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."
At major events in Israel, they already use unmanned blimps to monitor it from a distance. If they can keep it out of commericial airspace, it shouldn't be a problem.
Now you won't be considered paranoid if you believe there are black helicopters outside your window observing your every move. It might be true!
Woe oh woe... how will we tell the real lunies from the fake ones, if they really ARE watching you?
It's a bird!! It's a plane!!! No, it's a UAV!!!
So now the government will be able to look right in our windows and see what we are doing most of the time. And thus it'll only be a small step to microchipping us all. Whee. I for one welcome our new governmental overlords.
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
hail skynet.
MORTAR COMBAT!
But what happens when lots of relatively dumb drones have to share airspace with aircraft carrying passengers? Hilarity ensues...
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?
The imagery brought to mind by this makes me think of a handicapped dude in a Pontiac Aztek...or, uh, something.
Procrastination -- because good things come to those who wait.
some how the bush admin using the phrase "more effective monitoring of United States territory" does not make me feel all warm and fuzzy. since the major advantage to uavs is they dont risk troop in warzones i dont really see the benefits for domestic surveillance. probably useful for boarder patrol i supose.
before they hand these drones over to the Ministry of Truth.
This reminds me of the scene in "They Live" where the protaganist finds some sunglasses that lets him see through the hypnotic haze created by the "capitalist" aliens and and finds there's this little UFO shaped thing following him around with a camera trained on him -- which he then blows away with a shotgun.
Seastead this.
I dare all US gun owner citizens to targetting practice on them... otherwise maybe they'll find the WMD not found in Iraq.
According to the Weekly Piracy Report there are UAVs watching our oceans, so what makes you think they're not already watching us too?
Me lost me cookie at the disco.
Big, Bushy, Brother is watching
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.
Hmm, you know fuel prices are high when the unmarked black helicopters have been replaced with unmarked black blimps :-).
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
But can they run Linux?
Screw the rules, I have green hair!
It's time to wrap my umbrella in tinfoil and use it every day. At least it's more comfortable than the tinfoil hat.
Developers: We can use your help.
How high do these things fly above ground ? Are then within rifle range ? :) Skeet shooting could take on a whole new perspective!
-Billco, Fnarg.com
*cough* border patrol *cough*
Yeah now you have a big giant projectile flying towards the ground which could land on someone's house. Not to mention whenever you miss you will have a hail of buckshot flying randomly away. I really hope this was a joke. Also, I have only heard of a Predator Drone being shot down once and that was with an RPG. So I don't even think you would be able to shoot them down in the first place.
Ooo man the floppy drive is broken. No wait. The computer is just upside down.
Every fucking time I turn around another police outfit from Bumblefuck, U.S.A. has bought itself a shiny new toy with my "homeland security" tax dollars. (Add your least favorite story about the new SWAT team in a county with three homocides a year, an armored car for a town of 50K people, etc.) And because there usually aren't any terrorists anywhere near them, these knuckledraggers end up figuring out a way to chase the usual crowd of inbred drunks around town with it.
I'd mod this post up.
Unmaned blimps are far more fuel efficient than unmaned planes. Plus they can stay airborne for more time. Why don't they use blimps all along ?
Because you can't reroute blimps to get a closer look at something very easily.
Funny this article gets posted while I'm in the middle of writing a proposal for follow-on funding on my research into UAV control algorithms...
Endurance is a concern. Collision avoidance is a concern. But UAVs offer incredible surveillance opportunities that stationary sensors just can't match.
I could go on and on but I need to get back to writing my UAV proposal. 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.
GMD
watch this
OK guys. The government is literally, unabashedly making automated drones for domestic surveilance....it's like hey guys, here are some neat robots we're going to use to spy on you with. This is literally, undeniably, frighteningly Orwellian.
Of course, journalists must be up in arms over this, right? Yes! Finally, our free press is holding our government accountable!
Oh wait. No.
"That raises not just privacy concerns," but [ insert a whole screenful of blather about how the FAA might have trouble "integrating" these drones into their flight paths. ]
Next we'll be seeing articles about how digital media companies are rushing to produce products that cut back on that pesky echo in your phones due to all the government wiretaps. "It raises not just privacy concerns, but audio fidelity ones as well!"
I always scoffed when people claimed that Half-Life 2 was "so realistic". Well bugger me, they weren't wrong - just early.
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
I wonder if monotoring drug trafficing is the main intended use. I guess I really don't mind it. It's just another tool. How could a drone be misused in a way that any other survelance tool can't be?
The Surveillance States of CAMerica.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
um, just checking... do they look anything like this?
Ooo man the floppy drive is broken. No wait. The computer is just upside down.
While the whole big brother fear crowd CAN get out of hand - THIS is reason to be concrned, especially if it gets out of hand (and a history lesson might teach you a thing or two about it almost always doing so) - I don't want to be watched. If I got nothing to hide, they don't have any reason to watch me. PERIOD... sheeple.... baaa baaaaaaaah!
If you believe in privacy, and believe you have "nothing to hide" at the same time, you're a goddammed idiot
You must give up freedom to protect freedom. That is, unless you hate freedom. How did this happen to my country in 6 years? How the fuck.
I hate sigs.
The rednecks can finally shoot at something else other than their cars!
PULL!
My karma makes buddha cry.
Would these be the same "Drones" that carry Air to Surface Missiles?
Like we use in Afganistan and Iraq?
But we might need a court order to load live rounds, right?
This may be how the Republicans plan on winning this next election:
They can link the electronic voting booths to these "unarmed" drones.
"Press here to vote against Bush" (Swish, Boom) "Next voter please"
I am the unwilling control for my Origin.
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
Thing is.... the drones in Dark Angel were ARMED, so not only for surveillance, but "enforcement" (aka assassinations). I guess Bush won't be announcing that part of the program too soon...
World Trade Center building 7 fell in exactly the same exactly symmetrical way as WTC 1 and 2, and it was NOT hit by an airplane. ALL the collapses looked like controlled demolitions. See the news footage in the movie Loose Change. It is a work in progress, but already very informative.
Why is there always one of these?
Okay, I'll preface this by saying that I'm a leftist, and hate the Bush administration as much as anyone, but there WERE NO FUCKING EXPLOSIVES IN THE TOWERS.
They fell like controlled demolitions because controlled demolitions are implosions. What do you think happens when you heat and soften the trusses on an exoskelital building?
(I'll tell you because you obviously don't know.) The trusses sag and fail causing the outside, load bearing members buckle without their lateral stabilization, the top falls, and the whole thing comes crashing inward.
It's the fire, not the impact that caused the real damage, and if I remember rightly number seven was heavily fire damaged as well. Next time try a little science before breaking out the crackpot conspiricy theories please. There are plenty of legitimate reasons to hate the Bush administration that don't make you look like a nut.
Congress Passes Anti-Crowbar Legislation
There are a lot of posts on here screaming "Orwellian" and such, but suppose these drones don't make it into the mainstream. How long until the resolution and capture speed improves on satellites to the point of making these drones unnecessary?
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
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Hey, don't mind me if I accidentally shoot one down. I'm sure it will be just a mistake, and not on purpose at all. No way would I do that, 'cause I like being spied on.
hello dear sirs my name is jamesh i are india (bihar) can u guide me install red had linux 9?
Most of the airspace below 12500 feet in north america is class X (dont remember X), where you can fly around anywhere without a previously declared plan. You need a mode C transponder, but youre free to fly VFR. Thats reflective of the freedom provided to you. Certain regions, cities, airports etc are more restricted, but the default piece of ground is this VFR class.
Looks like this class might be eliminated completely to allow drones to fly around anywhere. Which means a general aviation airplane will have to always file a flightplan and possibly remain on IFR, except on airport approaches, where they can request a VFR type approach. Flying will never be the same.
Its easy to sell this to the general public. "We dont want to let anyone fly just anywhere" and "we could use the extra security" and "War against terrorism" whatever that means. But somewhere in the future Americans will realize what they lost.
"Give orange me give eat orange me eat orange give me eat orange give me you." -Nim Chimpsky
Maybe we'll survey him and people like him out of their jobs. How about that?
"It is our choices, Harry, that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities." -- Prof. Dumbledore
Imagine a Beowulf clust... Oh. Maybe not.
In other words, to SPY on United States citizens... Tell me, how long until some guy begins walking up to all of us asking: "YOUR PapEERS PLLeese?!"
Of course, since UAV communications are though an open standard, you could always try to hook in yourself. Then you can see what 'big brother' is looking at.
This is the TCS specification. Used in the U.S.
This is the NATO standard, a bit newer.
Of course, people should use VPN or similar, but it isn't required.
totalitarian with a cushy 'land of the free feel' to it. Either way you look at it the values that Americans hold close to their hearts are being eaten away as they sit idly by.
As another poster so aptly put, most Americans are perfectly content if they have their servings of - Football, Mountain Dew, MTV, American Idol, etc..... Sad, but true. Wake up Americans, you've been given the date rape drug and you're currently getting a$$-raped by the government you elected. Sigh.
Freedom over. Police state = very yes.
Keep your eyes to the sky.
At first glance on my RSS reader, I thought I read that unmanned drones are going to be used to enforce DRM. MS.RIAA.MPAA.gov
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.
I'll be taking a huge karmic hit here, but... I have a strong distrust of privacy rights.
I've played games of chance, and I've played games of perfect information, like Chess and Go.
Maybe it's just because I can't bluff, but it always seemed to me that games of perfect information were fairer.
When I buy a car, I want to know if it's a lemon. When I vote for a candidate, I want to know their voting history. When I use a piece of software, I want to know how it works.
When I go outside, certainly I'd prefer no one knew where I was or what I was doing, but I believe ethics are meaningless unless they are universalizable. There's no reason I should be able to hide details about myself while the used car dealer cannot.
As someone who is innately curious about the world, I embrace disclosure and transparency. I just as much prefer everything to be out in the open.
UAV's don't have to weigh 14 lb's to get the job done. I fly a Parkzone F-27 Stryker. It only weighs 21 oz.
I've flown it plenty of times with a cheapo swann 2.4 ghz wireless camera on board. It's made of foam, and it's a pusher (prop in back) so in the even it does hit somebody, they're not going to be chopped to pieces from a propeller.
With the assistance of a friend holding a pringles cantenna, i've gotten plenty of range for the video.
Of course, we're not talking common sense here, we're talking the military, and anything that isn't bullet proof, costs 10x what it should cost, and doesn't have some degree of danger will never be acceptable for them.
Personally, i'm not too worried about UAV's flying overhead. I'm more scared of cops that are jack booted thugs beating up on innocent people.
... as they soon will be replaced by the drones anyway. Problem solved.
I'm looking forward to second generation automated flight and cars.
un burrito me trampeó.
