Slashdot Mirror
Unmanned Aerial Drones Coming Soon Above U.S.
cnet-declan writes "Unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) have been flying over Iraq and Afghanistan, but now the Bush administration wants to use them for domestic surveillance. A top Homeland Security official told Congress today, according to this CNET News.com article, that: "We need additional technology to supplement manned aircraft surveillance and current ground assets to ensure more effective monitoring of United States territory." One county in North Carolina is already using UAVs to monitor public gatherings. But what happens when lots of relatively dumb drones have to share airspace with aircraft carrying passengers? A pilot's association is worried."
Boil a frog slowly...
My new sig seems even more appropriate than usual.
If you wanna get rich, you know that payback is a bitch
First it was the domestic wiretap issue; the administration not only didn't deny doing it, they flat-out flaunted it. Now they want to put unmanned drones in the air to watch God-knows-what. There's no longer even a pretense, a facade, even the slightest attempt to hide the surveillance society.
I thought that actions like appropriating the military for civilian law enforcement, spying on US citizens within the US, etc. were illegal. Why doesn't anyone seem to give a shit anymore?
"BSD: Free as in speech. Linux: Free as in beer. Windows 10: Free as in herpes." --Man On Pink Corner in #52607549.
We can't control our own borders but we will use tech like this to monitor our own citizens...
Anyone else find that just a little weird?
Democracy gives the people the government they deserve.
Nobody in America gives a shit for several reasons.
The first is the same bread-and-circuses problem that plagued the Roman Empire. As long as they have beer and football, Mountain Dew and XBox, or their cell phones and MTV, most Americans are quite content.
The second is a lousy mass media. Many people who might take a stand against anti-freedom activities such as this aren't even aware of the issue, just because it isn't reported well by major news outlets.
The third is a lack of understanding. Low-quality history lessons in schools, often teaching what amounts to idealistic propaganda, have resulted in many youths (and now adults) not even being able to comprehend the issues at hand. They are unaware of how such 'security' measures were the hallmarks of numerous totalitarian regimes, just in the 20th century alone.
It's a multifaceted problem, and no solution is readily available.
The US is made of thousands upon thousands of immigrant. Very few of us are native. The current political and powers that be want everyone watched 24x7. It's scary to think that we'd spy on our own citizens just to protect them. But if we allow such things as domestic USVs, what's next? Tracking chips implanted in everyone? I don't know where this is all headed, but there are some crazy politicians and military forces out there that think they should play god to their own citizens. In times like these, we need to consider the repercussions of our actions. I hate to see this ever happen on American soil.
Give me a productive error over a boring, mundane and unproductive fact any day. ~Anon
I wish Orwell's 1984 was required to be taught and discussed to death in citizenship classes in high school. What most people don't seem to understand is that 1984 is not really about "big brother" but instead it foretells what Orwell deeply distrusted: a global information system and the abuse of it. In a way Orwell was a pessimist - he knew that no matter how well intentioned any system would be abused. UAV's are a symptom of Orwell's fears, they are just more information inputs into a global database. By themselves it's almost silly to complain about them but in aggregate with other databases the whole becomes dangerous to liberty. Everyone has broken some law somewhere and if that information is easily looked up it makes everyone susceptible to blackmail - who did you have an affair with last year? There was an old soviet joke about having laws against everything so if the KGB wanted you they would simply selectively enforce any law they wanted to against you. What citizens should demand to combat Orwell's dystopia is transparency in the process' and records of their government. Yes some things do need to be classified but they are usually the exception and not the rule. And no matter how classified everything should eventually become known.
;) :)
Anyway, I'm too drunk to continue so please correct and extend what I've said. Goodnight.
Shh.
Everybody is blinded by the media and by schools. Teachers are threatened by the government, and are forced to spread the propaganda to our children, and it is even starting to happen in Universities. Patriotism is being turned into extremism. History teachers and professors know about it, people who read the news from free media outlets such as this one know about it, but the masses cannot even fathom the idea that our government is corrupt and are fixated into this mindset that if a superior (President, Media, Retail Salesman) tells them something, that they must obey and follow. Any out-speak or saying different to them is seen as uncivilized and outrageous.
Sig: I stole this sig.
The first is the same bread-and-circuses problem that plagued the Roman Empire. As long as they have beer and football, Mountain Dew and XBox, or their cell phones and MTV, most Americans are quite content.
