to be tortured either. God is clearly telling George to do some crazy inhumane shit to people.

      --
      evil is as evil does
    26. Re:More conspiracy theories by aminorex · · Score: 1

      That's simply a lie. The DoD claimed, prior to the recent flap, that WP was used solely for purposes of illumination, during the Fallujah massacre. They changed their story after the RAI footage made it graphically plain that significant numbers of people had been melted alive and U.S. military eyewitnesses graphically described the use of WP munitions to incinerate inhabited ground targets.

      --
      -I like my women like I like my tea: green-
    27. Re:More conspiracy theories by Derling+Whirvish · · Score: 1
      The DoD claimed, prior to the recent flap, that WP was used solely for purposes of illumination, during the Fallujah massacre.

      Where's your reference? Who said it?

      You are making it up.

    28. Re:More conspiracy theories by Dread_ed · · Score: 1

      See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phosphorus_bomb for the definition of a phosphorous bomb.

      It clearly says "Phosphorus bombs are bombs filled with the element phosphorus."

      Wouldnt that make this an "elemental weapon" and not a chemical one?

      Even meriam webster defines chemical weapons as a mixture. Phosphorous isn't a mixture actually. Quite the opposite.

      --
      When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
    29. Re:More conspiracy theories by duffbeer703 · · Score: 1

      It was targeting humans.

      We also targetted humans with WP in the Gulf War, Vietnam, Korea & WW2. In WW2 B-29s dropped gasoline and WP on Japanese cities. It was never classified as chemical warfare until now.

      --
      Conformity is the jailer of freedom and enemy of growth. -JFK
    30. Re:More conspiracy theories by yndrd1984 · · Score: 1
      Phosphorus bombs are bombs filled with the element phosphorus ... an "elemental weapon" and not a chemical one

      I hope you're being sarcastic, because chemical elements are chemicals, by definition! Even better, chlorine is an element, and by your thinking, not a chemical weapon. You might as well say nukes aren't WMDs because when one goes off, large parts of the planet are untouched.

      Even meriam webster defines chemical weapons as a mixture.

      Nope! Please try again.

    31. Re:More conspiracy theories by aminorex · · Score: 1

      Perhaps the BBC is making it up too,
      when they quote US ambassador in London Robert Holmes Tuttle that US forces "do not use napalm or white phosphorus as weapons".

      --
      -I like my women like I like my tea: green-
    32. Re:More conspiracy theories by killjoe · · Score: 1

      Chemical weapons were used widely in WW2, Korea and vietnam wars. After seeing the inhumanity of what they had done major powers of the world swore they would never do it again. Bush has gone back on that promise made by the US.

      --
      evil is as evil does
    33. Re:More conspiracy theories by Tavor · · Score: 1

      "And what would you call redefining phosphorus as a 'chemical weapon'?"

      Just an aside, when the defination or classification of something is being questioned it is generally considered rude (outside of political circles anyway) to claim a party is redefining or reclassifing some object. Since Slashdot isn't classified as a Political Forum (it's a Geek News website,) and it's classification is not in question, you sir, are officially an asshat.

      --
      Windows has detected an undetectable error.
    34. Re:More conspiracy theories by killjoe · · Score: 1

      You are a republitard. I don't really expect you to actually read or anything. I realize you get all your news from Limbaugh and Oreilly but in the off chance that you actually will read it here is a link.
      BBC news. Hey you know what might be fun? See if you can find a link from an American news web site about this subject. I won't count asia.cnn.com though.

      Have fun reading. In the future you may want to consider reading the news from other parts of the world too. All the major countries have english news web sites these days. You'd be amazed all the shit you are missing by limiting your self to talk radio and fox news.

      --
      evil is as evil does
    35. Re:More conspiracy theories by Dread_ed · · Score: 1

      Yes there is some sarcasm there and I was being intentionally obtuse as well.

      As for WMD's and nukes I think its just a matter of scale as to when something becomes a WMD, reagardless of what components it is made of.

      For instance, if you developed a nuclear hand-grenade that had similar power and scope to a conventional grenade does that make it a WMD? I, personally, think not.

      http://m-w.com/dictionary/chemical%20warfare It's there, kinda, but again I was being obtuse.

      --
      When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
    36. Re:More conspiracy theories by evilviper · · Score: 1
      WP is defined as an incendiary (further defined as a flame material, section II).

      Unlike napalm, which can only be used as an incidiary device, the way in which WP is used will change what type of weapon it is.

      Upon exposure to atmospheric moisture, it becomes phosphoric acid. If that is only an incidental consequence, it's being used as an incidiary device. If using the acidic chemical properties against personel is intended, then it is being used as a chemical weapon.

      Classification is a bit subjective, I must admit, but most agree it counts as a chemical weapon. Saying it's purely an incindiary weapon is patently false.

      He's not failing to grasp a simple fact.

      Yes, he is. He can't tell the difference between an exposive device, and a chemical device.

      Breathing a particle or two will not burn your lungs from the inside out. Inhaling a large amount can potentially do that, but it's a solid that doesn't exist after being released long enough for that to readily happen.

      You're right that I exaggerated that point somewhat, but it's still requires a fairly small ammount to cause extreme pain and death, due to inhalation. And contrary to your statement, it does remain in concentrated and toxic form more than long enough to cause death to anyone in the near vicinity.

      It does not magically burn its way up your arm, either. It produces burns where it contacts but has no way of spreading beyond the initial bursting charge.

      It will burn until it hits a dense solid like bone. Of course it depends how the particles contact your skin, but it certainly can burn it's way up your arm. Saying it cannot is totally incorrect.

      Some ways of dying suck a lot more than others, some to the point that their use raises additional ethical questions,

      That is an understatement.
      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    37. Re:More conspiracy theories by Derling+Whirvish · · Score: 1
      Perhaps the BBC is making it up too, when they quote US ambassador in London Robert Holmes Tuttle that US forces "do not use napalm or white phosphorus as weapons".

      And as I said earlier upthread (you did read that right?), Ambassador Tuttle is an ex-automobile dealer -- a friend of Bush who got appointed to the ambassadorship because of his connections, not anything to do with his knowledge of foreign policy or military weaponry. He spouted off before checking the facts. Pulled it out of his ass, in other words. He's clueless. You know, like Mike "you're doing a heck of a job Brownie" Brown.

    38. Re:More conspiracy theories by Derling+Whirvish · · Score: 1
      In this case the US military lied over and over again saying that they only used it for smoke and marking.

      I said: "That's simply a lie. The Army has always had it in their weapons inventory as an incendiary to destroy enemy fortifications to expose their position or to kill them in it."

      That's simply a lie. The DoD claimed, prior to the recent flap, that WP was used solely for purposes of illumination, during the Fallujah massacre. They changed their story after the RAI footage

      I said that was a lie. No source for the DoD or the Army making any such claim was quoted. That allegation was made up. It's not true.

      Perhaps the BBC is making it up too, when they quote US ambassador in London Robert Holmes Tuttle that US forces "do not use napalm or white phosphorus as weapons".

      That doesn't contradict my claim that it is a lie that the DoD or the Army denied the use of WP in Fallujah. The Ambassador (an ex-automobile dealer and friend of Bush) is not affiliated with either the DoD or the Army. What does he know about weapons or the use of weapons in the Army? He's as clueless as Mike "You're doing a heck of a job, Brownie" Brown.

    39. Re:More conspiracy theories by aminorex · · Score: 1

      You can continue to lie, but it won't improve your image. See this link, which explains that an instruction manual used by the US Army Command and General Staff School (CGSC) at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, makes clear that white phosphorus (WP) can be used to produce a smoke screen. But it adds: "It is against the law of land warfare to employ WP against personnel targets."

      --
      -I like my women like I like my tea: green-
    40. Re:More conspiracy theories by Derling+Whirvish · · Score: 1
      But it adds: "It is against the law of land warfare to employ WP against personnel targets."