How fitting a "relatively dumb drone" is sanctioning the use of relatively dumb drones.
I would have no problem with this (and would actually think this is a good thing) if all imagery data from these UAVs were made accessible to the tax-paying public. As David Brin discussed in The Transparent Society, increasing surveillance can actually improve society and make people/government more accountable, but only if such surveillance is two-sided.
I am a licensed pilot, and I am worried about the risk of a midair collision. I would not want to be flying (either private or commercial) in the vicinity of one of these UAVs.
Unmanned aerial drones will complement nicely the mindless drones in Congress who approve of this stab in the back to democracy.
It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
Not once the hackers get into them and fly them into ... dare I say the "wrong" targets.
Besides, why should I cry, I'm invested in Boeing! I suggest building large nets of fine wire to catch them in midair. That way they will have to build more.
No point praying. It isn't doing anyone any good.
No steel framed buildings have EVER collapsed due to fire before 9/11 even though much fiercer and hotter fires have occurred within them.
Here's a link to respected scientist Dr Steven Jones paper on his doubts. http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.ht ml
Simple physics tells us the melting point of steel is 1100-1600C and a kerosene fire can go up to 600C with good oxygen flow. Why did the ( heat shielded) steel buckle? No warping of the buildings structure was observable before collapse.
spoonerize "magic trackpad"
Do the drones have Mind Control, and could this be the Real Reason for the recent screw-up over confusing an overgrown village airfield with a national airport?
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Did anyone bother to even read TFA? Here's the first paragraph:
A House of Representatives panel on Wednesday heard testimony from police agencies that envision using UAVs for everything from border security to domestic surveillance high above American cities. Private companies also hope to use UAVs for tasks such as aerial photography and pipeline monitoring.
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.
*sigh* Typical slashdot.
As soon as Bushworshipping Republicans roll over for unmanned drone spying over the US, Bush will stick RFIDs up our asses. Literally.
--
make install -not war
Full disclosure up front -- I am an AOPA member.
The issue with UAVs from a pilot's point of view (OK, THIS pilots pov) is mostly one of safety. One of the AOPA articles referenced noted the creation of a TFR, which is a flight-restricted zone of the national airspace. (TFR stands for 'Temporary Flight Restriction')
If a TFR is created, it is the responsibility of the pilot to determine its existence before venturing into that airspace. This is burdensome, but is not difficult. Literally hundreds of resources are available online and via the phone to help pilots plan flights.
For me it isn't a big deal to fire up the computer and check to see if anything is going on that might make for an overly adventursome day in the sky. (I live 100 miles from DC so it is also a way of life for pilots here.) Older pilots, however, have great difficulty adjusting to these TFRs.
Most non-pilots have absolutely no idea how unregulated the vast majority of our airspace is. For example, there is no requirement whatsoever for a personal flight conducted in good weather (VFR) to communicate with air traffic control unless the aircraft ventures into the airspace near a busy airport or flies above 17999 feet. Hell, you are not even required to HAVE a radio or transponder to fly into most of our airports. If you have such equipment (and most planes do) you still don't have to use it unless the specifics of the situation demand it. (Another disclaimer - I do not believe that minimum adherence to the rules results in the safest possible flying conditions. In other words, if you've got a freakin' radio, use it.)
The idea that some podunk police department in NC (not far from where I live!) could have one of these things cruising around at 1000 ft or more is absolutely frightening. Even if I make the required inquiries about how to safely conduct my flight, a non-FAA-regulated aircraft could ruin my day in a hurry, and the podunk police department in question would almost certainly bear no legal liability for my demise since they were operating their UAV in compliance with established law. To their credit, the podunk police department agreed to operate their drones according to the requirements for model aircraft (below 400 ft). This is below the minimum altitude for safe, legal operations unless going that low for reasons necessary for the safe conduct of the flight, i.e. taking off or landing.
On the larger, more philosophical question of whether unmanned spy vehicles should be welcome over our homes, I tend to think the answer is NO. On whether information about all such activities should be made as readily available to pilots as the weather forecast, the answer is undoubtedly yes. And that means national coordination, and that means the FAA.
Got no mod points but I agree with you 100%. It's also slightly scary to post this kind of thing round here as you know you're going to battered for it.
I can't comprehend how this has happened so quickly and feel so sad for what's been lost.
spoonerize "magic trackpad"
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.
As an outsider looking in to the US, I am amazed how you were so quick to try to impeach a president for lying about where wiley jr. was hiding but not one interpreting your constitution and law to suit his handlers' needs.
The guy is making the whole world hate Americans more (as if that was possible)and stripping your civil rights daily.
I thought you guys got angry when you get screwed.
I guess TV, iPODs and pr0n distractions are just to great.
Well I guess I'll have to post my comments as ANON in case the Shrub feels like liberating my country.
Obama's legacy: (N)othing (S)ecure (A)nywhere and (T)error (S)imulation (A)dministration
except getting your rights systematically striped away. I can't believe this is happening - no wait, I can. I hate to get a little of topic, but with movies like "V for Vendetta" people will start to think about revolution, and with this sort of technology mounting, it will not be hard to supress a small uprising (that could be good or bad) from turning into a nationwide revolution (which I think we need, but thats really quite besides the point).
Don't all of our cell phones now have GPS transmitters in them? I guess now they will have video to go along with the satellite imagery and personal lojack systems that we all carry.
It's starting to sound like a Judas Priest song.
When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.
Can you bring these things down with birdshot? I foresee a lot more bird hunting. Too bad it'll be tough on the birds. They can't outlaw Cheney's own sport.
"with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton
Hopefully they'll cross the border into Canada so we can take target practice on them. Skeet shooting anyone?
I hope they can see well enough to get a good up close view of my middle finger. I'll even isolate it for them to make it easier.
Shouldn't be a problem for who?
Are they armed? How long until they are?
Black helicopters, anyone?
"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
one can hope.. but no really are these unmaned drones robots or remote controlled? If they are remotely controlled, can they be hacked? If so what would a hacker do with a fleet of unmaned drones?
Only 'flamers' flame!
Does slashdot hate my posts?
Though at first the idea of being watched in your own country seems unsettling at first, maybe these UAVs could help Google Earth's picture database? Sure it's a long-shot, and I'm probably only saying this because my house/neighborhood is in low-res, but c'mon, that might be cool, right?
Life is rarely fair. Cherish the moments when there is a right answer.
I mean, I think it's great that we're using UAVs to monitor these rowdy crowds, but I think we really ought to follow what we did in a Iraq and Afghanistan and make sure the UAVs are armed with air to ground missiles as well. After all, when those crowds start getting out of control, you don't want to risk putting actual police in danger. I like to call it push button crowd control.
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.
What needs to happen for us to wake up?
Red pill man, red pill.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I had hoped once that I would join a local nudist colony just for one weekend. But now that Big Brother is flying overhead, I think I would fancy shooting down any UAV that spies on my bare ass. Perverts!
The Rapture is NOT an exit strategy.
"Go! Protest! It's bad for you!"
"Why is it bad?"
Because! Now go! Protest!"
"OK"
'Causing mayhem' is entirely incorrect, if it is not for the right reasons. What the G8 and World Bank do may well be 'bad'. Or it may not be. But do the 'useful fools' who are protesting really know? I doubt it.
Streetsweepers pretending they're smart. God I despise these lazy little men playing make believe with the taxpayers money.
You're right. Technology is a tool that can be used for both good and evil. Surveillance is something that can be used for both good and evil. However, early Americans believed (from history, I imagine) that is most cases it will be used mostly for evil, thereby increasing the risk vs the benefits that it may be used for good. If it were the other way around, it would be more than fine to disarm the public (because the government will protect us), allow the police to install cameras in all homes as a requirement (it will only be used to good purposes), and so forth. Early on people decided that the best government is one that you do not trust, so that the your trust cannot be abused. Hence, we have various checks and balances in our system, including a right to privacy from others and the government. If there is a need to violate that right, a warrant will be issued, which is perfectly legal.
Also, he wasn't giving those as examples of why UAV surveillance is evil. He was giving them as examples as to why nobody will stand up to the government if they believe that UAV domestic serveillance is evil. One of the reasons peaceful protests are a thing of the past are because people are quite ignorant. You just helped that point along. Read his statement carefully. Heh, and I'm not even for OR against this as I haven't looked it up. This pertains more to your response to his response.
As an outsider looking in to the US, I am amazed how you were so quick to try to impeach a president for lying about where wiley jr. was hiding but not one interpreting your constitution and law to suit his handlers' needs.
Could you elaborate on how aircraft surveillance is unconstitutional or against the law? The Supreme Court's ruled in Florida v. Riley that a warrant isn't needed to observe property from public airspace.
-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.)
I wish I had mod points to give ya cause I'd gladly hand some out.
How many fulltime jobs can one man have?
Whoa...a drunk gets a +5 insightful. What is this, Fark?
tasks(723) drafts(105) languages(484) examples(29106)
Make the drones so they can be consumed by jet engines and let nature take its course.
As a little kid I actually tried put this myth to the test it worked flawlessly.
Reading the wikipedia entry, it is far from clear to me (who is not a lawyer, btw) that these sorts of drones would be constitutional based on this ruling. The entry says:
Any member of the public could legally have been flying over Riley's property in a helicopter at the altitude of 400 feet and could have observed Riley's greenhouse. The police officer did no more.
The entry also notes that the police officer observed the marijuana with his naked eyes, and makes reference to reasonable expectation of privacy. So at least superficially, this seems to me to be quite different than, eg, a drone with a powerful telescopic lense on it to observer people's faces, as many posts here seem to imply might want to be done with these drones. (Obviously, certain applications would not require this.)
Perhaps, but what sort of engineer? It was my first thought when they came down.
Why did the ( heat shielded) steel buckle?
The "heat shielding" was knocked off the steel by the impact, reducing its effectiveness, and the fire went on for some time. Both of these would promote heating of the steel.
With all due respect to your physics prof (why do we always that before...) the metal doesn't have to melt before it loses stiffness, and buckles. His point seems to be around molten metal at the base of ruins. I don't know what that really has to do with the collapse.
.. paranoid crackpot leftover from the days of Amiga.
We had a chem/uav unit attached to my scout squadron while i was in the Army. In three years, they crashed four of them. They were completely destroyed. It wasn't always due to pilot error either. Just slightly bad conditions.... like a little wind. In one situation one crashed on this abandoned AF base we were using for urban training... one of our officers was about 100-200 meters from where it crashed... it took out a bunch of a glass in the building in front of it, shrapnel, and whatnot... big mess.
... the government surveilles --
HEY WAIT A MINUTE
Web 2.0 == Giant Blogspam Circle Jerk
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.