Funny you should mention beer, football, cell phones, mass media, and MTV in your post about why UAV surveillance is evil.
Most people are disgusted by the post-SuperBowl riots that envitably ensue when a few celebrating football fans, drunk with beer, start using the occasion as an opportunity to cause mayhem. UAVs monitoring a crowd can make sure that troublemakers are quickly identified and subdued by police before they incite a violent riot.
MTV and other youth-oriented mass media are fairly blatant in their encouragement of young people to protest the G8 summit or the meeting of the World Bank by going ape shit. Gone are the days of peaceful protests. Leaders of political groups have realized that causing mayhem is one sure-fire way of attracting attention (positive or negative -- it doesn't matter) to their cause and making life tough for their political enemies. Attempts by police to remove troublemakers from the crowd of mostly-peaceful demonstrators is foiled as highly-organized groups use cell phones to adapt to police movements in real-time.
It's a multifaceted problem, and no solution is readily available.
Oh, indeed it is a multifaceted problem. It's not clear to me, however, that you have considered the other facet of surveillance and what it means in today's society. Technology is a tool. It can be used for good or for evil.
GMD
watch this
We've got little time left before the borders completely close.
There are only two choice at this point in my opinion:
1) Openly take back the government by hook or by crook. This is costly in life, money, and security but has been shown by other people of the world to work.
or
2) Leave the country until it collapses or someone cleans it up. Depending on how you look at it this could be construed as an abandonment of one's responsibilities as a US citizen but those of you with family and small children, like me, should seriously think about what kind of country they are going to grow up in. If they can't defend themselves then you have to move them elsewhere.
This is one of those times I wish I hadn't been right to wear my tinfoil. I wish I could see a path to be able to remove it. But I don't see that in my lifetime especially if these things get worse as I suspect they will.
In my opinion this is one step before the wall.
(Why isn't this article in the YRO section?)
I await the inevitable mod down by those that think I'm OT, Troll, Overrated, or Flamebait...
"Bah!" - Dogbert
exactly... ALL airspace is commercial airspace. non-pilots usually think that there are special areas set aside, arial highways so to speak (which do exist, kinda) but there is NOWHERE in the US where these things can be operated safely.
UAVs are one of the hottest military technologies these days. It's not surprising that the commercial and civilian sector is starting to take a look at how these maturing drones can be used to solve their problems.
..Once everyone is watching everyone else then we'll have no more problems?
Thats great, because I hear that naked people have the most to hide
In the entire history of the world, how many buildings have fallen because of extensive fires on their upper floors?
Answer: ONLY the World Trade Center buildings.
I can accept a loss of structural integrity. I cannot see the physics behind a completely symmetrical collapse of THREE buildings.
Somewhere between 99.999% and 99.99999999% of the terrorists (call it an educated guess, based on the number of suicide bombings and other terrorist attacks that have occurred in this country since 9-11) are outside this country -- probably in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Iran -- and we're spending serious effort on domestic surveillance?
What this says to me is that the Bush administration is fscking terrified that the tall grass is full of terrorists, and that we have zero resources capable of dealing with them in their own space (the CIA having been preoccupied with telling the boss what he wants to hear), and have so pissed off our former friends who might actually have some field intelligence, but would now prefer to see us twist in the wind, making an excellent target to draw out the terrorists.
Actually, that last bit doesn't hold water, 'cause plenty of European nations have been hit since 9-11. If anyone had any field intelligence, it would be used.
But why aren't we deploying surveillance drones over Saudi Arabia, or at least Pakistan? And we certainly ought to have every pile of rubble with a roof over it in Afghanistan bugged.
But this continued insistence on domestic surveillance looks for all the world as if the Bush administration is on the side of the terrorists, or is at least gearing up to declare martial law and replace our broken, wobbly charicature of a representative democracy with a theocratic monarchy.
Either that, or they're just incredibly, unbelievably inept.
Shouldn't be a problem for who?
Are they armed? How long until they are?
Your interpretation is incorrect. Most airspace is class E -- which is controlled airspace -- but airspace designations are primarily about visibility minimums and communications requirements, and have little bearing on flight plan or instrument flight status. Classes D, C, and B are all associated with areas in and around airports, with increasing requirements for communications (D,C, and B all require communications with the airport tower, C requires transponder, and B requires transponder and permission to enter the airspace.) So today, even the most restricted airspace (B) you can fly over without a flight plan.