      The Army did not use WP against personnel targets. They used it in Fallujah against the fortifications the opposing side were hiding in. It is a legitimate use of the weapon to use it as an incendiary to burn down or destroy enemy fortifications so as to flush them out into the open or if they don't leave to kill them in the process. That's what I said earlier. That is not using it against personnel anymore than using a mortar round on their fortifications would be. Shooting a mortar into a crowd is also illegal. Shooting it into fortifications is not. Same with using WP.

    41. Re:More conspiracy theories by aminorex · · Score: 1

      You have reduced yourself to a charicature, and constructed a reductio ad absurdam to defeat your own position. Hopefully you can deal with reality well enough to recognize the fact, and accept the crass immorality and intellectual dishonesty of your position before you embarass yourself further.

      --
      -I like my women like I like my tea: green-
  20. Mind ControBzzzzzotttt!!!... by HermanAB · · Score: 1

    Well, apparently, it was merely a weather balloon.

    --
    Oh well, what the hell...
  21. Neat, but it's a lot more interesting... by EvilSS · · Score: 1

    ...if you change HAARP to AARP.

    --
    I browse on +1 so AC's need not respond, I won't see it.
    1. Re:Neat, but it's a lot more interesting... by minipod2005 · · Score: 1

      No...change it to a HARP - I luv this lager !! Barman, give me a pint !!

  22. A better title for your post would have been... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A story of pathetic dweeb losers.

    1. Re:A better title for your post would have been... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      "A story of pathetic dweeb losers."

          jealous much? you're reading slashdot at 12:27 am and commenting on laser beams

      who's a deeb loser again?

    2. Re:A better title for your post would have been... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The guy who can't spell "dweeb" at 1:33AM.

  23. Weather by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Jesus, like the last hurricane they made with this thing wasn't big enough?!

  24. Go Joe! by GMFTatsujin · · Score: 2, Funny

    Cobra Commander is >THIS far away from carving his face on the Moon!

    1. Re:Go Joe! by CthulhuDreamer · · Score: 1

      I'm more concerned about Chippendale seizing control of the array first.

  25. NO JOKE by CranberryKing · · Score: 1

    This motherfucker is going to the one to bring us into the "new age". Still think the unusual weather is from global warming? HAARP is the clumsy attempt to try to continue Nicola Tesla's brilliant work, all be it death rays and such. I'm sure he is rolling in his grave. Wether it is free energy or zapping an embassy from miles away, this is the one that will change the world forever. Bouncing along the ionosphere... Split the world in half like an apple. Oh well.. Thanks for the alternating current. At least we had some time to enjoy it.

    ZZZAAAAPP!!!!!

    PS Tesla is one of my idols and I don't want to sound as if he's to blame because he's not. An brilliant genious and wise mystic.

    1. Re:NO JOKE by B3ryllium · · Score: 1

      albeit is one word.

    2. Re:NO JOKE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hehe, and don't I know it. I'm english, but have been schooled in a different country (in the native language). I read a hell of a lot, all english. I used 'albeit' in an essay for an english class once. The teacher didn't believe it was an existing word, and couldn't find it in his small ass hand dictionary, so he gave me a 9 instead of a ten. Bastard :)

    3. Re:NO JOKE by CranberryKing · · Score: 1

      God. The problems with posting anything on a "news for nerds" site. Yeah I had been drinking. You are posting to correct my grammer? Read the post you fucking asshole then STFU. Thanks.

      All my best,

            Your unkown older half brother.

    4. Re:NO JOKE by B3ryllium · · Score: 1

      I did read it, and I replied in kind. Stupid is as stupid does.

    5. Re:NO JOKE by SComps · · Score: 1


                wow... the doctor skip morning rounds today?

                hey, at least you're being entertaining though. 2 points for that.

  26. lots of funnies by Cave_Monster · · Score: 1, Insightful
    You can tell when people don't know much about a topic or have no opinion .. the posts are dominated by jokes and funny moderated posts.

    Bring on the informative and insightful posts.

  27. The definitive HAARP conspiracy book by PhantomHarlock · · Score: 1

    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0964881209

    (yes, no affiliate code in that link...amazing)

    1. Re:The definitive HAARP conspiracy book by caryw · · Score: 1

      I can do you one better. How about a torrent of the movie: Angels Don't Play This Haarp

      Apparently a documentary where locals describe the negative effects. Slashdot it so I can download faster! (Weird to say, thanks BitTorrent)
      --
      From Northern Virginia?

    2. Re:The definitive HAARP conspiracy book by SComps · · Score: 1

      I distinctly remember reading a novel (fiction) centered around HAARP. When I was reading it I remember thinking that it would be a seriously cool project, and this author really did his homework to come up with it. Then I started poking around and saw that it was a real project and again, thought coolness.

      I've hit the site, and while I'm sure there are things going on behind the scenes, and they claim there's nothing classified about the project (can the knowledge of existing classified information be classified itself--hence 'black?'); what I've read seems to be a neat project, possibly helpful, but mostly harmless and of limited value to the real world. Seems to me the best part of the whole thing is that it keeps a handful of scientists busy and not running around doing a Chicken Little.

      On the other hand, if the scientists can locate better ways of communicating, find alternative energy, figure out a way to zap the hairs off some military commander's ass from half way around the world, or find some other way of benefiting the world, nation or security of any of the above I see it as a good thing. If they're out there working on mind control? It's not working people. Too many conspiracy theories. If it was working even a little bit, we'd all be looking fondly at the pictures going "Mmmmmmm HAARP!"

      Wish I could remember the title/author of that book though.

    3. Re:The definitive HAARP conspiracy book by Pchelka · · Score: 1

      The book "Angel's Don't Play This HAARP" is a total joke, but not to the authors. I took a look at Nick Begich's website. The information they have there about HAARP is full of scientific errors. Begich seems to take this HAARP conspiracy stuff seriously, but I kind of wonder about his intentions. In addition to informing people about the evils of HAARP, his web site is also selling a lot of audio CDs that claim to be able to cure anything that ails you physically or spiritually.

      If you check out Nick Begich's background on his site, it says "Begich received his doctorate in traditional medicine from The Open International University for Complementary Medicines in November 1994." What the heck is "traditional medicine?" I googled for "The Open International University for Complementary Medicines". If I found the right place, it looks like a correspondence school based in India for alternative medicine. This does not sound like an accredited medical school to me - some of the other sites I found when googling tend to support this.

      Begich sounds a bit like a modern day snake-oil salesman, in my humble opinion. He's not a medical doctor or a scientist. If you believe the stuff on his web site, I have a bridge in Brooklyn for sale on eBay. Hurry! Bidding ends in 10 minutes.

  28. What the heck by joelito_pr · · Score: 1

    I for one welcome our new nuke blaster, "cool fireworks" overlords

  29. Listen to HAARP by medazinol · · Score: 2, Informative

    Rejoice in the sounds of HAARP presented by Art Bell, an avid HAM operator. Pretty weird sounds to be just for jamming signals. I think they're up to no good. 4 BILLION WATTS is a lot of power to be pumping into the ionosphere... http://mfile.akamai.com/5022/rm/artbell.download.a kamai.com/5022/clips/04/09/091904_what_is_haarp.rm

    1. Re:Listen to HAARP by minipod2005 · · Score: 1

      Who needs US-run HAARP Mind Control when the Japanese have put it into a consumer item !!

      Check this link for the next-generation of wireless remote controllers for the human being - it actually controls you while you wear the headset - a Japanese designed device that will revolutionize gaming and other applications - what are we going to be sold next, eh ? Think Mind Control, think Montauk, think of no human freewill.

      http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9816703

    2. Re:Listen to HAARP by geekoid · · Score: 1

      see. tyhats thr problems with conspirecy people. They jump on some deatil that sounds odd. or 'too big' without knowing what the hell there talking about.
      Please do some research and understand what 4 Billion Watts ERP means.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    3. Re:Listen to HAARP by hplasm · · Score: 0

      So HAARP is just some big performance art thing? That wouldn't surprise me...