So are they using these UAV's?
k s/u.a.v..shtml
http://www.gateworld.net/omnipedia/technology/lin
SCIREV.NET - fanfics,reviews & more
I agree with the sentiment that this whole plan infringes most grievously upon our freedoms, however, this comment is a more than a little asine:
But what happens when lots of relatively dumb drones have to share airspace with aircraft carrying passengers?
UAVs are unmanned in the sense that there is no pilot aboard the aircraft itself. NOT in the sense that they're flying around up there on autopilot, oblivious to other air traffic. A UAV is operated by a trained pilot on the ground. I don't know about these civilian jobbies, but the military ones have radar and IFF transponders so that the pilots can see other aircraft in the area and, just as importantly, other aircraft can see the UAV.
Summary of differences between normal aircraft and UAV:
- UAVs cost far less (no need for a cockpit)
- Pilot avoids hazards normally associated with flying, most of them involving gravity
All I saw you responding with was an almost verbatim repitition of a NOVA story on the subject of the rafters being the cause of the building failure. A theory that has since been realized to be faulty in many ways, by such 'radical crazies' as, FEMA, and the NIST. For instance, the NOVA video shows nothing of the 47 steel pillars in the center of the building. The pillars are completly left out of the video(actually its a computer animation, you shouldnt be using that as 'evidence' to begin with).
Also, as a result of simply repeating what you have been told(thats science to you?), you seem to be missing the obvious point you are making about the buildings collapse. In one statement, you claim that the exoskeleton of the WTC towers is what supported all the weight(false, 47 center pier pillars did), and when the trusses on those failed, the whole building collapsed. And not a few sentences later, you use fire damage to explain the collapse of WT7. Yet that building was not what you claim to be an 'exoskeleton' framed building.
There are enough questions, and enough contradictory explanations in my mind to warrant further inspection of the conjecture that the US government actually was involved in this, or is at the very least involved in not telling the whole truth. And when you come to argue the point of such questions by demanding science, and then simply repeating a story you heard someone else tell you upon which you did no further investigation on, hardly gives me the impression that you are aware of what science actually is.
Perhaps before you approach different ideas with a condescending attitude of 'lets try science' you should be aware exactly what science is. Dont believe me? Tell you what, you research what I said, and I will research what you said. Although, it may be hard doing research on some of your facts presented, as one of the sources is said to have been 'if I remember correctly'.
Simple physics tells us the melting point of steel is 1100-1600C and a kerosene fire can go up to 600C with good oxygen flow.
And yet for centuries man alloyed and shaped steel by the heat of fires they themselves created--of materials that all burn at a lot less than 1100C.
In other words, there is more to understanding heat than simply looking up the burning temperature of various substances.
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.
I for one welcome our new robot overlords.
Well I'm not an attorney, but I wanted to get the ball rolling in a direction of analysis of the topic the (un)constitutionality of blanket eavesdropping. They might have a precident allowing aerial photos of the country but that is by no means a precident in favor of ubiquitous police awareness.
I loosely observed 3 potential defenses against blanket eavesdropping: 1 defense from antistalking laws, and 2 defenses from the constitution. I believe each of the defenses provides SOME degree of coverage against sweeping aerial police eavesdropping.
The fourth amendment provides that the government needs to have probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describe the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. In this case what those drones could do would be to search EVERYTHING without a warrant. They could look into windows, back yards, cars, etc. I'm personally GLAD we have our fine police officers on patrol, but that doesn't mean I want them examining every aspect of my life and/or building databases on the populace. No thanks. And I don't see much difference between that and the drones.
The Eighth amendment specifies that some rights exist, and are protected by the constitution/bill of rights, EVEN THOUGH THEY ARE NOT SPELLED OUT. The eighth amendment is the sort of broad protection which could be used to explain why police state evesdropping powers are unconstitutional. I say that because the degree of abuse from ubiqutious surveilance c/would be staggaring. I believe that much eavesdropping is PRECISELY the sort of unforeseen "discretionary right" that the framers had in mind when they added the eighth amendment.
The law(s) against stalking ? I don't know much about them, but basically their existance means that it's not only unconstitutional (for a cop) to follow a person around and search them without warrants or probably cause, it's also illegal.
OK? I hope that helps. It's good to know about that supreme court case. Can you share any of the details?
PS
IDK why they modded my first post down. It is a reasonable post.
"Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us." -Jesus Christ The Lord's Prayer
So what downed WC7, which was not hit by a plane? And why did it fall in the same way as the towers?
damaged by dogma
Are they employing Cyberdyne Systems Corporation with the contract to build these things?
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.
Obviously fires on the 7th and 12th floors. At that, only sections of those floors, not evenly spread throughout the entire floor, would make a 47 floor steel structure fall symmectrically, in less than 10 seconds. Obviously there is no other explanation. :) cheers.
Power corrupts. Absolute power...is even more fun.
Blue states do pay the most in taxes and red states take the most. Another fun fact: remember the anti-gay marriage hoopla that swept through the red states a couple years ago, under the guise of "protection of marriage"? Except that red states have the worst divorce rates, while blue states have the best. In fact, the state with the best divorce rate is Massachusetts, which started the wingnuts on their crusade in the first place.
Goodbye, karma (if anyone reads this, that is):
I mean, honestly? What's the difference between this and a helicopter? Why are slashdotters so paranoid over this?
In every major demonstration, car chase, manhunt, police action, etc. helicopters with searchlights, cameras, etc. are called in for observation. These can be used to target trouble makers in a demonstration (anarchists, a la Seattle), hunt down a vehicle fleeing from a crime scene, felons escaping from prison, etc. Not to mention the media's own helicopters.
In my opinion, what we're looking at is essentially a helicopter that costs a hell of a lot less, requires much less upkeep, has a longer loiter time, and doesn't put the lives of any crew at risk (powerlines, nutjobs that try to shoot at them while escaping, etc.). Lots of benefits, no real loss of "privacy" than previously existed under helicopters.
If there's a story here, it's the question of UAVs sharing civilian airspace. Now that's a concern. As far as the surveillance goes, I see little difference between what is already expected and legitimate.
Why not remote control cars, too? We could change traffic rules to give priority to robot police cars, which could observe us, too.
It's a clear violation of airspace safety in which the pilot is ALWAYS reponsible for avoiding other aircraft. It's the most basic rule you learn when you become a pilot, and it's what every examiner checks for before each maneuver during the practical exam. Unfortunately, the engineers designing these things aren't pilots or air traffic controllers and have no idea how our airspace works. (They work fine in Iraq, but that's a war zone with no civilian aviation.) Apparently engineers do know how to weasel our tax dollars to fund their overpriced remote control toys.
If AI was smart enough to fly an airplane, why aren't they flying airliners? They'd be way cheaper than pilots. If there's no pilot, there's no see-and-avoid. When a camera can see and process as quickly as a human, then it might work, but before then, the only way to do this is to not allow them to fly anywhere near humans fly.
There's currently no FAA-approved technology to relieve a pilot of her duty to see and avoid other aircraft whether or not the AC is on an IFR flight plan. Next time you're on an airliner, listen to the channel with the pilots talking to TRACON or CENTER. There's a lot of human interaction.
In the late seventies, CIA funding changed from human intelligence gathering to satellite intelligence gathering. We can see every place in the world and pick up all their signals, but we still couldn't tell India was testing an Atomic bomb. With all the billions of dollars spent on overhead technology, we still haven't found Osama. Now the people selling the things tell us how similar technology will solve our crime problem...
- "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.
It's a multifaceted problem, and no solution is readily available.
The way I see it, the problem is by design. It's well known that there's been a lot of "media consolidation" over the past few decades, so that the major outlets are controlled in the hands of a few corporations (e.g. Clearchannel).
John Taylor Gatto tells us in his books & presentations that the government's schools were set up to provide workers for industry. Before government schools, the American dream was an independant livelihood. After government schools, the expectation shifted to finding employment with a good company with good benefits.
The problem is that the same group of people are behind both efforts. Is it really so odd to propose that a small, dedicated group of families has been steadily concentrating wealth in their own pockets for centuries?
Furthermore, why is it that the same group of rotten scoundrels install themselves in government? George H. W. Bush was in the CIA at least as far back as the 60's. Head of the CIA, Vice President for 8 years, president for another 4.
Donald Rumsfeld was in the Nixon, Ford & Reagan administrations, according to Wikipedia. He even got his picture taken with Saddam Hussein back in 1983. Now he's secretary of defense. Dick Cheney was Secretary of Defense under Papa Bush, and before that he got himself elected as representative from Wyoming.
I'm sure there are more examples. The problem, as I see it, is that the same rotten bastards keep getting recycled through the political system. Watch for the keywords: Project for the New American Century, Bilderburg Group, Trilateral Commission, Council on Foreign Relations, etc... And that's not even mentioning the more secretive enclaves. See The Controllers: Secret Rulers of the World for a timeline of the consolidation of power over the last 100+ years.
What's more, anytime this sort of observation comes up, the masses have been conditioned to just snicker and dismiss the messenger as a "conspiracy theorist". But how do said masses know that there is no conspiracy? They don't "know", but social conditioning has implanted a nearly impervious belief.
Expose the so-called "illuminati" and their plots, and the problem will begin to go away.
Learn the rules so you know how to break them properly.
www.teslabox.com
The Global Hawk has had approval to fly in US airspace for a couple years now and it is flown over the US quite often. Same thing with other manned surveillance aircraft. Where do you think they test those radars?? Also, I believe the Predator (or other UAVs) was used in New Orleans after Katrina for recon. Why didn't anyone bitch then?
So no one is on the plane...that doesn't seem much different to me than having a manned aircraft fly around and watch what you are doing. Highway patrols have been doing this for years catching speeders.
Mooooooooooving to Canada.
They might have a precident allowing aerial photos of the country but that is by no means a precident in favor of ubiquitous police awareness.
I'd certainly be opposed to ubiquitous awareness, especially if such awareness wasn't accompanied by a similar ability of the populace to keep tabs on police activity. However, it isn't ubiquitous awareness which is being proposed, but awareness of areas visible from public areas. In effect, it's just like the awareness provided by satellites, but with higher spatial and temporal resolution.
The fourth amendment provides that the government needs to have probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describe the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. In this case what those drones could do would be to search EVERYTHING without a warrant.
If I understand the Florida v. Riley ruling correctly, the whole point is that aerial observation doesn't constitute a search, just as watching somebody from the top of a building doesn't constitute a search.
The Eighth amendment specifies that some rights exist, and are protected by the constitution/bill of rights, EVEN THOUGH THEY ARE NOT SPELLED OUT.
Oh yes, certainly. I'm of a libertarian slant, and tend to defend my rights rather rabidly. However, I'm still not clear on what this hypothetical right you're referring to is. The right to not be observed by people in public places?
