Slashdot Mirror
Airships to Patrol Venezuela's Skies
bprime writes "The BBC reports that officials in the Venezuelan capital, Caracas, have bought three airship UAVs to keep tabs on the local populace. From the article: 'The 15 metre (49 foot) long air ships are emblazoned with government slogans. Written in bright red are the words, We watch over you for your security.' They're not exactly black helicopters, but how long do you think until we see similar measures in high-crime American cities?"
And I thought that I was in a rational century without totalitarian governments that have the capabilities to do things like this.
Isn't this out of some SCI-Fi movie?
) Human Kind Vs Human Creation
) It'd be interesting to see how many humans would survive to serve us.
All your rights and freedoms are belong to us!
Have EVDO, will travel.
Here's my guess: Better not be until after the repeal of the Second Amendment.
New Socialist government, airships with slogans. The Venezuelans wanted this guy in power, so they got what they wanted.
Hmmm...
The Venezuelan government buys 15 meter long airships for surveillance.
The city of Caracas has the "worlds worst figures for gun death".
So, taking a bit of a leap [jump with me if you wish]... The government of Venezuela is providing expensive 15 meter long floating targets for the people of Caracas to shoot at instead of shooting at each other...
You know, it just might be crazy enough to work...
COPS: Caracas
A high speed chase featuring an airship tracking and a donkey powered wood cart through a shanty-town.
The LAPD is already trying to use UAV's in Los Angeles. The only thing holding them up is a squabble with the FAA.
n ded-disciplinary-action-possible/
http://www.engadget.com/2006/06/22/l-a-drone-grou
There are 10 types of people in this world, those who can count in binary and those who can't.
Britain in particular hasn't a leg to stand on when it comes to offering a critical view of others' domestic surveillance.
Never.
Naw. As soon as a major city has a big enough RICO siezure to buy 'em.
Helicopters cost a LOT to operate. They spend over an hour in the shop for every hour in the air. They MUST be maintained because there are a LOT of moving parts that are single points of failure - most involving a crash if they fail.
Airships can be very redundant and even if they crash they tend to do so gently (unless you paint them with thermite and fill them with hydrogen).
It's easy for police departments to buy big ticket items with RICO money. But their ongoing upkeep has to keep paying off, so it helps to keep that low.
Helicopters are good for point work - like assisting chases or patrolling highways during rush hour. But for ongoing surveillance they're expensive. And noisy, which tends to heisenberg ongoing crime out of their view.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
But there is more:
Caracas is no HappyLand. It has a high crime rate, just like Rio de Janeiro, Brazil (that by the way has its own surveillance blimp too). Surveillance is necessary, no, condition sine qua non to allow common people to live their lives without fear to be shot by a pair of Nike shoes (happens a lot in some Brazilian cities, just so you know). That's the situation is most Latin America.
Now, is not it hypocritical that 1) this is BBC reporting, coming straight from the country with the most ubiquitous surveillance system in the world 2) people are so desperate to find something to nail Hugo Chavez for that they need to resort to such FUD because they got nothing else. This is a move by the City of Caracas, not the country of Venezuela, just like the blimps on U.S. are a move from the NYPD, not the Federal Government.
Now stop talking about things you guys don't know about, and quit spreading fud. Come on, "keeping tab on the population".
If it crashes, they'll all say:
oh, la humanidad!
Where does the school board find them and why do they keep sending them to ME?
So she believed that the ends justified the means.
In the US, the government has tremendous power, so it is a smart idea to keep tabs on it to make sure it doesn't grab more than it already has. But when you live in an environment where criminals and terrorists run the show, your most obvious threat isn't the government. It's the people who are stealing, killing, and terrorizing.
Fujimori obviously isn't going to go down in history as a promoter of the rule of law. But paradoxically he seems to have paved the way for the rule of law by wiping out the Sendaro Luminoso.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
...allegedly, has the top two political parties conspire to not only not include any other candidates on the forum for the so called national and official presidential debate, but actually threatens them with arrest if they have tickets and try to just sit in the audience-I'd call that a dog and pony show. And when the controlled lapdog press goes along with it, another part of the show. When two cooperating parties basically hijack the government and just divide the spoils, and it is clear both of these parties have full compliments of crooks, thieves, liars, bribe takers and assorted scum, yet nothing substantial happens overall, that's a dog and pony show. When both parties are run by globalist millionaires at the top, even to the point of running so called "opposition" candidates from the same billionaire boys club fraternity secret society, that's a joke, a dog and pony show. Candidates who are so far removed from the productive middle class electorate, so much so that they don't even know what a loaf of bread or a gallon of milk really costs-that's a dog and pony show political system, a farce. When elected leaders come from hereditary political dynasties-basically an elite aristocracy- including the ex head of the "secret police", that's a sham, a dog and pony show. When you have overwhelming smoking gun evidence that the "electronic" elections have been hacked and compromised, that quite possibly whomever is in office shouldn't be there, yet nothing happens, and no one gets into any trouble over it-it goes beyond a dog and pony show and starts to look like any other banana republic dictatorship, just with two "wings" instead of one to give the illusion of "free and honest elections". When you have an overwhelmingly large violent "incident", that pushes forth a radical anti freedom agenda, and there is enough credible evidence with literally dozens of quite peculiar characteristics that don't jibe in any manner whatsoever with the "official story of what happened", and there are no actual honest and open investigations, instead they push forth an obvious whitewash/coverup/ignore the evidence that doesn't fit commission-you have to ask yourself, when can a violent coup be called a coup?