      --
      ...and he grinned, like a fox eating shit out of a wire brush.
    4. Re:Listen to HAARP by flyinwhitey · · Score: 1

      "I think they're up to no good."

      Then it's a good thing nobody cares what you think.

      --
      How pathetic are you that you follow me from topic to topic and waste all your mod points at once modding me down?
  30. Move along folks. There is nothing to see here. by Bushido+Hacks · · Score: 0

    Pay no attention to the black vans coming down the street installing the mind control array.
    There is no Matrix.
    Go back to bed, America. You're government is is control again.

    --
    The Rapture is NOT an exit strategy.
  31. A Grand Cannon? by Ranger · · Score: 1

    I think this is what they are really building, aReflex cannon. Zentraedi fleet watch out!

    --
    "You'll get nothing, and you'll like it!"
    1. Re:A Grand Cannon? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can only hope they've made veritech's along the way.

  32. rolling blackouts by jester02k · · Score: 1

    If they fire this thing are they going to black out the whole northern hemisphere? Canada will get Pissed :)

    1. Re:rolling blackouts by Fyre2012 · · Score: 0

      yah, we'll go burn down the white house
      again

      --
      This is not the greatest .sig in the world, no. This is just a tribute.
    2. Re:rolling blackouts by SlackLagg · · Score: 1

      Actually, It will probably just cause all the dolphins on the planet to beach themselves simutaniously...(Sorry couldn't find links that weren't written under the influence of tin-foil hat)

      So much for getting thanked for all the fish!

  33. HAARP is real? by ketsugi · · Score: 1

    And all this time I thought HAARP was a piece of fiction created for the X-Men Legends video games...

  34. 4 Billion Watts!!! ??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    From 1981 to 1983, during Ronald Reagan's years in the White House, there was a running joke based around the question of "How much energy does it take to ruin the environment?", due to Reagan's selection of James G. Watt as the Secretary of the Interior and Mr. Watt's compulsion to log, mine, drill, pave over, and to aggressively defile the US's natural resources for the almighty $$$....

    Now for the Questions and Answers...

    Q: How much energy does it take to ruin the environment?

    A: One Watt

    Q: Cost of 4 Billion Watts?

    A: Priceless!!!

    An interesting Article on James G. Watt can be found @:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_G._Watt/

  35. Art Bell by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Or whoever (Coast to Coast AM) said HAARP is to control the weather. The government wants to create hurricanes I guess, er, ones that cause billions of dollars in damage and bankrupt Louisiana (????)

    1. Re:Art Bell by pentalive · · Score: 1

      If you wanted to create consumption it makes perfect sense that you would destroy some of the poorest areas of the country to cause them to rebuild. Yeah shure like they can afford it.

    2. Re:Art Bell by aminorex · · Score: 1

      Iraq wasn't poor before we pit it against Iran in the 1980-88 war. That was the problem, in fact: It was too prosperous and influential. Once the IIW ended, we had to find another way to destroy it, so we had Kuwait start drilling Iraqi oil, and *voila*! Then starvation and bombing for 12 years, until it was so hopelessly beaten that invasion was a cakewalk. Now, systematic dismemberment, and the creation of ethnic civil war. 25 year of this stuff, and millions dead. But it has all been extremely lucrative for Mr. Cheney and Mr. Rumsfeld's companies, and Israel's major regional competitor is gone, so I guess it's all worth it.

      --
      -I like my women like I like my tea: green-
  36. Remo Williams battled this... by GraveX · · Score: 1

    ... in the movie-that-was-to-become-a-franchise-but-bombed, Remo Williams: The Adventure Begins: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0089901/. It had some great lines, admit it. Not as funny as The Destroyer series of books themselves, but hey, it worked (except for the dogs on the wire). No? Well, here's The Register's Google Earth: Black Helicopters entry for the real HAARP: (url:http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/10/14/googl e_earth_competition_results/page9.html) Still no love? Try Rense.com's various conspiracy articles on HAARP: (url:http://www.google.com/search?as_q=HAARP&num=1 0&hl=en&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&l r=&as_ft=i&as_filetype=&as_qdr=all&as_occt=any&as_ dt=i&as_sitesearch=rense.com&as_rights=&safe=image s) Fun stuff, there!

    1. Re:Remo Williams battled this... by GraveX · · Score: 1

      Wow, I accidentally hit "submit" instead of "preview." I'd love to clean that previous comment up, but can't seem to find a way to edit your own slashdot posts. Am I missing something?

  37. Now, to find an outlet big enough... by busterfriendly · · Score: 1

    Well in order to power this gizmo they're gonna have to run a helluva lotta generators, so all that natural gas under the north slope should come in handy. I'd hate to see the PG&E bill.

  38. It's not just for missile defense... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Back in around '94 I was working a satellite company and one of my friends there was working on solar panels for the Int'l space station. He got in big trouble because after he did his calculations, he sent out an email to everyone (all countries involved) saying the solar panels would have to be redesigned, because HAARP would f them up. Before that, the gov't was saying to other countries, "Don't worry about HAARP, it will only work directly overhead".. not only can it be used to affect weather, etc in any country, but it can take out satellites in orbit. The gov't got pissed at him because a bunch of countries pulled out after that. The IRS froze his assets. Scary stuff, I tells ya.

    1. Re:It's not just for missile defense... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If your country fucks u over, then its time to fuck them over. Eye for an eye in my book.

  39. Negative Effects by vanka · · Score: 1

    I personally am not into conspiracy theories, but I am concerned about the potential negative effects of this technology. From what I understand the HAARP heats the ionosphere allowing the scientists to manipulate it. My biggest concern is how this meddling impacts the global (not just local) ionosphere. Also what will be the effect on the global biosphere? The ionosphere protects the organisms of Earth from the harmful radiation of the sun; the life of planet earth is adapted to the current ionosphere, do we really want to carry out experiments on the ionosphere when we cannot even imagine how they will affect life on the planet? I am not against research or progress, but blazing blind into something that has the potential to produce huge global problems is not something I would recommend or support. If we degrade or destroy the ionosphere (without understanding the full consequences of our experiments), how will we recreate or fix it?

    1. Re:Negative Effects by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      You must be an environmentalist. They never understand exponents, at all. Four billion Watts is such a tiny fraction of the ~320 TerraWatts of power that hits the ionosphere each day from the Sun that it's insignificant. The Sun hits the Earth with 5 orders of magnitude more energy every single day.

    2. Re:Negative Effects by Inspector+Lopez · · Score: 2, Interesting

      HAARP is capable of heating up a small patch of the ionosphere directly above the site. When the transmitter is turned off, the ionosphere recovers quickly. It has no ability to affect global, permanent changes in the ionosphere.

      -----

      Ionospheric physicists have two general attitudes about about HAARP.

      (1) it's a cool facility which permits manipulation of the bottomside F region plasma physics, and provides an opportunity to study some intriguing plasma physics (3 and 4 wave interactions), as well as some thermospheric chemistry.

      (2) It's yet-another-boondoggle from the Stevens/Murchowski axis, bringing pork to AK for no good reason, to support a need which no longer exists (how to communicate with subs, so that they can bomb whoever is threatening our precious bodily fluids [URL:http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0057012]).

      HAARP is not the only ionospheric heater on the planet. There is another one at Tromso, Norway (Ramfjordmoen), and there has been one at Arecibo, Puerto Rico. It got flooded and broke; they'd like to rebuild it. There are probably others in Russia somewhere.

      ---
      I'm an ionospheric physicist, and I vote.

    3. Re:Negative Effects by TropicalCoder · · Score: 0

      but blazing blind into something that has the potential to produce huge global problems is not something I would recommend or support.

      Then don't blaze blindly - just read a bit about it before you condem it.