I'm personally GLAD we have our fine police officers on patrol, but that doesn't mean I want them examining every aspect of my life and/or building databases on the populace.
I support the right of individuals to engage in such activity (particularly when it's targetted towards politicians). Since police officers are also individuals, it's difficult for me to think of a solid reason to deny them that right.
The law(s) against stalking ? I don't know much about them, but basically their existance means that it's not only unconstitutional (for a cop) to follow a person around and search them without warrants or probably cause, it's also illegal.
Hm... I'm actually not familiar with such laws myself. If anyone else has further insight, I'd love to see it.
IDK why they modded my first post down. It is a reasonable post.
Who knows... mods are crazy.
The entry also notes that the police officer observed the marijuana with his naked eyes, and makes reference to reasonable expectation of privacy. So at least superficially, this seems to me to be quite different than, eg, a drone with a powerful telescopic lense on it to observer people's faces, as many posts here seem to imply might want to be done with these drones.
Could you elaborate on what makes it different, besides a matter of degree? What if the marijuana were spotted by a telescopic lens on an unmanned satellite?
laser pointers
-- I have a private email server in my basement.
They didn't even have SWAT teams back then. There were several critical occasions on which cops backed off in confrontations (the Black Panthers, Stonewall, big demonstrations). Today, they'd bring in SWAT, bring out the armored personnel carriers, use the rubber bullets, arrest everyone, identify them all, sort out the ringleaders, and over time, prosecute everyone involved.
A team of well-qualified experts including one from Controlled Demolition supplied data and insight for an (IMHO strident) article about the WTC collapses. The current leading theory is erosion of safety margin when structural steel was weakened by prolonged fire, followed by increased stresses from thermal expansion.
Notice that since the jet fuel burned out after about ten minutes, the temperature of a kerosene fire is irrelevant.
WTC 7 was on fire after structural damage from falling objects, and was well past its design tolerances because the design case assumed that there would be living firefighters to control any blaze that got started.
We don't see the world as it is, we see it as we are.
-- Anais Nin
Well, you show me the people that had access to the wreckage afterwards, and who inspected it, and what they inspected it for. Put simply, if someone HAD inspected it, we wouldnt be talking about 'theories' of what caused the building to collapse. We would be looking at their emperical data and argueing over that.
Such things take rather a lot of setup to pull off
I guess it would be an advantage if your brother was a principal memeber of the board for the company that provided electronic security to the WTC towers...
But hey, why shouldnt I trust a government? Its not like they never lied about things before
I can't remember were I read it, guess it was slashdot... but
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200501/clarke
did mentioned UAVs to conduct reconnaissance in the United States, and it also described how well it (and all coming patriot acts) protected America against, well, against whom?
"People who are willing to sacrifice essential freedoms for security deserve neither freedom nor security."
B F
>However, it isn't ubiquitous awareness which is being proposed, but awareness of ...
>areas visible from public areas. In effect, it's just like the awareness provided
>by satellites, but with higher spatial and temporal resolution.
>If I understand the Florida v. Riley ruling correctly, the whole point is that
>aerial observation doesn't constitute a search, just as watching somebody from the
>top of a building doesn't constitute a search.
Well there must be a reasonable delineation, and the technological feasability/proposal of these aerial drones makes that clear. The drones are going to be equipped with ?high resolution? cameras, and able to fly/change direction and position of focus, and zoom in/out. For heaven's sake, if a cop were doing such a thing with a helecopter and a zoom lense it would be a crime. Doing it with a drone should not receive any more leniency than that. And the fact that drones are more available only exacerbates the impact of the first claim.
>However, I'm still not clear on what this hypothetical right you're referring
>to is. The right to not be observed by people in public places?
The "hypothetical right" is that (unless warrants are issued) people have the right to live their lives free from "ubiquitous/heavy scrutiny". According to that hypothetical right, there is no agent who is/should be capable of pulling in EVERY DETAIL of someone's LIFE and (without warrant) making a complete documentary of it. Yet the drones could make such possibilities into reality. The drones could look into every car window, every apartment window, every house/back yard...Everything.
>I support the right of individuals to engage in such activity (particularly when
>it's targetted towards politicians). Since police officers are also individuals,
>it's difficult for me to think of a solid reason to deny them that right.
I agree that it is important to boost public accessibility to records which make available the behavior of public officials. In particular, conflicts of interest should be visible so that people can identify clear cases of abuse.
Anyhow, I suppose it is important to distinguish, between an "off duty cop" with his freedom-loving "civilian cap" on, and an "on duty" cop, who's job is to catch crooks, but is also sworn to uphold and respect the constitution of the United States of America.
"Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us." -Jesus Christ The Lord's Prayer
Ever saw a burned down building with the steel structure contorted in every direction ? Well i have a news for you, LONG before melting point , metal soften up and stop supporting as much strength. Why is this so hard to understand ? Ever thougth why blacksmith heat up metal before hammering it ? I've got a news for you it is to soften up and form it.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
I really agree with the AOPA on this one. Keeping them out of "commercial", or controlled airspace isn't really going to do the trick, since most private flight takes place outside of controlled airspace too (except for business jets etc). Collision avoidance in uncontrolled airspace is 100% the responsibility of the pilot.
The question is, what happens when there is no pilot? Who will be at fault if there is an incident where one of these things cause a plane to crash? The "advantage" they have in being hard to notice is hardly an advantage for us...
I guess I'm lucky I don't live in the states, that is until our government promptly follows suit, as they often do..
Nyhetsankaret.com -- det bÃsta av Sveriges Nyhetssido
What will happen in the future? since technology progresses rapidly, how impossible is to replace police with UAVs? with a small progress in AI, UAVs can patrol neighbourhoods and immediately deal with thefts, drugs, smoking a cigarette, wearing a t-shirt with 'legalize it' logo, rapping in a corner, saying the word 'bitch' etc.
For heaven's sake, if a cop were doing such a thing with a helecopter and a zoom lense it would be a crime.
Is it a crime? Granted, I may be naive in this area, but I don't think it should be illegal for a person to make use of a helicopter and zoom lens simultaneously, even if they happen to be a police officer.
The "hypothetical right" is that (unless warrants are issued) people have the right to live their lives free from "ubiquitous/heavy scrutiny".
Even if they're a celebrity or a politician? IMHO, it should be permissible to place politicians under an extreme amount of scrutiny.
According to that hypothetical right, there is no agent who is/should be capable of pulling in EVERY DETAIL of someone's LIFE and (without warrant) making a complete documentary of it.
Every detail which is visible from a public place.
Yet the drones could make such possibilities into reality. The drones could look into every car window, every apartment window, every house/back yard...Everything.
As can any human police officer, or any private citizen. The difference is simply a matter of degree.
I should probably mention that I'm a supporter of sousveillance, bottom-up surveillance of those in authority.
Anyhow, I suppose it is important to distinguish, between an "off duty cop" with his freedom-loving "civilian cap" on, and an "on duty" cop, who's job is to catch crooks, but is also sworn to uphold and respect the constitution of the United States of America.
If an off-duty cop observes something, is s/he allowed to act on that information when they're back on-duty?
One of my main contentions is that I can't see any way to effectively place restriction on police surveillance in public areas which wouldn't also put unreasonable restrictions on the sorts of observations private citizens are allowed to engage in.
Now all my rants about black helecopters will be modified insightful. It's another notch on the old belt - yessir!
Oh it's a hap-hap-happy dayyyyy......
Now if only my tinfoil hat dreams could come true.
Whatever else the invasions in Iraq and Afghanistan were, they were undeniably not illegal.
I'm less clear on the Afghanistan front, but the gov't there was officially harboring the group which killed ~3,000 civilians on our soil, etc.
As for Iraq, that is easy. The USA has been in the region since '91-ish, which if you recall, was when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait and was making eyes at Saudi Arabia next. Iraq was the military powerhouse in that section of the world, and no one there had the military might to stop Iraq. That's where the USA came in. Saddam surrendered and signed a peace treaty, the violation of which legally allows the USA to continue the previous war as though it had never ended. If you watched the news during the early '90s, you most assuredly saw near-constant reports of missiles fired at our patrolling planes, etc., in violation of said treaty.
Sure, maybe the given reasons for the Iraq invasion were a mistake, intelligence failure, lie, whatever... but whatever else the Iraq invasion is, it is most certainly not illegal.
Obviously this character has never heard of TCAS (Traffic alert and Collision Avoidance System) - no wonder there's so many prangs in US air space. Oh but hang on, TCAS was allegedly developed by the FAA!
What additional rules should affect pilotless UAV's (ie: not remote controlled planes, often termed SUAV's):
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))
.50 caliber BMG sniper rifle inasmuch as long-barreled rifled muskets were top-of-the-line firearm technology of that time. Yes, even though there has been much infringing of it going on, the second amendment to the US Constitution states that "the people", individuals, which are all members of the militia (even still, according to current-day US law) have a God-given right to own and carry any and all arms without restriction. For clarification, an "arm" is a term meaning "man-portable weapon", so this does not appear to give individuals the right for howitzers or Abrams tanks, but does mean they can own a fully automatic M-16, AK-47, 40mm grenade launcher, etc. Don't like it? Don't worry - you don't live here.
"America" really doesn't much care about what the rest of the world thinks. We have our culture, and it suits us just fine, thank you. Some of us still remember that the average Joe at the time of our country's founding owned the modern-day equivalent of a
Sadly, many of your other points are fairly accurate. It all stems from the decline of personal responsibility, in my opinion.
Senator McCarthy? Is that you?
Have you left no decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?
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.
"But what happens when lots of relatively dumb drones have to share airspace with aircraft carrying passengers?"
the same thing that happens when relatively dumb presidents have to share groundspace with citizens: they clash
The MAFIAA is a bunch of mindless jerks who will be the first up against the wall when the revolution comes
Given that companies actually use Google to assess sollicitants and employees, I'd rather worry about the pervassiveness of the Web over some robot drone flying over our heads.
If anything, these days, there's no such thing as privacy. And you can't blame just the current administration for that.
Hey, drones are cool! Remember Terminator Part I?
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.
Let's get back on topic here, the Orwellian overtones in this thread are becoming slightly overdone.
What's being proposed here is hardly a new thing. South Africa was one of the pioneers in this, and the SA Air Force has been operating the Seeker UAV in civilian areas for over a decade now. In fact, the Seeker was the first UAV to be cleared for operations in controlled airspace, with the creation of a set of rules and requirements that are only beginning to be explored by most countries now. So long as the requirements are met, it is just as safe to fly a UAV in controlled and civilian airspace as it is to fly ordinary manned aircraft. Don't believe the "but they'll crash into passenger planes" balderdash.