So unless most airspace is declared class B, it's not really an issue. I really don't think the FAA / ATC want to deal with the millions of clearance requests, etc they'd encounter if they did something so drastic.
What's more likely is that they'll swiss-cheese the airspace with temporary flight restrictions (TFRs) around areas where the drones operate. Presumably they could become so numerous as to make private flight planning a bit difficult. Before then, however, there will probably be enough crashes with drones to result in them be forced into small saftey zones. If the Predator is any indication, there will be many, many crashes as UAVs get used more extensively -- which would totally undermine any safety-selling approach that might be tried.
"I don't see these measures as an infringement on personal freedom, because the measures will target people I don't like."
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
Israel does not have the Bill of Rights. It does have borders completely surrounded by hostile neighbors, including daily rocket attacks and suicide bombs, many originating within its territory.
Israel has lots of unamerican "problems", like a state religion and the draft. We don't want those things here.
--
make install -not war
It's quite clear that Automated Google Crawlers will, in the future, log all your anti-establishment comments. Only people doing something wrong are afraid of law enforcement. I, for one, welcome our future law-enforcing overlords.
Oddly enough, it seems to be most prevalent in the Red States that are so incredibly vocal about...
Oh, please. I'm guessing that you only pay attention to negative details about people you disagree with. Look around some blue states now and then. Tell me why back-woods suburbs need a fleet of SUV patrol "cars" and a million dollar 4" thick bullet-proof vestibule in their police station lobby when the only violent crime in town in the last decade involved a drunk guy and a knife. Pick a party... Pick a state... They're all guilty of the pork.
Also, your last sentence doesn't seem to mean what you wanted it to mean... Either that or you have a really screwy vision of who needs the funds.
UAVs are here today and the elimination of the human pilot is many years off; we DO need to worry about the time in between now and then.
I wish the article said what kind of UAV is going to be used, because they can get pretty big: the RQ-1 Predator is comperable in length, height, and weight to a Cessna 152, and in wingspan it's 15 feet longer. The wrong paint scheme could render predator-sized UAV practically invisible, and a smaller UAV could easily be missed by a pilot. Given the damage that birds can do, a collision with all but the smallest ones could cause catastrophic damage to a small plane like a 152. I suspect that predator-sized UAVs will be out of budget for most applications, which means that pilots will have to start watching out for smaller and smaller traffic. The last thing pilots need, especially recreational pilots who don't fly daily, is another distraction to watch for. There are all sorts of restrictive rules for planes and pilots: I don't see why any of them should be relaxed for UAVs. Indeed, they should be subject to closer scrutiny simply because they have no brain.
If UAVs remain doing the jobs they're currently doing: monitoring borders and ports, I don't forsee many problems. If these things start making their way into more populated areas, big issues arise. The biggest issue that I can think of is one of th e first things I learned in flight school: the final responsibility for avoiding other air traffic always falls with the pilot. When the pilot is a computer, does it have any responsibility? This rule works best when there are real pilots in each plane; when one of the planes is a drone, the other pilots have double responsibility.
I vividly remember one graph from my textbook while I was taking flying lessons: there was a chart with 2 lines: NECESSARY pilot skill to operate the plane, and AVAILABLE pilot skill. During preflight and taxi, there was plenty of room between the two lines. During takeoff, the lines were closer but there was still a good margin. During cruise and nazvigation, there was once again a large safety margin. Landing was the interesting part: the available skill and necessary skill lines were really damn close. Plenty of pilots have more than enough skill to land safely all the time. It only takes one pilot who doesn't to make the news. Naturally, these UAVs would be in closest contact with other planes when around airports: the times when the pilot has the least amount of extra attention to spare for a UAV in the traffic pattern.
Do UAVs check above and below themselves before ascending or descending like human pilots do? Do they check for planes that don't have transponders or radios like human pilots? Do they take into account the fact that other planes might have malfunctioning equipment like human pilots? Did a pilot write the code that flies the UAV or was it a programmer working overtime to make a deadline? Personally, I would like these issues and more brought up to the aviation community and satisfactorily addressed before UAVs become a common sight in the sky.
- "Nobody came out that night, not one was ever seen. But Old Man Stauf is waiting there, crazy sick and mean!"