      The following is carefully summarized from "Effects in the Ionosphere - As stated in the Environmental Impact Statement" http://www.haarp.alaska.edu/haarp/ion5.html

      The environmental impact was thoroughly studied by experts in the field prior to granting permission to proceed with the project. The transmitted radio waves would have a power level only slightly higher than radio and television stations. The intensity of the HF signal in the ionosphere is hundreds of times less than even the normal random variations in intensity of the Sun's natural ultraviolet energy which creates the ionosphere. Radiation in the HF frequency range is non-ionizing. HAARP only affects the 0.2% of the ionospheric volume directly over the facility, and does not interact with the remaining 99.8% neutral atoms and molecules in this limited volume. The conclusion of the environmental impact process was that there would be no significant impacts to the ionosphere.

    4. Re:Negative Effects by PhraudulentOne · · Score: 1

      Yes, but is that 4 Billion Watts all concentrated in a very small area? If so, would this FAR exceed what would normally be in said small area? Just because the ENTIRE globe gets 320 TerraWatts it doesn't mean that 4 billion watts isn't way more than would normally be experienced.

      Disclaimer: I don't know what I'm talking about in this case - 4 billion watts might be a small amount as well.

      --
      You create your own reality - Leave mine to me.
    5. Re:Negative Effects by Guysmiley777 · · Score: 1

      so that they can bomb whoever is threatening our precious bodily fluids

      Awesome reference, if I only had mod points today. Purity of essence indeed. LMAO

      --
      Coding with assembly is like playing with Legos. Coding an application in assembly is like building a car with Legos.
    6. Re:Negative Effects by CyricZ · · Score: 1

      My penis weeps for you. It weeps with sorrow.

      --
      Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
  40. The word... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...is "albeit", dickweed.

  41. Speculation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There is speculation that it could cause cascade failure of our ionosphere too.

  42. What is the real Power? by Dr.+Null · · Score: 4, Informative

    Just to make sure that everybody is up to speed on that stated power, Let me Clarify something about antenna radiation. What was quoted was 4 billion watts ERP. The term ERP means Effective Radiated Power compared to that of a simple dipole antenna. This is a sort of measure of power density, not absolute power. Power stated as ERP is a measure of the power radiated and how narrow the radiation beam is. High ERP power is very much like looking at a narrow laser beam from a great distance. The beam looks bright, so if you think that the light is coming from a source that is shining in all directions, then it is as if the light source is shining with megawatts of power. Although the beam is bright, it is very narrow in extent, thus the real power radiated is small. For antennas, the beam width is proportional to a measure called antenna Gain. Large arrays of antennas like the HAARP antenna farm have VERY high gains, thus very directional radiation beams. IT is more likely that HAARP antenna array has a collective gain near 1000, thus the real power is more like 4 megawatts, not gigawatts (something that can be supplied by on base generators).

    Megawatts of RF power is big, but not big enough to knock down ICBMs. The Idea with HAARP is to use the RF power to heat the Ionosphere in the northern latitudes where there are enormous currents induced by the Aurora. The power sloshing around in the upper Ionosphere is of the order of Terawatts. They hope to modulate these rivers of currents by locally heating small spots in the ionosphere plasma, thus radiating gigawatts of power at ultra low frequencies ( 1 to 100 Hz)... a very cool Mad scientist Idea... Very evil..

    DR. Null

  43. I've been to HAARP... by astrila · · Score: 2, Interesting

    ... and it's no great conspiracy. Of course it's got goey government funding, most cool research does. But you can forget about the wild nuclear weather balloons. They've actually got some good stuff going on. It's just a bunch of guys in their tshirts checking out the atmosphere with some nice antennas, accompanied by the occasional requisite military officer. Main thing I remember the guys getting at was the effect of the aurora on communications and tracking (military and otherwise). So drop the raised eyebrows.

    1. Re:I've been to HAARP... by Zorton · · Score: 1

      Ahmen to that brother.

      If you think it's a conspiracy just GO THERE! It's outside of Glenallen and I think you'll find the people are very nice and open. There are no secret underground labs filled with people strapped to strange machines.

      Glenallen (and it's neighbor Gakona) doesn't have any property taxes and no local government to speak of. For the most part any police or governmental involvement will be via the state government or a federal agency. People move to glenallen and put a little cabin and choose to live off the grid to remove themselves from society and the governing agencies. If the government themselves decide to move to glenallen and build large installation that has the capability to run off the grid you have a perfect breeding ground for these conspiracies.

      All of these conspiracy theories reek of someone who didn't get the job he/she wanted at UAF. Imagine if you have an ex-professor who is very grumpy at the HAARP project walk into town and put a voice to your fears. You have to remember the winters are Cold and Long up here. Towards solstice we have precious little useable daylight to work with. People end up staying inside all the time talking to the same people about the same old things. Somethings get worse than a friday night sewing circle. Combine those factors with this big installation down the road that you don't fully understand and you start to see things that just aren't there.

      From what I understand, one of the guys repairing and rebuilding the transmitters there is also an avid ham. HARRP has often been involved with ham's during their experiments and provides great services to the HAM community including a ionosound used to "look" at the ionosphere (Ref 1). If you want to hear strange noises go to any HAM's house and ask to listen to HF. You can spot a HAM's house by the large amounts of wire and aluminum in the air in the form of towers and antennas. The HF bands are full of strange and wonderful noises that if you let your mind wander could become alien communication sounds. In reality it's probably that power transformer down the street but that's not quite so exciting.

      If you want a conspiracy you only need to look towards the current administration and military actions around the world. Even there though I doubt there is a wide conspiracy going on, our upper echelons of government are just too incompetent to hold a broad sweeping evil conspiracy. Instead it's composed of 70% idealism and 30% ignorance in the form of reforming the world to be like america.

      Ref 1: http://137.229.36.30/cgi-bin/digisonde/latest.cgi

  44. Ways to get modded up... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Post a link to a Wikipedia article.
    Post the full article.
    Step 1,2,3,4 profit.
    Cowboy Neal.

  45. So did NetForce... by Cyno01 · · Score: 1

    Good tom clancy stuff, but the tech is still too far off for it to only be 2010.:(

    --
    "Sic Semper Tyrannosaurus Rex."
  46. non-Euclidean Shielding by Kryptic+Knight · · Score: 1

    Hey .. anything that keeps Azathoth and his buddies off the planet (or quietly asleep under the ocean) is a GOOD THING!

    --
    --- This meme is memory intensive
  47. It Is Nothing More Than A Pork Barrell Project by MCTFB · · Score: 1

    from Senator Ted Stephens, just as the proposed Alaskan "Bridge To Nowhere" happens to be for connecting a small sparsely populated island to the mainland of Alaska that happens to cost many millions of dollars.

    I would be more worried about how much this expensive science project costs our federal budget than its potential capabilities militarily (which probably is nil anyways).

  48. Human are Controll Freaks, just stop it. by davro · · Score: 1

    As a world of humans we are totally "Lost" hell bent on destruction.
    Are entire civilization, religion, politics, economic, social structure are based on fallacies.

    beliefs create behaviors

    1. Re:Human are Controll Freaks, just stop it. by Usquebaugh · · Score: 1

      Careful now...

  49. Not quite enough power by Torgo's+Pizza · · Score: 1

    4 billion watts and that's it? Sheesh. I should put these people in touch with my wife. You should see the power she brings when she HAARPs on me after an all-night gaming session. Those transmitters pale in comparison. Just get a few female spouses hooked together and you could power the planet.

  50. I am not a conspiracy theorist, but... by blincoln · · Score: 1

    There is an absolutely giant blacked-out rectangle a short distance from the HAARP array if you look at Google Maps. Virtual Earth doesn't seem to have photos of that area that are high-res enough to see anything useful.

    Even if it's not related, I'm really curious what is so big that needs to be kept secret.

    --
    "...always new atoms but always doing the same dance, remembering what the dance was yesterday." -Richard Feynman
    1. Re:I am not a conspiracy theorist, but... by payndz · · Score: 1

      The blacked-out area is about 3 miles wide and 25 miles long (!). A VLF antenna array for submarine communications? (It runs right through a mountain range, so it's not some big-ass runway for Aurora, if you want to bring another conspiracy theory into it...)