Secondly, this is hardly an Orwellian undertaking. It's no more sinister than police helicopters, or the border patrol aircraft that fly along the border. In fact, these UAVs will fulfill essentially the same role, it'll just be cheaper. So this is NOT the same as wiretapping, searching library records and whatnot, at least not unless you're one of those who regard even police helicopters as sinister...
I'd even go so far as to say the deployment of UAVs in a police capacity can reduce the often stifling police presence at some public gatherings. For example, during S.Africa's inaugural democratic elections in 1994 the Seeker system was deployed around the country to keep an eye on polling stations, and to spot violence breaking out (as it did back then). Police could then be directed in to the specific area they were needed, instead of just having thousands of cops inefficiently trying to blanket the area.
So I really don't see anything wrong with this at all, considering I've seen for myself how such a system has been implemented and operated. All these UAVs will do is replicate an existing capability while making it cheaper to do so. Surely that's a good thing, considering it means the government actually saves money for once?
Finally a good idea. It's no longer if your not with us your against us. No this politic can turn potentialy much more effective Vote for Bush or we give you our latest aerial cover, homing in on your cellphone. oh and BTW check the anarchist cook book for a cracking guide on those drowns.
I know you're out there. I can feel you now. I know that you're afraid. You're afraid of us. You're afraid of change.
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.
Ooo man the floppy drive is broken. No wait. The computer is just upside down.
....and here's why:
Immigration Law - it's the hot button/diversionary tactic vote grabber for the 2006 mid-terms.
Gay marriages - that was the 2004 hot button/diversionary tactic.
Iraq's WMDs - 2002 hot button/diversionary tactic.
Need I go on? Simplistic generalisation I know, but basically with each successive elections since GWB was supposedly elected, the GOP have tightened their grip on power thanks to fearmongering and divisive issues. Why would they stop using a successful tactic this time around?
Watch for Iran to be hit shortly as well, probably with "precision" strikes using nuclear weapons, the second time the US will have used them (no other country has ever USED their nuclear weapons). It has to be done in the next couple of months because after that the Iranian oil bourse will likely be fully operational and the mid-terms will be too close to jeopardise with a new, dragged out war.
America's ONLY potential saving grace is that her citizens are armed to the teeth. Not to defend from outward aggression, but to defend the Constitution against domestic enemies who wish to destroy its principles.
Sadly many will die before your Constitution is restored....
Visceral Psyche Films
Did i just timewarp into Nazi Germany or something?
---- Booth was a patriot ----
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
"Won't the weapons come in handy when rebelling? In fact, isn't that the reason the right to bear arms is constitutionally protected, so that the people will be able to overthrow their government?"
Right.. then (mostly) badly trained cilivilians can fight the militairy while being bombed and the enemy has tanks, thats going to work. Even if they win there is a good chance the rebelion will fall apart into smaller groups that just fight eachother. (like often seen in africa)
Meanwhile, before the rebellion, thousands are dying accidentally because monkeys have the right to bear arms.
As guns for personal defense.. doubt many people can keep their guard up all day, and will be cought off guard when they need the gun. (i know, parent post ichigo didnt say anything about that, needed to be added)
If the WTC-collapse was indeed some sort of conspiracy, why make it so obvious? Had I been in charge, I would have made sure that the collapse of the buildins would be as chaotic and "messy" as possible. Last thing I would do is to make them look "clean". If you do that, you have bunch of lunatics running around shouting "conspiracy! It was a controlled demolition!". And that would be the last thing I wanted.
Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
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.
...richie - It is a good day to code.
Next you will be telling us that Homeland Security is tracking people with GPS enabled cell phones to know where they are!
Ahh, I feel much freer now knowing that there will be cameras watching my every move.
The skies watch you!
Religion is the opium of the people. Evolution is the opium of scientists.
This sounds a lot like "Brave New World"
PS, that was a joke.
PPS, the fact the "free west" is turning into a fascist police state is chillingly far from a joke. I recommened anyone to read (dont watch) V for Vendetta. It throws conceits of security vs. freedom into stark releif.
(1.21 gigawatts) / (88 miles per hour) = 30 757 874 newtons
If they required, for example, that all the UAVs have streaming video to the internet, or that TV Channels 300-400 or whatever were dedicated to broadcasting the video from these planes, we could keep tabs on government surveillance. Plus, we could see all the crazy shit our neighbors were doing. I would watch that all the time.
Imagine the screen savers...
Google: "All your data are belong to us."
To be entirely accurate they denied it when it was a suspicion, and flaunted it when it was shown to be fact.
"Security" doesn't make it all OK of course. It wasn't as if the framers of the US Constitution were unfamiliar with this argument; the proof is this:
Stepping back a bit from technicalities of what applies in what situation, the basic philosophy is clear: the government is given the power to pursue the legitimate ends of a government, but is subject to restrictions, tests and limitations which prevent it from using these powers to its own ends. It's a very moderate philosophy, and it's a courageous one, one that believes that reason can accomodate any practical need without sacrificing principle. "Conservatives" and "Liberals" alike would do well heed this.
So, to answer your rhetorical quesiton, obviously no, "Security" doesn't make anything the government does reasonable. However, there is another word that does. Try this one on for size.
Accountability.
So, you need to tap domestic phone calls because of "security". Well, without accountabiliy, how does anybody know that's really why? How does anybody know what you do with the data you collect? FISA seems like a very reasonable compromise, much in line with the basic philosophy of the framers.
The same applies to the Patriot Act. If you actually study it's provisions, it doesn't really fix the problems that lead to our failure to stop the 9/11 attack. However, assuming those problems are fixed, what the Patriot Act does is provide the government with powers to react quickly in a "ticking timebomb" scenario. And as by in large these are things that the government would probably try to do anyway under a documented and imminent threat, it's potentially a very good thing to have these powers spelled out explicitly. HOWEVER, the big fault of the Patriot Act is that it has no provisions for accountability. It just gives the executive branch powers and does not lay out how the branch will be monitored, limited or the consequences of abusin its new powers.
Lack of accountability is dangerous because the prevailing judicial philosophy with respect to powers granted is this: once a power is granted for one purpose, it is granted for any purpose, even purposes contrary to the intent the power was given. The best examples of this are copyrights and patents. Congress was clearly given the power to establish these things in order to promote scientific and cultural development. However, it is under the current philosophy free to use it to create a fundamental, perpetual, extra-constitutional right to intellectual property, so long as the laws it passes have a certain form (e.g. "forever" is not allowed, but 1000 years would be).
So, in principle, I have no fundamental problem with UAV's being used for domestic recon, given that we are doing domestic recon we might as well choose the most convenient and cost effective method. However, without specifications, restrictions, and above all documentation which is reviewed by a trusted party, I think it's a bad thing. Not because surveillance is bad, but because unlimited government power is bad.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Two words: Big Brother. Any one else see the future of freedom being reduced?
[%] Cingular Ringtones
I am going to puke if I hear this "Post 9/11 Society" crap too much more...wtf.
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.
Time to break out some old Public Enimey tapes, Watch some X Files, and good ol tin foil hat.
Sounds good but can the average citizen get his hands on anti-tank and anti-aircraft weaponry?
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
What do you think happens when you heat and soften the trusses on an exoskelital building? (I'll tell you because you obviously don't know.) The trusses sag and fail causing the outside, load bearing members buckle without their lateral stabilization, the top falls, and the whole thing comes crashing inward.
Since this is something that you claim to "know", perhaps you could point to one other example of a fire causing a building to collapse in such a fashion.
And if this never happened anywhere else ever, you might want to ask why it happened three times on 9/11.
That's awesome, just like in HL2! Machines are going to be flying around taking pictures of us, how cool is that.
No need to make it illegal. Just screen out jurors who would invoke jury nullification. It's common practice for judges and lawyers to, during the jury selection process, ask things like "Will you decide on the instructions of the judge?". While this sounds legit (because the judge is on the side of individual liberty, right? right?), it actually allows them to "instruct" them to decide a certain way. For example, telling a jury you must convict on a charge of drug possession if there is evidence (which there would be), but quell attempts at jury nullification if one believes mere possession of an object with no unlawful actions against another isn't a crime.
For one, (using Canadian flight legal code, aka the TC AIM, I quote: section reference
This is the relevant excert from the Canadian code, and I'm fairly sure the US has a similar section. That being said, lightining meeting these requirements makes almost anything extremely visible at night. (the technical requirement for light intensity requires them to be visible from at least several miles away. Same brightness as for those jet's you can watch go overhead at 30'000 feet or more away...) On the same token, those lights do almost nothing during daytime (and in fact, don't need to be on during day time either).
So we end up with a situation where they are extremely visible during night time (so no covert surveillance at night when most crime and stuff happens anyway), and still remain invisible enough during daytime to pose a serious threat to air traffic.
It should also be noted that, while flying objects stand out really well against the sky, small flying objects (and I'm including things as big as large geese at more than 30' distance, or large aircraft at a mile or more) are quite hard to see against the ground.
Net summary: At night they are extremely visible to everyone. During daytime they are extremely visible to anyone on the ground, and well-nigh invisible to anyone in flight.
We have problems enough with recreational pilots flying those paragliders and small A/C, let alone unguided things that are even smaller. Thus we need the relevant aviation authorities to take a firm hand on these things and keep them where they belong: At very low altitudes. As in under 500', and preferably a very long way outside any aproach/departure path where a/c routinely fly below 500'.
/. luddiets due to the lack of support/enthousiasm for tech projects such as this. I disagree with that assessement. We're not luddites, we're advocates of the NIOBY (Not In Our Back Yard) theory. I like the technology, but I don't want to run into it (litterally or figuratively). Same probably applies to almost everything else surveillance related. I like the tech, but I hate the applications being made with it.
Oh, and someone above called the people of
Oh, and many pilots consider auto-pilots to be the bane of the industry: Not only do they reduce the need for pilots, but they render the plane less safe, since the pilot is no longer actively involved in the flight of the a/c, thus more readily distracted by others in the plane, or whatnot. Ideally it would giving the pilot the chance to focus on his surrounding instead of on the mechanics of flight, but this rarely happens. And lastly, as has been mentioned, how many airports come equiped with the high-precision landing guidance systems required for those things? very, very few. Not even all the international caliber airports have them, although many do. And we *really* don't want those things taking up airspace there.
Z
I read up on the Gestapo in Wikipedia recently and was surprised that it was (in sheer numbers of people devoted to task types) mainly an overworked, understaffed bureacracy trying to sift through mountaints of evidence of treason given to it by outsiders.
The key feature was that a law was passed exempting it from judicial oversight. All the famous horrors seem to be able to be traced back to that law, and to have been committed by an extremely small percentage of the staff, most of whom were law-abiding, patriotic desk-workers.