-You don't need to melt a truss, you just need to soften it. If it softens the geometry changes and the strength drops.
-I don't know what the ends were on the floor trusses, but a sagging truss will put them in tension. I doubt they were designed for this.
-Heat shielding doesn't stand up too well to an exploding airplane.
-The design in question is not typical of steel buildings, which tend to be latticed structures rather than tubes.
Note that it's the floor collapsing that starts the process. A load-bearing exoskeleton is an inherently unstable design prevented from buckling only by the floors forcing it to stay aligned.
As you say, no warping was observed before collapse. It was the internal structure that failed before the collapse. As soon as the external structure drifted out of alignment it was over. Instantaneously. This is how buckling behaves.
(Oh, and this guy isn't much of a scientist. "Nobody has a good idea what happened. IT MUST HAVE BEEN THERMITE!" Typical crackpot paper . . . . . . )
(Science aside, how the hell could a deliberate demolition be pulled off without anyone finding out before or finding actual evidence after? Such things take rather a lot of setup to pull off.)
Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
Of course, you're omitting training, storage and repair costs and the time lost putting a cop in front of a TV screen instead of out on the streets.
Take for example, the latest Downing Street memo. It revealed that prior to the invasion of Iraq, Bush thought the evidence of WMD was so weak that he suggested tricking Iraq into firing on a U-2 spyplane painted with UN colors. Wingnuts like Confederate Yankee dismissed the memo as nonsense, primarily on the grounds that you wouldn't be able to see the plane at it's operation altitude from the ground. That's a Bigfoot moment, because the fact that U-2's fly at 70,000 does nothing to debunk the idea that "putting food on our families" Bush wouldn't have hatched the scheme in the first place.
It mentions the federal government is only interested in using this to replace existing flights by manned aircraft at over 12,500 feet, with filed flight plans. This is your own local officials doing this backyard surveillance, not "the big evil Bush" that everyone seems to like to blame for everything. But MAN does throwing "the Bush administraion" in the summary really catch eyeballs, regardless of whether it's true or not.
More "Bigfoot" nonsense. Dismissing the involvment of the Bush Administration by talking about locals in this is like trying to claim that the Administration and the GOP majority in Congress didn't have anything to do with the Patriot Act because it is used & abused by local law enforcement. And you conviniently ignored the quote that was in the summary: "A top Homeland Security official told Congress today..."
This might be news to you, but the Dept of Homeland Security is part of the Executive Branch, headed by a Cabinent-level official, with all top level officials either being directly appointed by Bush or appointed by appointees of Bush, which makes it part of the......drumroll please....Bush administration.
*sigh* Typical slashdot.
No, typical kneejerk defense by what appears to be a member of the Church of Bush. There have been many times when you guys end up falling all over yourselves in the rush to defend our dear president, only to be proven wrong later. See the Katrina video or the Downing Street memos, for example. And that's just what's filtered out through a stonewalling GOP government. If the Dem's have the balls to actually go out and win the Senate or the House AND investigate the White House, the shit is really going to hit the fan.
Bush is draging this country down, and guys like you are helping him.
IFR -- Instrument Flight Rules; there are no visibility and ceiling requirements when you're IFR since you're required to be in contact with ATC and controlled by them. VFR is Visual Flight Rules, i.e. you're flying by looking outside, so obviously there are various visibility and ceiling requirements. Airspace is not divided into IFR and VFR. Individual flights are operating under IFR or VFR. Contrary to what you see on TV, a VFR flight does not need to file a flight plan.
Class A is for IFR traffic only. All other classes allow VFR traffic. The lower classes have various different vis/celing requirements and ATC service. Class G is the lowest, where there is no ATC service and everyone just has to negotiate and cooperate (the "Small Airplane Big Sky" theory of collision avoidance). In the US the only Class G airspace is out west over unpopulated areas, and below a certain height above ground (a few thousand feet depending on various factors). Most airspace in the US is Class E; classes B, C, and D are around airports. In Class E airspace, IFR traffic needs to file a flight plan, get clearance etc. etc. but VFR traffic can just go, provided visibility requirements are met.
"Mode C" is a type of radar transponder. Unlike movie radar with green blips and pings, in the modern radar environment ATC knows not just where an airplane is but also how high it is, thanks to Mode C. In the US, although a Mode C transponder is not required (except within 30 nautical miles from a major airport like JFK), if your airplane has one you are required by law to turn it on. Airplanes that don't have Mode C transponders are usually old small airplanes without electrical systems or radios (like the Piper Cub). Your average Cessna has Mode C.