      --
      You must think in Russian.
    2. Re:I am not a conspiracy theorist, but... by Rihahn · · Score: 1

      If you zoom in on it, it looks like the black area lines up with the strip grid for the sat images. I think it's just missing data, but then again I could be posting this from floor 2, ring 'D' in the pentagon, so who knows. :)

    3. Re:I am not a conspiracy theorist, but... by uunh+haun · · Score: 1

      it's just missing data (see just east of el paso, tx for more) and you are a conspiracy theorist

  51. HAARP plays with weather or minds? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Most conspiracy theorists actually claim the HAARP is a global scale weather modification device that can be used to remote control hurricanes or at least divert rain clouds from your neighbour country, so they die of drought. If that is so, then HAARP is a crime against mankind and crime against peace under the little-known 1979 UN treaty on comprehensive ban of geophyisical warfare.

    Other tin-foil people claim HAARP waves can be used to read or reprogram a person's mind remotely and possibly turn people into "manchurian candidates".

    Still others claim it is a newer mightier version of the "Tesla's tower" deathray emitter, which can be used to zap remote places in an invisible place. They came the 1908 Tunguska explosion event was not an asteroid, but Tesla experimenting with the death-ray.

    I think we should tell the grizzly how HAARP threatens their natural habitat and they would gladly come and chop up the crew, solving the problem forever.

  52. post ww2 construction made usa rich by cheekyboy · · Score: 1

    Economics is supply/demand and production capacity vs consumption capacity.

    If there is TOO MUCH production for too little profits, and not enough consumption....

    what do you do?

    Destroy capitol so that creates demand for more goods because it requires construction of new goodies.

    Sounds cruel, but thats the truth, if ever product was perfect in v1.0 and never deteriorated or broke down
    or faded color, or 'died', production would grind to a steady tiny trickly once everyone had everything.

    Hence, real life and dna, those products die eventually, so they constantly need consumtion to create new ones.

    We need to expand outside the plant to really grow the economy at a 100fold speed.

    --
    Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
    1. Re:post ww2 construction made usa rich by duffbeer703 · · Score: 1

      The secret of the WW2 prosperity wasn't that we were making tanks and aircraft around the clock -- it was that shiploads of gold and other valuable commodities were being shipped across the ocean in exchange for US manufactured products. The UK was nearly bankrupted by debts to the US gov't.

      These days nothing is made in the US... so other than keeping a few Chinese factories open, enriching some construction contractors, and employing some migrant workers the economic impact on the economy is not positive at all.

      --
      Conformity is the jailer of freedom and enemy of growth. -JFK
    2. Re:post ww2 construction made usa rich by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      You, good sir, are an idiot.

      Destruction of capital (when refering to funds it's spelled with an a) does not cause the economy to grow but causes it to shrink. What you are proposing is something known as the Broken Window Fallacy.

      Your idea that no one would ever buy anything new if their old things didn't break is also absurd. The most obvious counter example is fashion. Clothes go out of style and hence new clothes must be purchased. The old clothes are still perfectly functional they just no longer match the current social aesthetics. Another counter example is new technology. Even if everyone had everything they wanted before 2001 and the release of the ipod, suddenly there is something that they do not have and they do want. Additionally, if things never wore out it would greatly stimulate the economy as there would be a large amount of capitol freed up for the purchase of other goods or to invest in the creation of new goods.

      What grows the economy is increases in efficiencies and new consumers. In the future, if you want to use economics to explain something perhaps you should bother to learn some first.

  53. Re:die whales by shrewd · · Score: 1

    didn't you hear? laughing is now "lol" rofl is now "rifk" great is now "gr8" and overlords is now "masters".... rifk.

  54. Its the Black Rectangle from 2001! by Viol8 · · Score: 1

    Except that it was waiting so long for us to become sentient
    intelligent AND responsible that its batteries ran out and it
    fell over.

  55. How much of a paranoiac... by vikingpower · · Score: 1

    ...can an intelligent republic like the USA become ? To the european that I am, this sounds and looks ridiculous. Is there no intelligent ( probably a Democrat ) American politician who can stand up and underscore the ridiculous, resource-wasting character of this project ?

    Sheesh.

    >>my sig is better than yours, forcibly

    --
    Religous speak to God. Insane are spoken to by God. When all shut up, one can finally hear Shostakovich in peace
    1. Re:How much of a paranoiac... by windowpain · · Score: 1

      How do you know it's ridiculous and resource wasting? It might very well be. The government has a real talent for creating ridiculous, resource wasting projects. But how do you know this particular project is one of them?

      --
      Insert witty sig here.
  56. This messes with ppl's heads by deviantphil · · Score: 1

    My closest friend lives in Palmer, Alaska. When they crank this thing up it SERIOUSLY starts to mess with ppl's heads. People begin to act strangely. I am sure expanding this project isn't cheered near Anchorage.

  57. Actually... by technomancer68 · · Score: 1

    The conspiracy theorists think that HAARP is a project by the government to control the weather and use the weather as instruments of mass destruction. A weather weapon..

    --

    The Technomancer
    "Men of lofty genius when they are doing the least work are most active."-
  58. Agreed! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    At last a glimmer of intellect in here.

    Could the moderators pleassssssssssse focus more on the informative and insightful stuff, and even if by my anonymous colleagues than the jokes we have seen 10 times per item already?

    Yes?

    Thanks.

  59. Activate the HAARP array, Lord Vader! by HangingChad · · Score: 1

    You and your pathetic band are no match for my fully operational HAARP array!!

    --
    That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
  60. MOD PARENT UP by frankie · · Score: 1

    +5 Informative. It's just an expensive non-peer-reviewed project, which at least manages to produce some amount of useful data, but nowhere near enough to justify the cost (in dollars, that is. the environmental cost is really small).

  61. HF RADARs [Re:This only works at night?] by Doug+Jensen · · Score: 3, Informative

    As someone whose professional application domain includes RADAR, I verify that HF RADAR is a currently deployed and advancing technology. Over the horizon RADAR's, which are on the HF band, such as the Upgraded Early Warning RADAR, are alive and well. Do a search for "UEWR" at globalsecurity.org.

    --
    Doug Jensen
  62. But... by JustNiz · · Score: 1

    >>There is speculation that the project is really an "effort to develop ways to jam the electronics of incoming missiles from Russia and/or China"

    Bush (after succeful missile attack): Why didn't my 4 jigga watt nukular deterrent stop the bad guys?

    Scientist: well... they err... avoided flying high over Alaska.

    Bush: Damn those sneaky commies.

  63. Already done... by BiloxiGeek · · Score: 1

    This project was funded and subsequently faked by a large corporation that just took the money but never developed anything. The whole plot was uncovered by a secret government clandestine group led by their operative Remo Williams who had been recruited while he was a NYPD Officer. He was trained by a little Korean guy that looked like Joel Grey.

    --
    Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, For you are crunchy and go well with ketchup.
  64. Legends by Phantasmo · · Score: 2, Funny

    Anyone else here play X-Men Legends?
    Perhaps they're trying to contain Magneto.

    --

    The US Army: promoting democracy through unquestioned obedience
  65. It's for SUBMARINE communications. by fygment · · Score: 1

    It is vital for the US military to talk to its submerged nuclear ballistic missile submarines, "boomers" (you'd forgotten about them hadn't you :-) Yes, they are still out there patrolling and for obvious reasons have to stay submerged. A traditional method is via radio at VLF and ELF frequencies as these can penetrate even seawater to useful depths. But antennae at these frequencies are ackwardly long (think miles not feet), and copper wire that long is a problem resistively speaking. But the Soviets discovered that HF beamed into the ionesphere can effectively modulate ionised particles at ELF frequencies. I don't recall the physics as that was someone else's job. So, use ionospheric modulation to generate ELF signals to talk with deployed submerged submarines. Cool, eh? Think this is a crock? Well this tells you the principles are being studied using HAARP. And this tells you it's for talking to boomers.

    And this is the HAARP site.

    The jamming theory is useless. You get much better mileage using directed jamming on a missile or by taking out the station communicating with it. Occam's razor, people.