The US has been in a slow and steady gradual takeover by shadowy elements very powerful inside and outside of government, ever since an actual brave and thoughtful president-Ike- thought it necessary to warn the people during his retirement speech that it could and would happen if we weren't careful. Later on, the folks he was warning about managed to get rid of one elected person who was getting wise to them and was seeking to limit their power. Then they eliminated his brother, who looked likely to carry the torch on for his fallen sibling-yet nothing has happened about it. It's gotten worse since then, until now, we have only the faintest mirage of real freedom as it was originally designed to be, and that mirage is fading fast, with various "patriotic enabling acts" and "signing statements" that clearly show that only one agenda will go forward and the people and their wishes be damned, with big wars completely based on proven lies, wars which still will not end even when the lies are finally admitted to, and nothing happens to the proven liars.
Calling it a "dog and pony show" is being excessively *polite* and minimalistic near as I can see.
Wow. See, the thing is, when I read your post, I laughed. I thought you were being funny. Then I continued reading, and realized you were serious. That made me laugh harder.
Lets go through, point by point:
Would your friend have felt better if we'd made Iraq our 51st state first? Then we would be fighting them on our own territory, rather than that of another country. Either way, the fight would have been exactly the same thing!
We are morally justified in fighting with them (whoever "they" are in Iraq. I don't really know, do you? Oh, right, yes, the "Insurgents". That makes it so much clearer. Please, before you say something else stupid, read soldiers talking about how THEY don't know who they are fighting, which is part of the reason why things like Haditha keep happening), cause we could have claimed their country as ours, and then we would be fighting them in OUR land. I mean, we could say the same thing about France (were we to invade). "Well we could just make FRANCE our 51st state, so we are justified in fighting them, cause if we had they would have fought with us, so they are fighting with us now, so it is the EXACT SAME THING". (that is the line that made me laugh.
Fact: Saddam sponsored terrorism. Among his other acts, was paying rewards to families of suicide bombers who blow themselves up in Israel. That alone is enough to condemn him.
Well, now that IS true. Not particularly Relevant, but true. I mean, if you were talking about Israel Invading Iraq, THEN it would make sense. But, well, I mean, Person C hit Person D. That Gives Person U the right to beat the living crap out of C? And before you say "well, that is just the terrorism I mentioned. There were others." Why don't you mention them in the first place. I mean, when someone brings and irrelevant prooftext, it makes me think they dont have a relevant one.
Fact: Terrorism knows no boundaries, nor will being nice to terrorists make them your friends.
The second part I wholly agree with. I am not sure I should, consider, for instance, the IRA. But, I do. Actually, though, the vast majority of terrorism is very local. 9/11 is not a proof to the contrary, it is a horrific exception. Where was Timothy McVeigh from? Oklahoma you say? Those Suicide Bombers In Israel? Why, as soon as the seperation fence went up, their numbers dropped dramatically. I don't really know enough about Indonesia, or Spain.
Fact: This is a war, and failure to recognize and admit this is the first step to losing it.
This is a war we started. By Choice. And, in so doing we de-stabalized a fairly stable, non-threatening state. Committing virtually all of our military strength to an area, that, before we went there, wasnt a threat. Giving other places (Iran anyone?) who are a threat to us, a much greater sense of security, in threatening us. What do you think losing is, if not what we are doing now? Bleeding our troops, exhausting them, wrecking their battle-readiness. Oh, and bleeding our economy at a rate of, 200? 300 BILLION dollars a year?
Fact: We fight them there, or we fight them here. Your choice. I've already made mine.
This is the one that really pisses me off. Makes me want to say something like, you stupid arrogant FUCK. Now, if you have served in the army, if you have lived in a tent, and not seen your family or loved ones for months or years at a time, then, really I apologize, and you really have a right to say that. Otherwise, you probably, like the vast majority of Americans, don't do a damn thing. I am just guessing, that you, like our president, don't know a fucking THING about what it mean to fight them there (I, just in case you are intersted, HAVE been in the army, though not the American one (I have Dual citizenship with and was drafted in Israel), and DO know what it is to spend months in the dessert in a