From a pilot's point of view, UAVs are no more an issue than any other military traffic. UAVs -- like airliners -- will know where the other airplanes are, even without help from ATC. UAVs will be controlled by ATC, just like the airliners and the military. We no more need to get rid of Class E airspace because of UAVs than because of airlines.
Although in the current political climate anything is possible. Shouldn't you need a clearance to drive on the freeway? A multi-ton chunk of metal travelling a 75 mph is a huge and deadly amount of energy, and elementary safety requires the government know exactly where every car is. Or do you have something to hide?
Unlimited growth == Cancer.
Ah, but if you've been paying attention the past few years, the FAA and the major airlines seem hellbent on removing general aviation from the US altogether (closing non-airline airports, insisting on implementing per request fees for ATC, trying to ground all aircraft built before the last few decades. And don't get me started on the stupidity of every major city wanting a Washington D.C. style Air Defense Identificaton Zone). I suspect having nothing flying anywhere near the ground except governemnt controled drones would suit them just fine.
What's more likely is that they'll swiss-cheese the airspace with temporary flight restrictions (TFRs) around areas where the drones operate. Presumably they could become so numerous as to make private flight planning a bit difficult.Or they'll just make private flying illegal.
Obviously, it is you who doesn't get it.
/. tradition but you are obviously confused as to what the metaphors meaning is. On top of that, your analogy is crap.
9
It is a metaphor, not an analogy. I know that analogies are
We have been told that the enemy hates freedom. That, they don't want us to be free. Yet, you've also been told that in order to protect you from the enemy, they have to take away "some" of your freedom. Do you see the circle here? According to that logic, those who are in favor of taking away some freedom in order to gain safety, have actually given the enemy some of what it wants.
Freedom _does_ take sacrifice. The real question is:
Are you willing to sacrifice a bit of your safety for freedom?
I am.
Just as many are so willing to sacrifice other peoples lives for a false sense of security vis a vis Iraq, they should be ready to sacrifice a bit of _their_own_ safety for the real freedom of themselves, their families and their fellow citizens.
Get some balls people.
If being free means that the odds of me being killed in a terrorist attack goes from 1 in 300,000,000 to 1 in 200,000,000 (which are immensely conservative odds I'm giving here*)- I'm ready to make that sacrifice. Why? Becase being free is what this place is (was) all about.
[*] - Odds of a U.S. resident being killed by terrorists in a shopping mall, in the coming year, assuming the person spends two hours a week in malls and assuming terrorists destroy one mall (and everyone in it) each week
1 in 1,500,000
Assuming the terrorists destroyed one mall each month, the odds would climb to 1 in 6,000,000. This also assumes the total destruction of the entire mall; if that unlikely event didn't occur, the odds would become even more favorable.
http://www.aei-brookings.org/policy/page.php?id=1
Here is another saying for you, one that might be easier for you to grasp.
"I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!"
YAY!! Americans are attacking their own freedom! What need is there for Al-Qaeda to even exist when the same hatred and aggression that the US has shown the world over is now in the process of engulfing itself, with the beauty of it being that it is very happily supported by it's own population. The dumb fucks deserve it too.
I say, "Bring'em on!", can hardly wait till MY county orders a few. Gives a whole new meaning to "domestic" terrorism. Duuuh, Beer and Football anyone? Sit back, relax, and enjoy the American dream.
You know, in some cultures there is an undertone to teachings that when one villifies and harms others, one ultimately harms themselves.
- "They looked like controlled demolitions"...but what is the basis for comparison? How many people repeating this line have ever witnessed or even seen video of an *uncontrolled* demolition of a skyscraper--other than the WTC buildings? In other words the visual similarity is TRUE, however it is not necessarily UNEXPECTED. ALL demolitions of tall buildings will look similar, regardless of how they are initiated. Even if you blow out one side first, the building won't tip over like a coat rack. Remove support and the mass being supported falls--straight down.
n ter_Site_After_9-11_Attacks_With_Original_Building _Locations.jpg
- The buildings did not fall neatly into their footprints. Look at this picture:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:World_Trade_Ce
- There were thousands of people in the buildings that day. The first attack took place around 9am--after many people had arrived at work. In fact the estimate is that at least 10,000 people were in WTC 1 and 2 when the first plane hit. They had arrived by subway, walking, cab, and driving--some had parked in the garage. They proceeded through the building that morning as normal. After the first hit, most of them evacuated safely--almost everyone below the point of impact in both buildings. YET not one of them has come forward with stories of seeing the building pillars in the parking garage wrapped with drums and det wire. No one had stories of elaborately laid wire harnesses throughout the floors of the building. Not that morning or any morning previous.