It sounded strangely familiar. But I'm pretty sure I never learned that in school.
The idea of winning a war on terrorism is ridiculous. Terrorism is a tactic. It may be a desparate and unreliable tactic; but it is indeed a tactic. Any people will resort to terrorism should preferred methods for achieving their goals fail. I like to think (I would in fact hope) that if the U.S. were invaded and our government fell, that we would also engage in terrorism against our invaders.
Understand that I'm not trying to justify or defend the "insurgents" in Iraq, or the Taliban or any other of these current terrorist groups. I'm simply saying that you can't defeat terrorism any more than you can defeat war itself. They are means to ends, processes, not individual targets.
Hot Damn! It's the Soggy Bottom Boys!
Were used throughout the middle ages in both Asia and Europe. You don't think knights were wearing cast iron do you? The use of steel in Japanese swords dates back at least 500 years from today, for example.
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.
Jeezum crow! The pilots association is worried? What happens to the airspace? These are the wrong freaking concerns! These are the wrong freaking questions! Or at least they're questions about practical things which should be a little further down the list of priorities right now. Concerns that totally ignore the far far more disturbing fact that the government would like to spy upon and menace citizens and dissenters using any and all available means. Trees, meet forest!
Nothing comes of the president's revelations about illegal wiretapping. Nothing comes of revelations about external prisons and detention camps. Nothing comes of any of this crap! David Cross was right, what does this guy have to do, eat a Jewish baby on live tv or something? My fellow americans, I'd like ot talk with you about civil rights and the constitution... rrarrr...MMM...that's good Jew baby...
I guess this is what is meant by "We've earned political capital in this election and I intend to spend it." Spending political capital means running the whole bloody country straight into the bowels of hell, apparently. I feel like I'm taking crazy pills!
yes. that's all I'm going to say in all comments from now on.
There was a NASA program called something like ACCESS5 which in part was supposed to study the impact of UAVs operating in the National Air Space. I think it went south last budget though.
On the other hand, Global Hawk flight plans can now be filed just exactly like those for any other aircraft.
TFR == Temporary Flight Restriction, a short-term restriction on flight in a specified area.
VFR == Visual Flight Rules. Flying by looking out the window rather than using instruments to maintain separation from terrain and other aircraft.
ADIZ == Air Defense Identification Zone. Airspace which is prohibited to aircraft who have not obtained prior authorization. In theory, violators will be shot down.
Part 121 traffic. Dunno.
Part 135 traffic. Dunno.
Class B airspace. Dunno.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
The Predator is armed with 2 Hellfire missiles.
The Global Hawk is between the size of a large attack craft (F-111 or so?) or small commercial airliner. While it goes nowhere near Mach, it can go anywhere on the globe (one way) on a tank of gas. The article has no mention of its weaponry, but its big, so do the math. No pilot to feel any remorse in the next blitzkrieg...
Yow! I'm supposed to have a plan?
"Note: Officially, Israel has no state religion or established church. A few personal status laws, in particular regarding marriage and divorce, are governed by state-recognized Jewish, Muslim, Christian, and Druze authorities. As the Jewish state, however, its de facto state religion is Judaism."
-- Wikipedia
"Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
My brother was doing some welding in a new strip mall in the L.A. area about ten years ago, and noted that it being built with wood timbers. When he asked about it, the contractor told him that wood beams that were properly treated would take longer to break during a fire than it would take for a steel beam to deform and fall.
This is obviously anecdotal and third hand; but it also isn't the first time I've heard that.
Hot Damn! It's the Soggy Bottom Boys!
Thus, WC7 goes down in history as the only tall steel structured building to ever collapse from a fire. Hmm. Guess I'm just a little more inquisitive than most.
damaged by dogma
Guys,
I live a bit out of Chicago, and I have seen on 3 separate occations UAVs flying overhead. Specifically near the Lewis University Airport in Romeoville. I know it sounds crazy, but 8 weeks ago when I saw the first one in early evening I told everyone. It was flying at an altitude of 500 to 800ft and was clearly a UAV. Take it or leave it.. Because I have seen this 3 times, my guess is that it is taking off from Lewis University airport. Each sighting was from the Weber/I55 area with the first being right next to Lewis.
First let me say that if this is something controversial enough that it might go to the supreme court, there is no way I am not going to be capable of arguing convincingly that it is unconstitutional. I am just suggesting that in my layman's opinion based on this wikipedia article, there appear to be important differences.
1) The Florida Supreme Court ruled this was an illegal search. So the sort of activity in FL vs Riley would seem to be almost be an illegal search, even though it wasn't. This tells me we need to look at the SCOTUS decision carefully.
2) The wiki article states: The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Florida Supreme Court with a four-vote plurality, arguing that the accused did not have a reasonable expectation that the greenhouse was protected from aerial view. So this search was legal because Riley did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy that was violated by the police helicopter. So then we have to ask: why was his reasonable expectation of privace not violated?
3) Wiki now quotes the supreme court decision as Any member of the public could legally have been flying over Riley's property in a helicopter at the altitude of 400 feet and could have observed Riley's greenhouse. The police officer did no more. So I (naively) take this to mean that if other people could not have also flown over his greenhouse and observed his marijuana, then his privacy would have been violated.
4) However, the SCOTUS seems to place an even stronger requirement for the search to be legal. Again, wiki quotes them as: As far as this record reveals, no intimate details connected with the use of the home or curtilage were observed, and there was no undue noise, no wind, no dust, or threat of injury. In these circumstances, there was no violation of the Fourth Amendment. So if the search had also observed 'intimate details connected with the use of the home" (whatever that means, exactly), then seeming it would have been illegal.
5) So I claim first that because a spy plane with a powerful camera on it may very well violate the standard set in (3). In particular, if the sort of technology required for such a camera is very expensive and as a practical matter only available to law enforcement. So this would mean that if I am in my greenhouse, and a spyplane takes a picture of my face, this has violated my reasonable expectation of privacy because there is no way that an ordinary citizen could have observed the same things that the spy plane observed. Perhaps my reasonable expectation of privace would have been violated even if only the marijuana had been seen, but from an altitude too high for a normal citizen to have seen it from a plane (ie, space). The possiblity of this seems to be supported by O'Conner's dissent, which wiki quotes as stating: [I]t is not conclusive to observe, as the plurality does, that "[a]ny member of the public could legally have been flying over Riley's property in a helicopter at the altitude of 400 feet and could have observed Riley's greenhouse." Nor is it conclusive that police helicopters may often fly at 400 feet. If the public rarely, if ever, travels overhead at such altitudes, the observation cannot be said to be from a vantage point generally used by the public and Riley cannot be said to have "knowingly expose[d]" his greenhouse to public view.
6) Further, I claim that even if a spyplane or satelite doesn't violate (3), it would still be very limited by the standard in (4) so that the blanket statement that a warrant is not needed to observe property from the air is too vague to be completely true.
So I guess that the difference is just a matter of degree, but to me, it looks like degree is everything.
Intelligence of the craft doesn't seem to be the problem half as much as sensing what is out there. A UAV uses GPS to tell it where it is, but that doesn't tell it about anything else. That information needs to be shared among all aircraft.
So to take over the plan, you crack the pilot, or crack the command channel.
It would be interesting to do a rigorous security analysis of the 2 options.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
Aircraft that are rated for ILS Cat-IIIa/b/c approaches can autoland with flare and rollout. The only thing that the pilot needs to do is pull the throttles over the numbers, and the plane will flare, settle to the runway, and rollout with autobraking (provided that brakes are armed). Cat-IIIc approaches are zero/zero - no decision height and down to zero visibility.
A Cat-III-rated aircraft has multiple, redundant autopilots, at least two of which must be functional and locked in to autoland. There are crosswind limitations, but your example (30KTS at 35 from centerline) is a headwind component of 24KTS and 17KTS crosswind component, both of which are within (for instance) the Cat-III autoland restrictions for the 747 (25KT headwind, 25KT crosswind).
At 3 A.M. you can see people's auras; at five you can see their contrails...
Sure, people might complain about this technology when it is being used "to catch terrorists" or something like that... but all they have to do is give it some politically correct spin, say it is "to catch polluters who are destroying our enviornemnt", or tell people "we will use these over parks and playgrounds to track pedophiles", or "to monitor buisnesses so we can collect taxes and support our social welfare system"... or simply that these things will "aid in urban planning"... and the same people who protest the Patriot Act or whatever will gladly accept these things.
In the same way people who supposedly support free speech can be convinced to support government censorship by selling it as "banning hate speech", or "campaign finance reform", or some other politically correct cause... in a couple years, when they are able to find some kid who fell down a well with a UAV, all of you will be screaming and holloring that only "cold blooded conservatives" would be against these "public services".
In the same way people won't shop at Walmart because "it is a big multinational corporation that irresponsibly makes cheap consumer items overseas, and sells them in big box stores that undermine local buisnesses, and pays it's workers low wages, etc., etc.", have no problem shopping at Ikea (which does the same thing), because Ikea is much better and managing it's image... all of you will support Big Brother once they are able to figure out how to sexy it up.
And in 20 years, our children will learn in public schools about the "horrible dark ages" and "terrible oppression" before mass government survalence programs.
Does anyone else feel a little uneasy about using drones to monitor citizens? On one hand, they are just another tool that can be used by police and other agencies to do a job. They are probably a lot safer and cheaper than putting a pilot and an officer in an airplane and an aerial view is a great way to get "the big picture." In many ways this is less intrusive than using a larger police presence on the ground and is really no less unsettling than pole mounted cameras. I understand all of this and acknowledge that people in public really have no right to privacy. Used properly, these tools appear perfectly legitimate for public safety use.
My concern is that in a very real sense, these things are spy planes. If a police agency is going to search your property, they need probable cause and must usually obtain a search warrant. These are protections afforded to citizens to protect them against unreasonable searches and seizures. Our forefathers understood that a strong government can easily become an oppressive government and built in this mechanism to limit their powers. It helps to protect us from having our government become a police state while still providing the government with enough authority to do the work they need to do to keep society safe. Courts have previously held that police do not need warrants to use aircraft to observe a property (mostly because the airspace above a property is not owned). One would have to assume that these unmanned craft would also not require search warrants.
Aircraft fly a few hundred feet off of the ground, the unmanned craft can fly much lower and slower, some of them are helicopter like and can hover. It is conceivable that they could fly below treetop level. Using powerful optics they could look in windows. Using infrared cameras they could see through walls. They could even deliver acoustic sensors that could listen to people's conversations, monitor traffic and so on. This is a slippery slope, one that I doubt has been tested by the courts.
Using the technology to get bad guys is something that I am all for. Using it to expand police powers is something that I am uncomfortable with. I know the good guys need all the help they can get but, there need to be stringent limits to keep the good guys from becoming bad guys. If they are going to use these tools to obtain evidence, they should obtain warrants to justify their actions.
