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.
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?
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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"
I'd watch myself if I were you.. these people don't exactly have a sense of humor.
In fact, saying it publically in my town (via letter to the editor) will get you arrested:
http://www.wlio.com/localNews.aspx?NewsID=3246
Shouldn't be a problem for who?
Are they armed? How long until they are?
"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
-You don't need to melt a truss, you just need to soften it. If it softens the geometry changes and the strength drops.
-I don't know what the ends were on the floor trusses, but a sagging truss will put them in tension. I doubt they were designed for this.
-Heat shielding doesn't stand up too well to an exploding airplane.
-The design in question is not typical of steel buildings, which tend to be latticed structures rather than tubes.
Note that it's the floor collapsing that starts the process. A load-bearing exoskeleton is an inherently unstable design prevented from buckling only by the floors forcing it to stay aligned.
As you say, no warping was observed before collapse. It was the internal structure that failed before the collapse. As soon as the external structure drifted out of alignment it was over. Instantaneously. This is how buckling behaves.
(Oh, and this guy isn't much of a scientist. "Nobody has a good idea what happened. IT MUST HAVE BEEN THERMITE!" Typical crackpot paper . . . . . . )
(Science aside, how the hell could a deliberate demolition be pulled off without anyone finding out before or finding actual evidence after? Such things take rather a lot of setup to pull off.)
Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
> As a little kid I actually tried put this myth to the test it worked flawlessly.
Where's that -1 Evil moderation when you need it?
"The RQ-1A/B Predator is a system, not just an aircraft. The fully operational system consists of four air vehicles (with sensors), a ground control station (GCS), a Predator primary satellite link communication suite and 55 people."
That thing is freakin' awesome.
Except for the whole Deathbringing, and suppression of my rights and stuff. But still...
When they came for the communists, I said "He's next door. Take him away. Goddam commies."
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
Most American patriots that tend to be revered today seem, when looked at a bit more objectively and in comparison to the rest of their society, to be dangerous free-thinking radicals. A number of important ones had religious ideas (i.e. deism) that were far from the majority (either then or today). They met in small groups and supported armed rebellion against the state or disruptive civil disobedience of various forms. They used the media of their time to disagree vehemently with the established order often through the use of self-publishing (dare I make an obvious blogging comparison?).
In the end they developed a largely new system of government that vastly differed from what else was around at the time and put a great deal of emphasis on limiting the powers of the government in favor of personal rights (note how the Bill of Rights largely makes use of negative rights by stating that "Congress shall make no law restricting the right of foo" rather than explicitly guaranteeing that right).
These are people that would be (rather rightly I think) seen as dissidents, potentially dangerous seperatists, and enemies of the state. It's quite likely that the average American would fear and distrust them if they were acting today.
Perhaps their biggest flaw was that, like most idealists, they assumed that people were as deeply passionate about these things as they were. That they cared strongly about injustice and the abuse of power and were willing to act on it.
They weren't patriots because they supported the current government. They were patriots because they didn't.