Wiring a building for controlled demolition is not a quick thing. It takes a long time to load in the explosives and wire it all up safely and reliably. And it's not something easily hidden. It's hard to bring down buildings like the WTC-- a big truck bomb won't do it. You have to distribute a lot of explosive around a lot of the support structure and set it all off in just the right sequence. It would probably be impossible to hide, especially in a building like the WTC towers, where the outer shell carries so much of the weight.
Yes, the firefighters heard noises that sounded like explosions. But I'm not interested in hearsay--I want to hear from the people who eye-witnessed demolition charges and equipment set that morning. Until then I'm not buying it.
Build a man a fire, he's warm for one night. Set him on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.
No steel framed buildings have EVER collapsed due to fire before 9/11 even though much fiercer and hotter fires have occurred within them.
Not true. I doubt you heard of it, but in 1993 the tennis hall of SALK, a large tennis club in Stockholm, was destroyed in a fire. The hall collapses because the steel frame that span the roof is softened by the fire. The frame, which was curved in a semi-circular fashion, bends near the ground, exactly where you would expect from your solid mechanics course (if you took one).
Just because you never saw it before it doesn't mean it has never happened before.
> What more do you need?
The ability to steer, a dimwit for president with a need to invade some other guy's country, two towers in New York, and the will to do it.
I know they had something like this in Orwelles 1984, I guess it just took us a little longer.
At this point, Bush should probably just go for broke and insert RFIDs into everyone scalp. I don't think he's gong to stop until this is implimented. So go for it. Hopefully we'll have sufficient liberal backlash to bring the country back into line with reality. At this rate we'll surpass most police states in a decade. I'm not exactly a liberal or a conservative, but this stuff is getting out of hand.
As a foreigner, I am likely not the only one hoping your rights will be continue to be taken away until there is open revolt and enough violence that you can straighten your shit out.
Frankly, I hope most of you Christian right-wing assholes die in the process. Conservativism is fine, but that anti-sex, pro-war, anti-'thinking for yourselves' attitude has got to go.
You don't care about corruption at home (e.g. Florida vote rigging), you don't care about inaction at home (e.g. New Orleans), you don't care that you have a completely insane attitude to firearms (everybody should have one (which the rest of the world sees as ludicrous)
;-)
.22 I've only ever used for target practice. In fact, I've never taken a single shot at anything that was alive, and I prob
While I do agree with your sentiments for the most part, I just wanted to clarify something for you...
Because I DO care about "corruption at home" is the reason everyone should have the right to bear arms. I'm not advocating civil war or anything, but when it really comes down to it and when the shit really hits the fan, an armed society may be the only way to remove said corruption.
There's a famous American saying, which I'll paraphrase for you:
"In times of trouble, there are three boxes one can use- the soap box, the ballot box, and the ammo box- use in that order."
I'm no rabid NRA fan, but I understand that this is the exact reason the Founding Fathers wrote into the Constitution the "Right to Bear Arms".
Any strategist, (be they political, military, or religious) knows that to defeat a political movement, an enemy invader, or a native populace (say for example, German Jews) you remove their tools. The FBI silenced the Weather Underground, The Church burned its detractors (and many loyalists, too) alive, and the Nazis disallowed the owning of weapons by the Jews. This is the first step to destroying your opposition.
If and when the Neocon-agenda succeeds in removing our right to peacably assemble, to carry arms, when the presses fall silent except for "approved" literature, when Haebeous Corpus is suspended, and I no longer have the right to petition my government for redress---
YOU are going to want us to have those guns, I guarantee it. The present Administration would like us to believe "democracy is contagious", while they would like us to forget that CORRUPTION IS CONTAGIOUS, too.