It's getting awfully crowded in my sky...
In Bush's mindset the answer is easy: simply issue an executive order outlawing general aviation, and commercial aviation for companies worth less than $5bil. That'll definitely solve the problem.
I used to like Bush, but with the way he's been treating the Constitution of The united States of America like toilet paper, I actually have become somewhat of a fan of Clinton. Although he (allegedly) sold secrets to China, abused his privileges in the white house by getting interns to, uh, "service" him, and so forth, at least he wasn't squashing essential liberties left and right. I've grown to truly hate George "Dubya" Bush, and I now think the two-faced jackass from my state (Taxachusetts) would have been a better choice in 2004 - there's only so much damage that someone who misses 2/3 to 3/4 of his meetings can actually do.
Sorry, if it comes to choosing between morals and essential liberties, I'll take the liberties every time. Besides, people who want a moral society should lead by example, not through legislation and executive orders.
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
Searching the web, I found a page with a photograph of the new surveillance drones.
Good sir,
:)
The Mayan calendar doesn't "end" in 2012, it starts over again. In Mayan cosmology, everything moves in cycles. 2012 is both the end and beginning of an era. Look into the Hopi worldview too - we're said to be in the "Fourth World", and the prophesies indicating the end of that world have mostly come to pass already. "Thunder sticks" (white man's firearms), cattle (different than the buffalo), etc... The Hopis describe a "Fifth World" to follow.
The years to come won't be easy, certainly, but it is still an exciting time to be alive.
You might find Michael Mandeville's work interesting. Also investigate John La Tourrette's Nightengale Connant course - Silva Ultramind RV/RI.
Send an email if you'd like more suggestions. I don't check that account all too often, but I do keep it active.
Learn the rules so you know how to break them properly.
www.teslabox.com
"-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
(ok the quote is probably not quite correct, pedants can quote the correct version below)
Your love for guns blinds you from the obvious: You end up with a country full of losers if you start to use them in a political conflict. Your boxes quote sounds nice, but have you realised it may actually be wrong? Let's take two examples: Sudan & Ukraine. One a bloody civil war, the other a peacefull eviction of a corrupt leader/party. What do you think would have happened if those people in the streets would have been carrying guns? The fact that some folks in your country where pretty bloodthirsty 200 years ago does not mean those words apply now.
Maybe 'first they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win' is more applicable. Ghandi beat the british too, but without any violence on his part.
This space is intentionally staring blankly at you
If we're taking our cues from South Park, then in reagrds to the above post, I'll quote this bit if wisdom
"Shut your fucking face..."
It seemed about as appropriate as your quote.
"The government grants you rights, not the other way around."-- beav007. Yes, these people really exist...
Are you for US intervention
"Where the fuck was the US in the 50s, the 60s and the 70s when the smaller countries tried to throw off the Soviets? Where the fuck was the almighty US when tanks were smearing protesters in Budapest all over the streets?"
or against it?
"As for the rest of the world, I think the US record speaks for itself. Funding death squads in Latin America in the name of anti-communist ideology, or napalming thousands of asian people for the same reason, that's nothing to be proud of."
Well, which is it? Do you realize how ridiculous you sound bitching about not intervening and intervening in the same post?
"The government grants you rights, not the other way around."-- beav007. Yes, these people really exist...
So, we pull over to the side of the road, and wait for the officers to walk up. They stop behind us, get out of the car, walk on both sides of us, and ask us where we are going, and where we are headed from. "Home, from a friend's house" we both reply.
We are now thinking "this is odd", when one of them asks us (I shit you not) "so, why did you pull over and stop?" WTF?! We tell them point blank "because you were directly behind us in the far right lane with your flashers on, we figured you were pulling us over". They then tell us "no, we weren't", and we were like "but...we are here now, so what is going on?". They tell us "you are free to go". We got the hell out of dodge.
Mind you, this was late at night, on a freeway in the middle of Phoenix, Arizona. As far as I am aware, we weren't speeding, we didn't have any lights out. They pulled us over, then tell us they weren't, and let us go without any rhyme or reason. To this day, it makes no sense at all, and I haven't got a clue why this was done. We were never asked for licenses or registration. My wife and I think we were either pulled over by them because they wanted to do as you noted - "find a reason" - and then realized by the end of it all that we were pretty much "squeaky clean", or they were looking for a vehicle and occupants similar to us in the neighborhood, and given the late night, thought we were a match. Even so, it doesn't make sense that they would deny that they were pulling us over, when the reality was that they did (talk about cognitive dissonance).
Reason is the Path to God - Anon
Is anyone really surprised? The NeoCons have been pushing unmanned for years.... here's how it works:
//that affect him//. If he is forced to go, if his kids get drafted, if his brother dies... then he protests, makes noise, and brings attention onto your motives for being there in the first place. If it doesn't affect him, he sits and home and watches gleefully on the news.
... unmanned attack vehicles. They tried it out in the middle east, they used them to assassinate "suspected terrorists"... in countries they didn't have a right to be in, killing people without any trial or due process... and Joe Public didn't complain. They went "ooOOOoo, kewl!"
/anything/ in the military is bad.
With the Korean and (especially) Vietnam wars, the primary protests weren't "We shouldn't be here", it was "lots of people are dying". This proved an important point to the neocons... Joe Public doesn't care about overseas wars, Joe Public cares about overseas wars
Unfortunately, they didn't see a way around this... but then, in the 80's, videogames got popular. Technology advanced so that longer range wireless control was possible...
Then, in the First Gulf War, millions of americans sat at home, watched the pretty explosions on TV, cheered at gun camera footage from Apaches, went "oooOOOOOoo" at the nosecam footage from guided bombs... and not many soldiers died, and they cheered and everything was double-plus good.
And then it clicked for someone. If we make war like a video game, the public doesn't care. If we show them pretty pictures, they think it's cool. And if we don't put our people in danger, they don't protest and question our motives.
So, we come to Now
The next step? Get the public a little used to these things being around... then they understand that there's no people in them, even the dumbest will clue in that these are remote control... and HomeLand Security (tm) is the perfect guise to get the public used to these things.
And next? War by Remote Control. Fewer troops put in danger, unmanned aircraft, unmanned tanks... kill your enemies from the safety of your Carrier Group. A whole generation of kids, raised to play games, kill things on the screen, and not think about it, will do the exact same thing... playing video games with R/C vehicles, killing what's on the screen, not thinking about it.
And with no/low body counts... Joe Public won't complain.
And there you have it, folks. The perfect ability to wage war, on whoever you want, whenever you want, with none but a small 'crackpot' minority making any noise. Iran pissing you off? Syria needs a kick? Time to permanently solve the Israel/Palestine problem? Decided you want to control some African country with lots of diamonds? Send in your R/C fleet, the kids will happily play video games, Joe Public will watch on TV and cheer, mothers and wives won't complain because no-one (on our side) has been killed, and you can do what you want.
I'm sorry folks, a heavy body count is the only thing left to make the public care about foreign policy. It's sad but true. When the troops stop dying, the public will stop caring, the miliary will do what it's told to, and those in charge can attack and kill whoever they want, and the only ones to complain will be world media that ya'll don't listen to anyway.
And that's why R/C
If I knew the wedgies I gave you back in 6th grade would have resulted in this . . . I might have taken a moments pause.
Will they look like this?
It's feeling like City 17 a little bit more each day.
They call me the wookie man, I guess that's what I am
For those wondering what the Iranian Bourse is?
1 613.htm
It is simply an oil exchange that accepts Euros for oil instead of US dollars.
Author makes some interesting points. Although last paragraph summarized it all nicely:
About the Author: Krassimir Petrov (Krassimir_Petrov@hotmail.com) has received his Ph. D. in economics from the Ohio State University and currently teaches Macroeconomics, International Finance, and Econometrics at the American University in Bulgaria. He is looking for a career in Dubai or the U. A. E.
Full article
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article1
I only look human.
My mother is a halfling and my dad is an ogre, so that makes me an Ogreling
What more do you need? The ability to control them from the ground? That's being worked on for security reasons.
So all this means is that the next set of terrorists trained by a former US-funded resistance fighter will be going to h/cracking schools instead of flight schools.
Terrorists can attack freedom, but only Congress can destroy it.
"So instead we have an increase in religious discrimination"
Catholics weren't discriminated against a hundred years ago? Of course they were.
"exploitation of anybody with a low income"
And that didn't happen previously, you know when there wasn't a 40 hour work week, no unions, no OSHA, etc?
"the inability to effectively protest without being labeled a terrorist"
Bonus riots, Haymarket riots, Kent State, etc. It's happened for hundreds of years.
"and people living to work not working to live."
Read this. I think you'll be amazed at how you've overstated your position, and at how little you know about the subject.
http://www.chipublib.org/004chicago/1900/fam.html
The other guy is right. Things were much worse in the past. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't try to make them better, but let's not act like we're living during the Inquisition.
"The government grants you rights, not the other way around."-- beav007. Yes, these people really exist...
You seem to feel very superior. You seem to be uninterested in the physics.
You said, "But the massive amounts of paper, office furniture and other combustibles that were present in the buildings continued to fuel an inferno, further weakening the already damaged structures."
Massive amounts of paper? Have you ever tried burning paper from a file cabinet? It doesn't burn easily.
You are saying that office chairs and file cabinets are fuel for a fire? That's disgusting.
"So a president that's intent on bringing Catholic values into the white house and every facet of government is discrimination against Catholics?"
He's not a Catholic, he's a Methodist if I recall correctly. In case you were unaware, they don't see eye to eye, so the "Catholic values" you're talking about, well, what the fuck are you talking about?
"The point of that paragraph was to show that I did have some knowledge of what I'm talking about which you claimed I did not."
And it appears, based on the most recent post, that I was exactly right.
At least do a little fucking research before you spout off.
"The government grants you rights, not the other way around."-- beav007. Yes, these people really exist...
That is all.
I [may] disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
Is if the bastards are publicly talking about it, chances are they are already doing it. Note the non-partisan terminology - bastard and fucker apply equally to all politicians.
Autonomous Retard -- Is your camp safe? UnsafeCamp.com
>I don't think it should be illegal for a person to make use
>of a helicopter and zoom lens simultaneously, even if they
>happen to be a police officer.
Well I had considerably more in mind when I said that. I think you probably understand what I had in mind. I was talking about the ability to park a helicopter/ drone/ what-have-you outside peoples' windows with a zoom lense, finding gaps in their curtains, (or forcing them to USE curtains to defend their otherwise-safe privacy) and zooming into their private activity? Do you think that police should be able to ride on the (hypothetical) loophole in the constitution, and gather surveilance without a warrant? IT IS Clear that the police have constitutional restrictions placed on their behavior. Just as it is clear that their are authorized to make arrests, to incarcerate, to carry weapons, handcuffs, handguns, AND that it is a CRIME to resist their activity. Those are some GOOD REASONS to restrict their rights. And if a person cannot think of HOW to seperate the cop's private right to observe, and their public duty to respect the constitution, well I really don't think that should translate into a privacy nightmare for me.
I agree with you that keeping a watchful eye on the financial activities of public servants is a very good idea. But I don't think it is appropriate to turn their lives into living hell, depriving them of all manner of personal privacy. (For starters, do you WANT people who don't value their own privacy in office? Would you expect them to value your own?) Ultimately, I see NO reason to translate a need to keep a watchful eye on the "backroom agreements" and financial activities of public servants and elected officials into a justification for police state powers.
The two are very seperate things, and I don't think it's suitable to "muddy" the boundary between them.
Celeb's? I'm one of those people who thinks celeb's deserve privacy too.
>If an off-duty cop observes something, is s/he allowed
>to act on that information when they're back on-duty?
The question is clear, but the courts are there for a reason, and I believe the specific details of the case are relevant to the answer, so I'm not gonna touch it.
>One of my main contentions is that I can't see any way
>to effectively place restriction on police surveillance
>in public areas which wouldn't also put unreasonable
>restrictions on the sorts of observations private
>citizens are allowed to engage in.
Well I just said something about that above here. Cops have extra rights and protections, granted by law. That makes them a different type of citizen while they're wearing that badge. The badge means the cop is acting on behalf of the goverment, which is obligated to respect the constitutional rights of the citizens. Therefore, restricting some of the cop's rights is appropriate.
=)
"Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us." -Jesus Christ The Lord's Prayer
"You are correct that I need to do more research - everyone does. But again that in no way invalidates my entire argument"
Actually, that's exactly what it does. You've made factually incorrect statements, which upon refutation, you stand by. That speaks to your (lack of) credibility, which directly effects the validity of ALL of your arguments.
"You keep claiming that because I have one fact wrong it invalidates my entire argument and it does not."
Nope, what I keep claiming is that you could be reasonably expected to show the same level of accuracy across your arguments. With no other standard to judge you by, one grossly inaccurate statement (followed by an exclamation, then an assertion of accuracy) calls all of your arguments into question.
In other words, why believe anything you say when you've already demonstrated a willingness to be... flexible with the facts.
"But maybe that's too much to ask..."
How about this, no more derogatory comments from me, as long as you agree not to post anymore grossly inaccurate assertions. Deal?
"The government grants you rights, not the other way around."-- beav007. Yes, these people really exist...
>> Funding death squads
>Are you for US intervention [...] or against it?
So basically what you say is that funding death suaqs and napalming people and similar crimes are the only ways of intervention the world can expect from the US of A?
You're even more cynical than I am, why do you hate America so much?
k2r
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-513758199 1288263801&q=loose+change
I think you touched on a sore spot there, for which a whole load of people will flame you, but well done for saying it! It's about time.
When one can openly display leavened bread for sale during the passover, then I will agree with you. Forcing religious observances on the entire population is at least a de facto *establishment* of religion, formal or otherwise.
In essence this would be like requiring public schools to teach the Protestant view of Easter...
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
Okay, name one other example of a skyscraper that was on fire with thousands of gallons of jet fuel burning inside it. The Towers didn't fall from "just a fire" they fell from a fire that was a few thousand degrees hot, IIRC.
The problem is a lack of deep understanding and a willingness to stand up strong for what one believes. Your post does not demonstrate this and instead just demonstrates that these engines help direct where and how young people let out their anger.
I remember reading about how, in the PRC, the government uses the internet to channel youth protests in the same way you describe MTV doing it. The goal is to make people feel empowered while not actually helping address the substantive need for freedom.
Personally, I think the best way to deal with the problem is to make becomming a foreign exchange student for two years mandatory.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
I completely agree with your sentiment. Keep talking :o)
Will they get to carry hellfire missles?
IANALBIPOOGL (I am not a Lawyer, but I play one on GrokLaw.)
Stay with the program here. Jet fuel burns quickly, very quickly. Don't think I've read any estimates that place the jet fuel burn time at more than 5-10 minutes. Also, WC7 had no jet fuel, yet burned and fell pretty much just like the towers.
damaged by dogma
Why do the folks who insist on keeping "God" in "one nation under God" want to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
The answer is simple. Liberty and Justice are pagan goddesses and have no place in a Christian state.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
assuming the DOD and the FAA coordinate where planes can and cannot fly, this is manageable. ... or when they malfunction.
the prolems i have heard discussed are when these drones fly ad hoc missions on short notice
as long as my family can sue the crap out of the feds for messing up, i am happy with their mistakes.
Of course 82% of the people think the government covered up some of what happened on 9/11. The question is so broad as to mean nothing--I would answer yes to such a broad question, and I think all the big conspiracy theories are nuts. I just happen to think that the administration has squashed some of the details of how poorly prepared they were and how poorly they responded.
As for the rest, I don't really care about supposition, vague connections, and unanswered questions. It's not exactly a revelation that certain people have profited in the wake of 9/11...however that has little to any bearing on the question of what brought down the WTC, as it could just as easily be the result of good response as opposed to good conspiracy. People profit during every war; but it is false logic to conclude that therefore those people must have started each war.
The government and military plan for eventualities; but it is wrong to therefore assume that everthing that happens is the result of a military or government plan. The government can plan a plane crash, and a plane can crash--the two are not necessarily connected. Substitute "sneak attack", "insurgency", or "hurricane" (or any other force majeur) into that sentence if you like. Similarity or congruency are simply coincedence in the absence of evidence that proves a direct connection.
I noticed you did not answer my question about what evidence would change your mind on this theory. Here's mine: Present me with real conclusive proof of this specific conspiracy theory and I will sit up and take notice: a person who helped set the charges...paperwork showing that thousands of pounds of explosives were delivered to the WTC by a military contractor...maintenance workers who saw barrels of explosives in empty offices...etc. I need direct, cause-and-effect evidence...often referred to as a "smoking gun." Allusion and supposition don't do it for me.
How about you?
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.
Now, as for UAVs and fighting an asymetrical conflict. Looking at the historical precedents of 'intervention' does show us where the pitfalls are, and it also shows that only in rare instances are military interventions sucessful in not only merely queling violence, but in actual state building. It's just hard, and it's almost impossible to define a Democratic state at the end of a rifle barrel. Germany and Japan are often trotted out, but these are examples of a homogenous culture, exhausted by war and handily defeated who already had the economic and social experience to define a new state. And remember that this still took time and treasure.
We also have to remember that the Mid-East is screwed up because of previous machinations which failed and merely brought about different problems, we exchanged Russians for the Taliban in Afghanistan for our trouble.
Furthermore, Vietnam was not 'lost' because of bad policy, but because of strategic mistakes made before Kennedy decided that 'advisors' should set foot in the country. If President Wilson had acted on Ho Chi Minh's request for help against the French, and later the Japanese, things might have gone different, but by the time our advisors arrived, the Viet Cong and NVA had been fighting for essentially 20 years against foreign armies. We should have avoided the fight entirely, allowed the French to fail, allowed the North to invade and unify the country, and then let the same kind of detente that is slowly remaking China into a Democracy foster there as well. Instead, we invaded, killed thousands, and still lost.
Intervention is dangerous, expensive, and often prone to failure. Should we always avoid intervention? No, but we need to be very choosy or aware of just how damn difficult it is.
Now, as for technology, survellience can be very useful, but someone can always hide, they can always move underground, and they just have to wait and find that soft-spot to hit you. Knowing that the explosives came from Person A who bought it from Supplier H is useful, but it only allows you to react and only if you have all the right information. This also assumes that someone doesn't take a SAM to the drone, or mortars the drone's base and the communication trailers. Remember your enemy is smart, knows the terrain, and is willing to do *anything* to win.
Technology will help, but the notion that any state can be fixed by an invading army has been proven wrong many, many times, and only in the best intances does it work.
Personally, I think an Iran left alone by the US, or engaged diplomatically and culturally, will be far more likely to change that an Iran under threat of force. Cornering an animal only makes it more dangerous.
Anyone who whines about being modded down should be.
> I was comparing two situations where action vs. inaction made a hell of a difference.
Yes, you did. The problem is that these situations aren't very similar. Acting wrong knowingly under wrong premises is usually worse than acting late but rightly. On the other hand there might be parallels: Both situations (Hitler taking over Europe without much intervention) (flaky religious dictatorships in the middle east) arouse partly because of economical interest.
"Next step is to show Iran who's boss."
Well, that is a very good summary of the level of US foreign politics the world got used to.
This position makes people perceive the US as the largest risk for this planet.
If your country wouldn't have acted criminally in so many countries the last decades, supporting not peace and democracy but mostly supporting oppressive regimes because of economical or political interests you might be in a more plausible position.
Who installed the brutal Shah in Iran in 1953 for 25 years because the elected (nationalist) leader nationalized your oil-company?
You are in no position to lead anyone by example but you are just bigot and the bully on the schoolground beating up the enemy du jour leaving anything tainted that you touch.
k2r
Yes, I mixed up the names of those two american companies - and it's funny because both are just such beautiful and prototypic symbols for different aspects of the US-American achievements in making this world a better place.
> You're getting your liberal propoganda mixed up.
Uh, "liberal propaganda" is a Fox News phrase that doesn't make much sense in any country but in the US.
> You're a moron.
Well, I'm a drug-addicted moron now, if I got your last two messages right. How impressive.
k2r
AFAIK the Pravda online has got nothing to do with the printed pravda we know from cold war times. "Pravda" just means "truth" (?) and pravda.ru is just as relevant as any other weird online tabloid.
Could somebody in the know tell if there are any connections?
k2r
Well I had considerably more in mind when I said that. I think you probably understand what I had in mind. I was talking about the ability to park a helicopter/ drone/ what-have-you outside peoples' windows with a zoom lense, finding gaps in their curtains, (or forcing them to USE curtains to defend their otherwise-safe privacy) and zooming into their private activity? Do you think that police should be able to ride on the (hypothetical) loophole in the constitution, and gather surveilance without a warrant?
I don't consider this a loophole -- there isn't any infringement of private property going on. Rather, I think anybody in a public area should have the right to use whatever camera, zoom lens, or image enhancement algorithm that they want. Of course, being right outside somebody's window probably isn't public airspace. If somebody's shower is visible from public property and they want guaranteed privacy, they should probably get a curtain.
Celeb's? I'm one of those people who thinks celeb's deserve privacy too.
Sure, but nobody has a guarantee of privacy when they're visible from public.