    --
    "Consensus" in science is _always_ a political construct.
    1. Re:It's for SUBMARINE communications. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or it's for multiple purposes, including submarine communications (hehe, no video conferences over ELF). When you spend a big packet of money on new research you usually try to make it as useful as possible.
      I've never heard of HAARP being used for ELF generation. It's a refreshing change from conspiracy theories.

      I just had a look at the US ELF facilities. 3 MW of on site power generation and an 8 W signal. Wow. Maybe HAARP can generate ELF more efficiently?

  66. Remo Williams by dexter+riley · · Score: 1

    "I don't ever wanna see you standing in the line of fire...you're the one who has to come to grips with your own desire..." Heh, I still get that song stuck in my head sometimes.

    I thought it was a great movie. It's a shame it never took off (unless you count the really bad one-shot TV pilot).

  67. Tin foil hats by David's+Boy+Toy · · Score: 1

    I bet HAARP is now on some standardized test for schizophrenia.

    HAARP is:
    a) A type of musical instrument.
    b) An atmospheric research station.
    c) The source of the voices in my head.
    d) Don't know.

  68. Bad example. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    we could spend those billions on more productive things like alternative energy!


    Bad example. With the ammount spent on defense, alternative energy is something totally unneeded, since the defense projects can be easily redirected to offense projects to control as much of the "traditional energy" sources we need.


    Perhaps if you had said cures for canser you would have made a stronger case. Or perhaps you were being intentionally ironic?

  69. HAARP by insanehatchetclown · · Score: 1

    Yeah, and Area 51 is going to use one of their alien space crafts to test the defense system... I sure hope Elvis is ready for it.

    --
    Working to make this world a darker place...
  70. 4 billion Watts? by Conanymous+Award · · Score: 1

    Billion as in 1000 000 000? You see, I'm European, you insensitive clod!

    BTW, imagine a Beowulf cluster of HAARPs... Could it jam the electronics of a Beowulf cluster of Russian and Chinese nukes?

    1. Re:4 billion Watts? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Din't any one else notice from TFA that each of the 180 transmitters is only 10kW?
      That's only 1.8 million Watts, total.
      To get 4GW ERP, you would need an antenna array with approx. 35dBi of gain, certainly doable.

  71. 4 gigawatts? by adnausium · · Score: 1

    Sooo....whose wall socket is this stuff plugged into?

    --
    Don't ya hate it when the correct spelling of your favorite screen name is taken?
    1. Re:4 gigawatts? by adnausium · · Score: 1

      Since there was already too many 1.21 jigawatts jokes....i thought I'd post this little nugget: http://www.deloreanmotorcar.com/ec/jigawatts.htm

      --
      Don't ya hate it when the correct spelling of your favorite screen name is taken?
  72. Pluck a guitar string one one side of the room... by Fantastic+Lad · · Score: 1, Interesting
    and across the room, a second guitar string tuned to the same frequency will also start to vibrate. Sympathetic Resonance, right?

    Okay. . .

    During the big world wars, generals learned that they needed to march troops across bridges with their footfalls out of phase with each other. It was found that if the soldiers marched in perfect time with one another, the energy from a few thousand stomping feet would enter the bridge structure and set it to vibrating. A standing wave was able then to build until the bridge shook itself apart and collapsed. This isn't 'mystery school' stuff. It's basic, "Let's not kill our troops and destroy our bridges while marching across them," applied science.

    Take the thought a step further. . .

    "The Walls of Jericho came tumbling down."

    "In the Old Testament, in Joshua chapter 6, the Israelites defeated the city of Jericho. According to the biblical account, after the Israelites marched around the city for six days, on the seventh day they encircled the city seven times. On the seventh time around, the priests blew the trumpets, the people shouted and the walls fell flat."

    Some say, 'Divinely timed Earthquake'. Others say, 'Wrath of God'. I say, 'Maybe a standing waveform deliberately created by marching the army around the city for long enough to knock it down.' --Yeah it takes some creative editing of the biblical account to consider it, but hey, it's not like the bible hasn't been severely distorted over two thousand years of manipulative re-writes, (from the mind-control, social-engineering project heavily influenced by the Roman secret services it was originally, that is).

    Okay. Back to reality. . .

    Experiment: "You put a fish in a tank and mount a speaker to the side of the tank. Over the speaker, you emit a sub-sonic beat. Tune the beat to match the beating of the fish's heart and let the two beats stay in sync for a while. Then slowly start to turn down the frequency on the speaker and observe as the fish's heart also slows. Gradually reduce the frequency until the fish's heart stops altogether, killing the fish.

    Hm.

    Okay. So this HAARP thing. . .

    Weather control? I don't think so. --The weather is messed up enough on it's own these days, and you can make a lot more money selling weapons to the people you want killing each other than you can by drying up their rice paddies. (Remember, the Carlyle Groups of the world don't own stocks in farming ventures. They sell guns.) --Of course, in an armchair-tactician, war-book reading, pipe-smoking, Napoleonic-War-Geek kind of way, a weather control weapon makes a lot of sense. However, in the real world of the Military Industrial Complex, where winning wars and playing Risk are only cursory concerns on the list of objectives, (all nations already being under one master and the illusion of politics being simply a distraction and misery engine), weather control is sort of pointless. --Simply an idea to toss out to the New Age crazies who can be counted upon to make everybody cough awkwardly and look the other way for fear of being associated with conspiracy theory.

    What makes more sense is using the HAARP array to pump energy into a section of the ionosphere so that you create a standing wave in the medium of the ionosphere, which will vibrate at the same frequency as human brain wave patterns. . . (Like fish hearts, different states of awareness and feelings can be created in people through such EM manipulation.)

    If you set up another couple of arrays in Europe and around the world, (which do indeed exist), performing the same task, suddenly you have the ability to create gridworks of standing wave interference patterns which cover the planet and which can be manipulated and tuned with accuracy, turning the Ionosphere into a sort of spherical television screen.

    --You know those days when everybody in your town is feeling buzzed out and crazy and you blame it on the barometer, or the full moon,

  73. Grand Unification Theory of Conspiracies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Its all starting to make sense....

    Roswell..... HAARP took down the UFO
    JFK..... HAARP controlled the "magic" bullett
    Michael Jackson..... sleeps under a HAARP array
    Bird Flu..... virus mutation caused by HAARP
    Huricane Katrina.... Bush ordered that one up from HAARP to line the oil & constructions companies pockets (and it was the only way to keep the Saints from winning the SuperBowl!)
    France Riots.... HAARP started those too! (but it was all a high pressure sales pitch from the Bush admin trying to sell them their own HAARP array)
    Bermuda Triangle..... HAARP test fire zone!

    and Elvis.... he's up in Alaska running the whole thing!

    HAARP is responsible for all of it!!!! :-)

  74. Re:first post! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    you wish, dumb cunt!!

  75. Arguing over the best way to kill people is silly by maillemaker · · Score: 1

    If I kill people by burning them to death or blasting them to pieces, which one is better?

    Silly argument. Dead is dead.

    Steve

    P.S. spare me the extreme tangents about "Well, would you like to die slowly by method X or Y?"

    A bomb is a bomb is a bomb. One way or another, within 10 minutes you will be dead.

    --
    A work that expires before its copyright never enters the public domain and thus enjoys eternal copyright protection.
  76. Article about HAARP in Nature by Pchelka · · Score: 2

    I believe that the article on HAARP and the aurora iamlucky13 referred to was published in the journal Nature.

    I first heard about all of the conspiracy theories surrounding HAARP when I was studying physics in graduate school. When I took a research trip up to Alaska, I asked my apartment building manager if she could take care of my plants. She totally freaked out because she had heard about this evil HAARP thing the U.S. government had hidden in the Alaskan wilderness.

    All of the conspiracy theories surrounding HAARP are a case of a little knowledge being a dangerous thing. The physics behind this project is complicated and not understood by your average Joe. People understand just enough of it to realize how little they actually know, and that scares them. After my apartment manager told me about HAARP, I checked out a few of the web sites claiming to tell the truth about HAARP. Some of these "experts" on HAARP claimed that because they had Ph.D.s they were qualified to judge the merits and true purpose of HAARP. These people probably got their "degree" by responding to an e-mail from some school in Nigeria that will give you a diploma based upon your life experience if you send $500. It never fails to surprise me how many naive people out there will believe anyone who claims to have a Ph.D. in something or will believe anything they read on the Internet. Nerds are supposed to know better!

    These conspiracy theories aren't just ridiculous because of their faulty and inaccurate science. A major conspiracy to cover up a secret and illegal military experiment implies that the leaders of the U.S government are organized enough to restrict the release of information and coordinate their cover stories and propaganda. Our government couldn't properly coordinate the relief efforts for the Hurricane Katrina disaster. Does anyone out there honestly think our government is organized enough to orchestrate a massive cover up for the development of an evil death ray?

    Then again, why should anyone believe what I have to say? I know people involved with HAARP and I have a Ph.D. in physics so I'm just another evil genius out to destroy the world. People like Art Bell who seriously believe that there is a conspiracy would probably think that I am a part of it and lying about everthing. I wish I was part of the conspiracy so I could go take that alien space ship they have hidden at Area 51 and leave the planet as soon as possible. I sure don't like the way our world is heading.

    1. Re:Article about HAARP in Nature by Guysmiley777 · · Score: 1

      I wish I was part of the conspiracy so I could go take that alien space ship they have hidden at Area 51 and leave the planet as soon as possible

      Woah, woah, woah! Are you saying they leave the keys in that puppy? If so, I am SO off this planet.

      Also, now the Art Bells of the world can now say "See? A physics Ph.D. who knows people involved with HAARP has confirmed the existence of alien spacecraft at Area 51!" You just can't win with those people.

      --
      Coding with assembly is like playing with Legos. Coding an application in assembly is like building a car with Legos.
    2. Re:Article about HAARP in Nature by iamlucky13 · · Score: 1
      Our government couldn't properly coordinate the relief efforts for the Hurricane Katrina disaster. Does anyone out there honestly think our government is organized enough to orchestrate a massive cover up for the development of an evil death ray?
      Even more amazing is the fact that it would be a conspiracy that spans multiple administrations that are politically opposed. There was no, "Holy crap! Look at what the Republicans/Democrats were using your tax dollars to build. How can you ever justify voting for them again?" My dad always talks about the HAARP conspiracy, but rather jokingly because he doesn't really get what it does. I never saw the article on Nature, since I don't have a subscription. HAARP pops up on Slashdot from time to time, as well as on space.com.
  77. Tesla Baby by hador_nyc · · Score: 1

    Did you know that some of Nicola Tesla's work is still classified by the US government? Near as I can tell, it's because it's related to this work. Pretty cool if you ask me since the guy died 50 years ago!

    --
    - Mike
    Once you've lost your temper, you've lost the argument - Me
  78. Re:Pluck a guitar string one one side of the room. by Guysmiley777 · · Score: 1

    Troops collapsing bridges by marching in time is a myth, or at best a weak excuse for a poorly constructed bridge.

    What makes more sense is using the HAARP array to pump energy into a section of the ionosphere so that you create a standing wave in the medium of the ionosphere, which will vibrate at the same frequency as human brain wave patterns

    Awesome! So if I stick a tuning fork that resonates at the brain wave pattern frequency up my butt while wearing a tinfoil hat (NOT aluminum!) I'll be safe right?

    On less sarcastic note (ha ha), where did you come up with the fairy tale about killing fish with sub-sonic sound waves? a) Fish hearts beat on average between 60 and 240 BPM. Thats would be 60Hz-240Hz, which is easily within the "sonic" range of frequencies. b) How do you make the leap from "sub-sonic" audio waves to VHF EM radio waves?

    --
    Coding with assembly is like playing with Legos. Coding an application in assembly is like building a car with Legos.
  79. appropriate on Slashdot, maybe... by papastout · · Score: 1

    Speculation? No really... shouldn't this be posted on Hack-a-day? It could probably be put along with those wireless hacks (you know, same place you can find plans for tx/rx antenna mods)

  80. Not seeing the point through the hair-splitting... by Fantastic+Lad · · Score: 1
    Troops collapsing bridges by marching in time is a myth, or at best a weak excuse for a poorly constructed bridge.

    A myth? Perhaps. I was quoting from an old high school science class.

    The general idea under discussion at the time was that all objects, not just guitar strings, have a natural frequency at which they will vibrate when buffeted by wave forms of that frequency. The general point I was trying to illustrate holds even if the example itself is fictional.

    Awesome! So if I stick a tuning fork that resonates at the brain wave pattern frequency up my butt while wearing a tinfoil hat (NOT aluminum!) I'll be safe right?

    Careful. Ridicule is what people use when they do not wish to address areas they are frightened of.

    On less sarcastic note (ha ha), where did you come up with the fairy tale about killing fish with sub-sonic sound waves? a) Fish hearts beat on average between 60 and 240 BPM. Thats would be 60Hz-240Hz, which is easily within the "sonic" range of frequencies. b) How do you make the leap from "sub-sonic" audio waves to VHF EM radio waves?

    Modulation of high frequencies can be used to emulate lower frequencies. This is how a microwave emitter, like a cell phone, can have an effect on the human brain, which responds to much lower frequencies.

    In any case, as per the fish example, I was quoting from memory; an article I read some years ago. While I clearly don't recall the specifics, I do know that it wasn't a children's story. If the general figures are off, the idea is still an interesting one, don't you think?

    Here's an article I clipped a couple of years back which is the nearest thing I could find to the fish story. . . (I'm afraid the link, http://asia.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=sci enceNews&storyID=3401200 is a couple of years old and no longer active.)

    Soundless Music Shown to Produce Weird Sensations
    Sun September 7, 2003 07:09 PM ET
    By Patricia Reaney

    MANCHESTER, England (Reuters) - Mysteriously snuffed out candles, weird sensations and shivers down the spine may not be due to the presence of ghosts in haunted houses but to very low frequency sound that is inaudible to humans.

    British scientists have shown in a controlled experiment that the extreme bass sound known as infrasound produces a range of bizarre effects in people including anxiety, extreme sorrow and chills -- supporting popular suggestions of a link between infrasound and strange sensations.

    "Normally you can't hear it," Dr Richard Lord, an acoustic scientist at the National Physical Laboratory in England who worked on the project, said Monday.

    Lord and his colleagues, who produced infrasound with a seven meter (yard) pipe and tested its impact on 750 people at a concert, said infrasound is also generated by natural phenomena.

    "Some scientists have suggested that this level of sound may be present at some allegedly haunted sites and so cause people to have odd sensations that they attribute to a ghost -- our findings support these ideas," said Professor Richard Wiseman, a psychologist at the University of Hertfordshire in southern England.

    In the first controlled experiment of infrasound, Lord and Wiseman played four contemporary pieces of live music, including some laced with infrasound, at a London concert hall and asked the audience to describe their reactions to the music.

    The audience did not know which pieces included infrasound but 22 percent reported more unusual experiences when it was present in the music.

    Their unusual experiences included feeling uneasy or sorrowful, getting chills down the spine or nervous feelings of revulsion or fear.

    "These results suggest that low frequency sound can cause people to have unusual experiences even though they cannot consciously detect infrasound," said Wiseman, who presented his findings to

  81. ELF substititute. by paxmark1 · · Score: 1

    Many of those involved in anti ELF (Extremely Low Frequency) Trident boomer communications feel that one major reason that the Navy SNCC (Strategic Nuclear Command Control) pulled the plug on ELF was that HAARP could handle the wake up call communication to the deeper than 150 metre SBM platforms.
    The ELF sites in Wisconsin and upper Michigan were shut down awhile back.

    And I am sure there is some interesting plasma radiation studies that happen also.

    peace,

  82. No you fools -- HAARP caused the earthquake... by oldCoder · · Score: 1
    No you fools -- HAARP caused the earthquake in Pakistan that killed Osama bin Laden. Or didn't you notice the earthquake was in the exact same region where Osama was hiding?

    And all that help from the US to Pakistan? That's just a team looking for Osama's body.

    --

    I18N == Intergalacticization
  83. but...Iraq had tons of WP... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If white phosphorus is a chemical weapon (the U.S. has always disagreed with that definition, even under Democratic Presidents), and Iraq had tons of it, then we DID find WMDs in Iraq!

  84. Re:Maby.. Looney Tunes? by davidsyes · · Score: 1

    Imagine a HARP playing at 4+GHz... Such "harping" frequencies in a concert would be... disconcerting... But, then Lord George's angels in heaven probably need help from down here the way Spock's brother acted as an emmisary to get "god" a starship...

    --
    Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
  85. Re:This only works at night? The freaks come by davidsyes · · Score: 1

    out at night...

    McCoy: My god.. Dear lord... What would happen if somebody uses this thing where life already EXISTS?

    Spock: It would destroy such life in favor of its new MATRIX.

    McCoy: It's new MATRIX???... ....

    Well I wonder...what would happen if... Say, are there "portable" version of these gizmos? I mean, imagine if these could be randomly dropped off in various places across different time zones. Then, if they were set off as each terminator/night time has been about 2-4 hours old...

    I am wondering if these could be used in the "take the war to the enemy before they come to us..." strategem. If these could be dropped by commerical airliners as tubes (say, a CIA mission deployed from customized COMAIR craft), then launched to specific altitudes from remote or time delayed command, then these things could probably be triggered when certain launch profiles/parameters are sensed. Maybe they could be intended keep China's "just-launched" missiles from reaching high orbit and arming. Of course, where they fall, and whether they crash or dispers as dirty bombs probably isn't on God's, umm, George's list of concerns....

    I imagine a new project will be a modified form of the filaments dropped over various nations'/targets' power grids before a softening-up bomb run knocked out remote radar posts...

    Well-funded program...

    --
    Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
  86. Re:What is the real Power? Wyatt you say? by davidsyes · · Score: 1

    Imagine if Dr. Wyatt ERP (Earp) had even a FRACTION of this power in his gun. Oklahoma wouldn't be OK. And anyone shot in the gut by this gun would be in a state of NB... nobellium... Better stop those DeLoreans and make sure Earp isn't given a ray gun... might change the tech timeline...

    --
    Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
  87. Ball bearings might be easier than nukes. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seriously, ever hear of the "flying crowbars" proposal? How about KEW2.5? (I actually worked on that one).

    Still, the USA is not the only country with nukes (we're just the only ones who've been provoked to the point of using them.... so far....) so I found your post interesting and informative.

    Thanks!

  88. Let's Split Hairs On Phosphorus by cmholm · · Score: 1
    Phosphorus (sp) is used in a bomb to burn things, just like napalm, but a bit easier to aim. I think you're about to go off the deep end with your definitions.

    Chemical weapons - by definition - specifically aim to target the biology of mammals. Mustard gas, chorine, et al do a great job at messing people up, but will barely blemish the finish of the car they're driving in. On the other hand, WP works wonders at messing up both man and the works of man, just like any other explosive and/or combustible tool of war.

    --
    Luke, help me take this mask off ... Just for once, let me butterfly kiss you with my own eyes.
  89. Re:Arguing over the best way to kill people is sil by killjoe · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    SO you have no qualms against chemical or biological weapons then I gather. I also suppose you have no problem with torture either. Dead is dead at least when you torture people you keep them alive right?

    Oh before I forget. You do realize that you don't actually have to invade other countries, occupy them and kill the people who don't want you there right? You realize that right? You don't have to kill people, it's strange but it's true. I hear God said something like that but I might be wrong. Maybe you should check with your local holy man or maybe even your mom.

    --
    evil is as evil does
  90. Go Look. by Fantastic+Lad · · Score: 1
    And if you somehow think that being a hard-working Iraqi civillian standing in line to join the police and make his country safer or even just visiting the market and getting killed by a suicide or car bomber or a few intentionally targeted mortar rounds is in any way better than frying insurgents with incendiaries, you're messed up in the head.

    Messed up in the head is using propagandic terms like, "Insurgents" with a straight face.

    Iraq is not an issue of Good Iraqis being terrorized by Bad Iraqis, and the Good Americans coming to the rescue.

    Iraq is about creating scenarios where killing and chaos and fear are the main elements of the reigning paradigm. This is done so that a small group of people in the West can collect obscene amounts of wealth and power. The emotionally charged and over-simple arguments used to trick the average civilian into going along with this scheme require carefully crafted and marketed words like, "Insurgents" and "Terrorists", etc.

    Find me one piece of reputable, published research supporting the ability of radio waves to generate earthquakes, hurricanes, or mind control.

    First of all, it is nobody else's responsibility to pull you out of ignorance. If you want to stay in the dark, that's your choice. Any information another shares with you is a gift. If you want to dispute shared knowledge, or laugh at it, or thoughtlessly quote idiotic sayings from endless television court dramas which declare things about the Burden Of Proof as though they apply to your own growth as a human, then that is also your choice and you will no doubt stay blind. --And probably continue to use terms like, "Insurgent" and really mean it.

    Secondly, the fact that you clearly haven't done any of your own searching on the subject of EM and the human brain is probably why you include hurricanes in your list of possibilities. Earthquakes are only marginally less silly.

    Third. . .

    Here is some of the information you requested:

    Robert O. Becker wrote an excellent book on the subject. Here is an excerpt from that book I have taken the liberty of putting on-line. . . One mechanic by which EM can affect brain function

    Also a few tidbits from the regular news sources. . .

    Energy field used to cause temporary blindness (Scroll down to the 5th paragraph and consider what is said there. The rest of the article is somewhat interesting as well.)

    Radio signals for the next generation of mobile phone services can cause headaches and nausea, according to a survey conducted by three Dutch ministries on the impact of tomorrow's data networks on health.

    The NYT article I clipped expired, but I uploaded the story and a copule of graphics here.

    This is just a smattering of references. There are hundreds more out there. If you are interested in this stuff, and you really want to know the answers to the questions you ask, all I can say is, "GO LOOK!" It takes work, but in the end, you are the one who benefits.

    Good luck!


    -FL

  91. Re:Arguing over the best way to kill people is sil by maillemaker · · Score: 1

    >SO you have no qualms against chemical or biological weapons then I gather.

    It depends on how effective they are. If the end result is similar to, say, a high explosive shell or, say, a nuclear blast, then I don't really see what the difference is. Weapons that result in prelonged suffering and agony, say, longer then maybe 10 minutes or so might give me pause, but otherwise, no, I have no qualms. I mean, if I had to choose between death by some chemical means that put me to sleep or death by nuclear vaporization or blasted into small pieces with high explosives, I do believe I'd choose the chemical means. If I had to choose between taking a bullet in the chest and dying over the course of ten or so minutes with a sucking chest wound as I drowned in my own blood vs. sufficating over the same time period as some chemical shut down my nervous system I'd say either option about equally sucked.

      >I also suppose you have no problem with torture either. Dead is dead at least when you torture people you keep them alive right?

    Straw man. I have said nothing about torture.

    >Oh before I forget. You do realize that you don't actually have to invade other countries, occupy them and kill the people who don't
    >want you there right? You realize that right? You don't have to kill people, it's strange but it's true.

    Aside from the fact that sometimes it /is/ necessary to invade other countries, occupy them, and kill people who don't want you there, I was not attempting to debate or discuss when such options might or might not be necessary. I am merely asserting that it is rather silly to debate over what is the good and proper way to kill someone in war. It's usually just a way for people to make themselves feel a little better about killing people.

    >I hear God said something like that
    >but I might be wrong. Maybe you should check with your local holy man or maybe even your mom.

    I checked with my local holy man and my Mom and they both said I was right.

    Steve

    --
    A work that expires before its copyright never enters the public domain and thus enjoys eternal copyright protection.