That Neocon-agenda I mentioned earlier? There are some among us who are paying attention who feel that those days may have already come- that we are so mired in corruption, deceit, betrayal, and TREASON, (remember that part in the Presidential Pledge of Office about "upholding and protecting the Constitution"?) that the fetid stink of it all wafts from the top of the Capitol Dome all the way down to every city council and county board in the land.
It's hard to pick out that stink sometimes- it's so interspersed with the filth of corporate corruption in this nation that it's become nigh impossible to discern one from the other- for indeed they are both the same.
Don't begrudge me my guns- someday you may want me to pass one to you- you may "aim to misbehave" as they say.
I love America, (for all it's horrible, evil, and destructive history) and I believe in the American Dream and the American ideal that is written into the Constitution- that the beautiful language and ideals on those parchments stand for something, something unique and special, something that all men can aspire to.
The way the Neocons have sold my beloved nation away makes me want to cry- each and every day I read of the Fed reaching it's hands further and further into peoples homes, bank accounts, family life, credit history, etc. Common People just want to be free- the Neoncons just want Common People to be slaves.
TO BEGRUDGE US OUR GUNS IS THE LAST STEP TOWARDS MAKING US ALL SLAVES.
I know this sounds melodramatic, but in reality, this view is NOT: insanity, paranoia, conjecture, theory, conspiracy, or conspiracy theory- this is simply the history of mankind- of all groups who sought to control another.
So if you don't want the right to carry arms, fine. I realize most people don't- in fact, the only firearm I own is one given to me as a young man- a small, single-shot
I'm quite impressed with this Slashdot article, not because of TFA, nor because of its content.
But I am surprised how many of you realize the problems that your society is having (Yes, I am adressing US citizens). We, in Europe, often speak about those issues of freedom being taken away in the name of a so-called War on Terror, and we see the same roots of the problem, being the media providing bread-and-games distraction, partial/idealistic education and other things.
But, I have come to realize, we unfairly generalize the US citizens, as if all of you didn't realize what's going on. But then, I see stuff like Sorry Everybody, and I am reminded that lots of you don't like the system either. And most of the comments on this article (which have been modded up) express an understanding of what is going wrong.
People - you have to do something!. I am not in the position to be lecturing you (since I am but a 19-year-old German student), but I wonder how come that so many of you see the problems, and yet Nothing Ever Happens. I wonder if it is because there's no way for the "extraparliamentary opposition" (read up on the German one) to express itself, or because there simply is no movement which unites people who feel like you do, and like I do, too. What I see is a great potential for protest, but only in places like Slashdot does it become aparent.
There really is no important bottom line to this. It's what I perceive and what I wonder about.
Let's be careful that we don't overstate this issue. Saying unmanned reconnaisance is unconstitutional is not accurate. There is no difference constitutionally between manned aircraft and unmanned.
The angst here is against the Bush administration's policies, not unmanned drones.
Arguing the wrong point weakens the real discussion.
An important change for education.
I love how anyone making a point like this on the other side, for instance:
Democrats, since when are you spineless, cut-and-run dogs who hate democracy (of all things)?
is instantly "offtopiced" into oblivion.
BTW, I don't necessarily agree with either of those points. I personally have a much more positive view of the situation in Iraq than most here. It is always crappy when people are dying. Just remember that fewer are dying now than under Saddam, and those that live may actually end up with a decent country. The amazing thing is the sacrifice the all-volunteer US military is making for what it believes in.
War has never solved anything...except fascism, tyranny, oppression, slavery, and genocide. Think about it.
Apparently taking over somebody's homeland will piss some people off. Who knew?
How exactly is increased surveillance when you are in a public place an infringement on your personal freedoms?
Are you joking? OK, one example off the top of my head. There are plenty more.
You are in an unfamiliar neighborhood. You pull over and waive someone down and ask for directions. He comes up to your car and you ask him for directions to the hotel. He points and gives you directions and you drive off.
That man later turns out to be a terrorist or drug dealer.
Now, thanks to ubiquitous surveilance, you are on videotape associating with a terrorist. This information can and will be taken out of context and used against you if, say you ever run for office or are accused of a minor crime.
UAVs are something we're going to have to get used to. Up next: pilotless passenger planes. Most modern aircraft are already equipped with auto-takeoff, auto-pilot (cruise), and auto-land. What more do you need? The ability to control them from the ground? That's being worked on for security reasons.
That's a terrible idea, especially if you think it will improve security. Quite the opposite. All you need is one terrorist hacker to break into the system and grab control. Then instead of an attack by four planes you have every plane in the air becoming a weapon and/or target at the same time.
In theory, there's no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is.
It's getting awfully crowded in my sky...
"-Heat shielding doesn't stand up too well to an exploding airplane."
strange then, how the buidings didnt collapse right away (while they were still on fire) but long after the fires had been put out.
Strange also that we can see in pictures and films that books & loose papers survived in these same rooms where exploding airplanes melted through heat-shielded support structures.
What a shame that all the rubble was immediately carted away & melted down before any investigation could be (or was allowed to be) started. We may never know.
every time 100 people die in an airplane crash the NTSB spends 2 years hunting down every last nut & bolt & peicing it all back together, even if they have to go scuba diving to get it. thousands die when 2 airplanes crash into buildings right in the middle of manhattan & not the slightest thought is given about examining the wreckage.
Odd isnt it?
American society despises intelligence, despises reason, despises logic. Is it any wonder when we laud and fawn over our sports "heroes" and entertainment "stars"? When more people vote for the next "American Idol" than vote for the person in charge of the entire nuclear arsenal of the United States (and then get a former coke addict and alcholic), we geeks realize there is something wrong. However, no matter what we say or inform our supposed non-geek peers about this and other issues, we are looked at with derision, with contempt. How dare we say they are wrong! How dare we upset the curve, once again!
Ultimately, the problems we see, the problems we know can and will grow larger, if only we controlled or eliminated them today (and they go way beyond mere societal issues), are all small and insignificant on the radars of the larger American society. For there to be any great change, the problems need to affect way more of the population, beyond just us little piss-ants of geekdom. Unfortunately, we geeks also know, given the technology and controls now in the hands of the controllers, that even if the problems become huge and unwieldy - so big as to drive stakes through the hearts, minds, and lives of the greater society - that ultimately there might not be a way out except through gross and sheer death. Millions of deaths. Those that die will be suicides, or worse.
I think I hear the trains pulling into the station - do you hear them...?
Reason is the Path to God - Anon
I agree. I'm not pleased with the prospect that the Zionists and the Christian-fundies are turning the U.S. into a damned police state just like they have in the Shit-hole(y) Land.
Israel does not have the Bill of Rights. It does have borders completely surrounded by hostile neighbors, including daily rocket attacks and suicide bombs, many originating within its territory.
Israel has boarders? Where are they, exactly?
Israel has lots of unamerican "problems", like a state religion and the draft. We don't want those things here.
Lets put a simple list together:
1) Administrative detention without charge or trial.
2) Turture of prisoners
3) Racial segragation (in that the Israeli Arabs have extreme difficulty buying land throughout most if Israel)
4) Inhumane treatment of detainees.
Funny, with the exception of #3, these problems are starting to look less and less unamerican.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
You have the right to revolt; just not necessarily the guarantee of success.
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
It seems to me that stating that the West Bank is part of Israel is about like saying Iraq is part of the US. The problem in both areas is that Iraqis are not American citizens, and Palestinians are not citizens of Israel. The same held true, for example, regarding Eastern Europe under the Communists.
The other issue is one of illegal annexation which I have not addressed in my posts. Current international humanitarian law strictly forbids military conquest as a way of making one's country bigger. In this view, the settlement blocks are illegal and all of them (outside the green line) ought to be removed.
I have stated elsewhere that the Palestinians have a legitimate right to fight back against this occupation and the illegal annexation of their land by the Israeli settlements. While I do not think that this right extends to, say, blowing up a bus in Haifa, I do think that settlers are probably fair and legitimate targets and certainly nobody can argue that with attacks aimed solely at the IDF.
Middle Eastern politics is a mess (and getting worse) and it is sad because we have some real opportunities here. We could (and should, IMO) offer a security guarantee to both Syria and Iran on the condition that they do not fund attacks on the civilian populace within Israel's Green Line (the '49 borders). We should make it clear that we will look the other way when attacks are made against targets in Golan, Gaza, and the West Bank, but will rescind this guarantee if they do not cut off funding to Hizbullah in the event that they send some of their rockets towards, say, Haifa. This might help keep them from meddling in Iraq, and might provide some real pressure that could be exerted on both the Israelis and Palestinians to keep things more civil.
WRT American civil liberties, I fully agree, BTW.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP