Slashdot Mirror


FEMA, FCC Hope To Forestall Panic Over National Emergency Alert

Ars Technica has a piece on the "first-ever nationwide test of the Emergency Alert System (EAS)," slated for this Wednesday at 2 p.m. EST. An excerpt: "This national system will look and sound much like the current (and local) emergency warnings often seen on TV or heard on radio, but the scope is larger and it can be put under the direct control of the President. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), and the National Weather Service (NWS) will all coordinate the test, but it's FEMA that actually transmits the alert code. Concerned that such a test might alarm people, the agencies are going to extraordinary lengths to provide a heads-up. I first heard about the test in an e-mail newsletter from my city government, which told residents last week, 'Do not be alarmed when an emergency message will take over the airways... this is only a test.' The test will display a warning message on TV screens, though as my city helpfully noted, 'Due to some technical limitations, a visual message indicating that "this is a test" may not pop up on every TV channel, especially where people use cable to receive their television stations.'"

210 comments

  1. In other words... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This will be the typical gubmint clusterfuck.

    1. Re:In other words... by tomhudson · · Score: 1

      This will be the typical gubmint clusterfuck.

      No, this will be the perfect terrorist opportunity.

      It's bad enough when a fire alarm goes on, most people just stand around and look at each other and go "is this a drill?" Now replace that scenario with a real emergency alert at around the same time as the test. "Oh, ignore it, it's just a drill, remember?"

    2. Re:In other words... by nedlohs · · Score: 1

      And just what do you think these terrorists who are so incompotent they haven't managed to set of the bombs they've got onto planes and into NYC in the last few years are going to be able to do in which a few minutes of delay will matter?

       

    3. Re:In other words... by Klync · · Score: 1
      I would mod you up if I could, if only because that was such an incredibly clumsily worded sentence. Still, you have an interesting point. Even during drills, we should all remain Vigilant Guardians. With all due respect, and admitting that I'm being totally pedantic (but hopefully helpful!) here, please let me illustrate how you could break down what you've said to make it easier to follow:

      Do you really think a few minutes' delay will matter? After all, in the last few years these terrorists haven't managed to set off the bombs they've brought onto planes and into NYC.

      --

      ----
      Not to be confused with Col.
    4. Re:In other words... by tomhudson · · Score: 1
      They don't have to do anything more than spread false stories about it NOT being an alert, that it was supposed to be "just an alert", but that something really DID happen at the same time, and they started to spread the real alert, then hushed it up because of [insert $TIN_FOIL_CONSPIRACY], and that you should leave the city immediately because of [insert $CONTAMINATION_DISEASE_WHATEVER], and btw, there's been a run on duct-tape and plastic sheeting and bottled water ...

      People will spread the story ...

    5. Re:In other words... by Bardwick · · Score: 1

      On my block, Tornado warning = grab beer --> block party. Pretty much anytime there is a thunderstorm, sirens go off.

    6. Re:In other words... by spire3661 · · Score: 1

      Whenever ive heard a fire alarm, i have never once said "Is this a drill?". It doesnt matter if its a drill or not, you move your ass and figure it out later.

      --
      Good-bye
    7. Re:In other words... by doccus · · Score: 1

      MEH.. i live in Canada

  2. Deus Ex by mike.rimov · · Score: 1

    Hmmm... maybe the first Deus Ex was right.... FEMA was just the first layer of that conspiracy... now they're taking over the airwaves. :-)

  3. Almost care by IronSight · · Score: 1

    I mean I would if they didn't decide to switch to all digital which for some reason doesn't seem to get to my tv since there are no tv stations close enough to get solid signal... Perhaps my weather radio will go off?

    1. Re:Almost care by grumling · · Score: 4, Informative

      Weather radio stations are not participating.

      --
      "Well, good luck finding a judge that doesn't run a bestiality site."
    2. Re:Almost care by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      So if they didn't switch to all digital, and so couldn't broadcast on any TV stations since the stations are now all digital, you couldn't receive it from any station near or far, you would care?

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    3. Re:Almost care by Y-Crate · · Score: 1

      Weather radio stations are not participating.

      Which is absolutely ridiculous.

    4. Re:Almost care by IronSight · · Score: 1

      I would care if the local television stations decided that in order to continue serving their watcher base that were slightly out of town, they would either get more powerful towers or even setup a transmission repeater system. I mean when you name your station "wXXX serving Evansville and Owensboro" yet no one in owensboro can get your signal at all outside of cable, are you still serving Owensboro? TBH I can't say being without live tv has been too terrible. I can still get news from the internet, and all the shows/tv I want from netflix for a pretty low rate. In fact the TV blackout here has shown me that netflix is a generally better service than having to be bothered with annoying advertising and such.

  4. TV? Radio? Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    This is the Internet age. I have no TV or Radio service. How would I be alerted? Will they splash up an ad online Slashdot, that happens to bypass adblockers?

    1. Re:TV? Radio? Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You just read about it, right?

    2. Re:TV? Radio? Huh? by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 4, Funny

      My understanding is that millions of twits will tweet in terror and be suddenly silenced...

    3. Re:TV? Radio? Huh? by iamhassi · · Score: 1

      You'd think they'd contact AT&T, Verizon, and Sprint to make sure an alert like this went to all US cellphones. AT&T has 107 million US customers and Verizon has another 107 million so combined that covers 2/3rds of all Americans

      Facebook would be another one I'd contact to see if an alert system could be put in place.

      --
      my karma will be here long after I'm gone
    4. Re:TV? Radio? Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think what is even more interesting is that they supposedly went to "extraordinary lengths" to provide a heads up. I have (and use) TV and radio and this is the first I have heard of it. That doesn't sound like extraordinary lengths to me. I watched an NFL football game on Sunday on TV and never saw anything about this. It seems like they could have made some sort of an effort to let us know.

    5. Re:TV? Radio? Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Actually a cell phone based emergency alert system is in the works. There has already been grumbling by some of the tin foil hat crowd b/c the phones require a software mod that overides text settings to force everyone to receive the EAS text message. R911 systems are only effective if people have registered their cell phone number-which I'm guessing most people have not.

    6. Re:TV? Radio? Huh? by Hatta · · Score: 1

      I'd still be out of luck. I watch about 1 hour combined TV/Radio a day. I don't own a cell phone, and don't have a facebook account.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    7. Re:TV? Radio? Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sure your parents will come downstairs and warn you.

    8. Re:TV? Radio? Huh? by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      Someone deserves a gold start for impressive use of alliteration.

    9. Re:TV? Radio? Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Darwin at work. Good luck to you.

    10. Re:TV? Radio? Huh? by Provocateur · · Score: 1

      Doesn't the warden make the announcements to ALL cell blocks?

      --
      WARNING: Smartphones have side effects--most of them undocumented.
    11. Re:TV? Radio? Huh? by The+Good+Reverend · · Score: 1

      If you choose to remove yourself from every possible broadcast means, it's really your own problem if you're not alerted.

    12. Re:TV? Radio? Huh? by Hatta · · Score: 1

      Some of us have better things to do than sit around watching TV all night. What the government really should do is set up an emergency server, which we can then poll in whatever way works best for us. Whether that's a facebook app, an OS X widget, or an IRC bot.

      What the government definitely should not do is set up a vendor specific emergency alert system. If I have to use Facebook to get an internet EAS, that's an undue advantage given to Facebook by the government.

      They're going to have to do something to modernize the EAS. You really can't count on people sitting in front of the TV all the time anymore.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    13. Re:TV? Radio? Huh? by k6mfw · · Score: 2

      Someone posted most /. readers don't use TV or radio, but they already are aware of the Nov 9 drill (hey, that's what we all are screaming about right now). Someone else mentioned this is a test, first exercise to see how this works then make corrections as needed (if possible).

      I was thinking all this illustrates a paradigm shift. People calling 911 may not do in tradition POTS, many do cellphone (which calltakers are getting a better handle on location), but 911 calltakers (actually these are the real "first responders") need to accept text messaging.

      Another paradigm shift is television. 85% of US gets TV from cable but more and more are watching streaming video or youtube (as many of you slashdot people have said current programming is really crappy, i.e. syfy channel). Another thing I'm seeing is a shift away from live television, almost all TV is pre-recorded including news and sports (this may be debatable but that's for another thread). I have experience this with amateur television as all non-hams say they can do the same with their cellphone/iphone cam, and more amateur radio people including those that (used to) do ATV are doing it by iphones (i.e. ustream). Take a look at almost all DVD players have no RF input as more and more people watch movies on DVD, regular stations, OTA, no longer show movies (they used to back in the 20th century). So...... I can see broadcast TV will go the way of REACT (group that used to work CB and GMRS).

      Then there is radio but since vast majority of stations are managed by Clear Channel and programming done by some elusive demographics studies (the DJ is dead) so much of the programming is the same ol' crap heard over and over. So like broadcast TV why have it when you can tote your 100,000 songs on ipad (or whatever).

      An interesting situation, let's see how this all works out. For some disasters they are self alerting i.e. earthquakes. Some have advance warning i.e. tornados and I would rely on weather radio setup to receive NWS alerts. Tsumani warnings, hurricanes... NWS alerts for those in such regions? Emergency Broadcast System, predessessor to what we have now I believe was instituted for alert in event of nuclear attack which is dated. If one were to occur, it would be like an earthquake, a self alerting system.

      Maybe what should be discussed is preparation, do you have supplies to sustain yourself for a number of days? Besides food and water, can you continue deal with taking a bath for two weeks? What about taking a shit? For most live in cities (apartments, condos), you can't flush the toilet (no running water) so where are you going to put "it?"

      --
      mfwright@batnet.com
    14. Re:TV? Radio? Huh? by The+Good+Reverend · · Score: 1

      You can save your "OMG GOVERNMENT OVERREACHING" posts for someone else.

      Honestly, these messages need to get out to the most people in the most efficient way. TV and Radio are absolutely it. There are methods online as well, but I'm not sure a server to poll voluntarily is the best use of anyone's time.

      More to my point, if someone doesn't ever watch TV or listed to radio, doesn't have their cell phone on, and doesn't use any web services where people would be talking about it anyway, that's their choice.

    15. Re:TV? Radio? Huh? by inject_hotmail.com · · Score: 1

      Gold? Are you serious?! That's a brass star, not even bronze, at best.

    16. Re:TV? Radio? Huh? by inject_hotmail.com · · Score: 1

      Aw, dude, that was a good one.

    17. Re:TV? Radio? Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd still be out of luck. I watch about 1 hour combined TV/Radio a day. I don't own a cell phone, and don't have a facebook account.

      Sounds like you're....
      a) already in the bomb shelter so you're safe
      b) or have no life so you have nothing to lose by not hearing the alerts

    18. Re:TV? Radio? Huh? by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      This is the Internet age. I have no TV or Radio service. How would I be alerted? Will they splash up an ad online Slashdot, that happens to bypass adblockers?

      If you didn't live in a hermetically sealed, soundproof, tinfoil-lined panic room in your parents' basement, you'd probably be able to hear the incredibly loud air raid sirens.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    19. Re:TV? Radio? Huh? by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      If you choose to remove yourself from every possible broadcast means, it's really your own problem if you're not alerted.

      No, I'm sure he'll blame the government anyway.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    20. Re:TV? Radio? Huh? by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      almost all TV is pre-recorded including news and sports

      I assume you mean excluding. Who would bother to record the news and watch it later?

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    21. Re:TV? Radio? Huh? by k6mfw · · Score: 1
      >I assume you mean excluding. Who would bother to record the news and watch it later?

      no, I find many newscasts and sports are pre-recorded. Nobody will record and watch it later. I don't watch much this so I probably giving a faulty statistic sample, from what I see is many newscasts appear to be a few hours old in the context. Then while surfing channels and see a football game supposably live from Georgia Tech, sun is almost directly over as players have short shadows. But it is late afternoon here in California.

      --
      mfwright@batnet.com
    22. Re:TV? Radio? Huh? by uninformedLuddite · · Score: 1

      You can save your "OMG GOVERNMENT OVERREACHING"

      I didn't see that in his post at all. I don't even have TV so does that make me the same in your book?

      --
      The new right fascists are bilingual. They speak English and Bullshit.
    23. Re:TV? Radio? Huh? by uninformedLuddite · · Score: 1

      I don't have TV or radio, live in Australia, and my bandwidth is so limited that watching youtube is a chore and I knew about the emergency system test ages ago. What's your excuse?

      --
      The new right fascists are bilingual. They speak English and Bullshit.
    24. Re:TV? Radio? Huh? by uninformedLuddite · · Score: 1

      God I hate you you judgemental jerk

      --
      The new right fascists are bilingual. They speak English and Bullshit.
  5. perfect time for attack! by gl4ss · · Score: 2

    perfect time for my invasion fleet to make their move!
    COBRA! COBRA! COBRA! COBRA!

    --
    world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
  6. This is just a test by GeneralTurgidson · · Score: 1

    Not FEMA exercising its legal right to form a shadow government and take over all government functions. It's not 2012 yet!

    1. Re:This is just a test by lister+king+of+smeg · · Score: 2

      exactly this is just the test so that they can do it in 2012 with out flaw

      --
      ---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.
  7. How effective? by swarm · · Score: 2

    Who is watching TV and listening to the radio these days?
    How will the system reach those of us that get 90% of our content online?
    I guess it would work during a sporting event, but what about the rest of the time?

    1. Re:How effective? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      This is why they're testing it. If its reach is that limited, this is how they'll find out and make changes.

    2. Re:How effective? by Smallpond · · Score: 1

      Wednesday at 2:00 PM? But that's right in the middle of the Car Credit infomercial!

    3. Re:How effective? by kannibal_klown · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Who is watching TV and listening to the radio these days?
      How will the system reach those of us that get 90% of our content online?
      I guess it would work during a sporting event, but what about the rest of the time?

      Actually, a large percentage of people still watch TV now-a-days. Just because a larger percentage of SLASHDOT has moved off TV and onto Hulu+Netflex+Torrents+Whatever doesn't translate very well to Joe Sixpack that just wants to watch a few shows in the evening or the occasional Football / Baseball game.

      Granted, at 2PM most people would be at work where they won't have access to TV and as much radio but a lot of people (including the elderly and unemployed) will be watching.

    4. Re:How effective? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And how will they know? TV and radio are push media. It's not like they have any way of telling how many sets picked up the signal, or how many would have picked it up if they had broadcast it at a time of day when anyone other than old people and unemployed students were at home!

    5. Re:How effective? by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 2

      The message will be a phone# to call to claim cash prizes. They'll count the winners.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    6. Re:How effective? by Lakitu · · Score: 1

      you're asking how you will get info on the internet?

      If TV and radio were not "dumb", one-way media, and worked like the internet to begin with, then this would not even be an issue. With full internet-capable devices, you can request your own information on your own schedule, and not rely on an entertainment-focused pre-scheduled TV channel or radio station to interrupt their broadcasts.

    7. Re:How effective? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      if i remember my networking classes correctly in the Internet protocol there was originally a broadcasts protocal that would send something to every computer on the net but it is blocked by pretty much all computers, while i have always wanted to track it down and try the default root passwords for all major linux/unix distros pluse and see how many computers i could turn off, i think if the government really wanted to they could institute some thing with this.

    8. Re:How effective? by vlm · · Score: 1

      Actually, a large percentage of people still watch TV now-a-days. Just because a larger percentage of SLASHDOT has moved off TV and onto Hulu+Netflex+Torrents+Whatever doesn't translate very well to Joe Sixpack

      The live TV viewers are poor people. Watch the commercials for once instead of DVR FF, netflixing the whole series at once, downloading the torrent, or mythtv auto-skipping the entire break. The commercials are all for criminal defense lawyers, scam schools (become a highly paid video game programmer in two months!), used car dealers, scammy loan operations like auto title loans and strange mortgage offers, bankruptcy laywers... There are not many TV commercials for /.ers like AMD CPUs or heatsink paste.

      Now who is going to logically think things thru and not panic, the average /.er or some poor person who watches too much FOX news and CSI?

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    9. Re:How effective? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 2

      Umm, no. This works precisely because TV and radio are push media. If there is an emergency, it is easy to push emergency broadcast information to everyone. The web is a pull medium, meaning that you can't get any information unless you know to look for it. They can't just inject 'aliens are invading, please go to your local soylent green factory immediately' into every HTTP request.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    10. Re:How effective? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 0

      IP does have a broadcast address. Packets sent to 255.255.255.255 would, in theory, be sent to every machine on the Internet. Routers block them because it would be make a DoS on the entire Internet trivial if it were routable, although you can typically use the broadcast address on the local subnet (e.g. 123.123.123.255). Broadcasting a packet to every machine wouldn't do you any good though, they'd need something to receive it. What do you have running on your computer that will listen for UDP packets (it's broadcast, so it can't be TCP, because that requires replies) and notifies the user when one is received?

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    11. Re:How effective? by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      I'm sure they've figured out some way. It's not like they could just observe people during the test, and monitor social media and such...

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    12. Re:How effective? by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      Well, they COULD. This would require some cooperation on part of the server operators, however.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    13. Re:How effective? by mjr167 · · Score: 1

      What kind of TV do you watch? Perhaps you should try watching something other than the latest reality tv show if you want good commercials. Here's a hint: different channels target different audiences.

    14. Re:How effective? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you serious? With all the social networking and instant messaging and monitoring of feeds and alerts that goes on these days if anything significant happens it will literally explode across the internet.

      I was playing online night before last and some dude on the other team says in just "Well guys I just had an earthquake." I thought maybe he was in California or Japan or New Zealand. Turns out the guy was in Oklahoma.

    15. Re:How effective? by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      No, the GP is right. I'm the only one I know (in meatspace) that gets most content over the internet, but much of what I do get over the internet is over the air radio; I'm a little too far from St Louis to get KSHE and KIHT so I listen to them on the internet, but the EAS message would still come through.

      You can't judge who's watching TV by the commercials, and besides, I see plenty of commercials for new cars, including luxury cars. And drugs. Poor people don't buy new Cadillacs or Cialis. I see commercials geared to farmers; seeds, pesticides, harvesters and combines. I see commercials for grocery and drug stores. Yes, I see them for attorneys (bankrupcy, divorce, personal injury) and title loans, remember that you have to have a paid-off car to get a title loan. And don't you see the commercials for McDonalds, Coke, Pepsi, Burger King, candy bars, KFC (KFC ain't cheap; I can go to D'Arcy's for less), etc.

      Sorry, but you're just plain wrong.

    16. Re:How effective? by vlm · · Score: 1

      What kind of TV do you watch? Perhaps you should try watching something other than the latest reality tv show if you want good commercials. Here's a hint: different channels target different audiences.

      The test is during the early afternoon on a weekday. Other than "judge judy" wannabes, what else is on other than "reality" shows? The CNBC stock fluffer team? Fox news?

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    17. Re:How effective? by FlopEJoe · · Score: 1

      Does anyone have a torrent to it?

    18. Re:How effective? by cvtan · · Score: 1

      I don't have cable so I watch over-the-air TV transmissions. In the car I listen to the radio or CDs or MP3s. Not so weird to me!

      --
      Sorry, but gray text on gray background is making my eyes bleed.
    19. Re:How effective? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly. It never fails to crack me up when Slashdotters think that just because they are in the 99% of pay, they also think the rest of the world functions just like their Mom's basement. Jesus people, all 10 people who don't have a landline, a cellphone, a car or cable TV or satellite are on this site! Get over yourselves!

    20. Re:How effective? by Tim+C · · Score: 1

      Now who is going to logically think things thru and not panic, the average /.er or some poor person who watches too much FOX news and CSI?

      Given the levels of logical thinking usually displayed on here I can only conclude that this was a trick question.

    21. Re:How effective? by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      Granted, at 2PM most people would be at work where they won't have access to TV and as much radio but a lot of people (including the elderly and unemployed) will be watching.

      I suspect that's pretty much the point of conducting the test at 2PM EST. The system gets tested end-to-end, while the fewest people are inconvenienced.

    22. Re:How effective? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Umm, no. This works precisely because TV and radio are push media. If there is an emergency, it is easy to push emergency broadcast information to everyone. The web is a pull medium, meaning that you can't get any information unless you know to look for it. They can't just inject 'aliens are invading, please go to your local soylent green factory immediately' into every HTTP request.

      Oh, so you're saying that at the ISP where I'm a network engineer, I cannot simply activate the walled garden and redirect everyone to an internal site with details mirrored via Akamai from the FEMA page?

      hmm. you just go on thinking whatever you want.

    23. Re:How effective? by mjr167 · · Score: 1

      PBS - no commercials

      Game Shows and soaps - targets the elderly (medicare/medicade supplement insurance, diabetics testing supplies, home medical equipment, life insurance, etc)

      Discovery, Law and Order flavor of the week, cooking shows...

      You get a lot of stuff targeted towards stay at home parents (diapers, life insurance, baby formula, your-baby-can-read and be super smart if you buy this product, your baby will die if you don't buy thing product, etc).

      Not everyone watching daytime TV is poor and uneducated. I know a number of people in the stay-at-home-parent crowd that have masters degrees in a technical field, but choose to stay home with the kids.

    24. Re:How effective? by RoverDaddy · · Score: 1

      Actually the ISPs could do this pretty well by intercepting port 80 on gov't request.

      --
      RETURN without GOSUB in line 1050
    25. Re:How effective? by Lakitu · · Score: 1

      It works becasue it's push media, but the "issue" I was referring to is not technical feasibility, it is whether or not it is useful and worth having.

      There is basically zero need for an internet-based EAS because of the extraordinary abilities of the internet to disperse information. With government-hosted websites, news websites, the blog world, social media like facebook and twitter, and direct personal communication like games, instant messengers, and IRC, and the proliferation of links between all of these, any large-scale news is spread so quickly and so thoroughly that anything resembling the EAS is just not necessary. Not to mention e-mail!

      The issues with an EAS-like system for the internet are cultural and legal, not technical, in nature. It would be practically trivial to redirect internet traffic to breaking news portals from a central location like an ISP by side-jacking DNS requests or serving something like a pop-up ad or rider on any request processed. It's just unwanted and unnecessary.

      Surely you don't think TV and radio are more effective at disseminating information than the internet is? With TV and radio, there was very large medium for transmitting information which was largely societally-owned and was largely being completely wasted in times of an emergency. Major news would often have "breaking updates" cut into an unrelated television or radio program, but what if they didn't, or what if people were watching channels which didn't, or what if...

      There were thousands of reasons holding back TV and radio as a centralized distributor of emergency information, and systems like the EAS were put in place to work around those. There's no real issues like that with internet dissemination of information, because you can barely take two steps without getting info from the internet personally or knowing someone who is.

    26. Re:How effective? by houghi · · Score: 1

      I am still watching TV. Well, at least tv shows. so I will get the message with my daily torrent download.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    27. Re:How effective? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Facebook is how the rest will get it. Lol

    28. Re:How effective? by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      Eh, you can't just do it that way, because plenty of non-interactive systems use HTTP (for data via XML, for example) that would break given such data, and wouldn't be applicable either.

      It also doesn't help in the case of HTTPS, or other (similar) protocols. It's best handled at the application level.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    29. Re:How effective? by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Who is watching TV and listening to the radio these days?

      How will the system reach those of us that get 90% of our content online?

      95% of people don't receive their content online.

      Do you think that all those TV and radio programs are broadcast for the fun of it to a couple of old-timers?

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    30. Re:How effective? by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      And how will they know? TV and radio are push media. It's not like they have any way of telling how many sets picked up the signal, or how many would have picked it up if they had broadcast it at a time of day when anyone other than old people and unemployed students were at home!

      You've not been wearing your tinfoil hat enough.
      Everyone knows that all TVs, radios, phones and computers have a two way communication chip embedded in them that constantly sends and receives New World Order Government messages.
      If you find the chip and try to disable it, bang, it's jackboots kicking your door in at dawn, a trip in a black helicopter to a Thought Reassignment Centre and you're never quite the same man again due to the nuclear remote destruct timer they insert via anal probe.

      This stuff is all common knowledge, surely?

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    31. Re:How effective? by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      And don't you see the commercials for McDonalds, Coke, Pepsi, Burger King, candy bars, KFC (KFC ain't cheap; I can go to D'Arcy's for less), etc.

      Are you having a laugh? Does KFC count as a gourment meal to you?

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    32. Re:How effective? by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      With full internet-capable devices, you can request your own information on your own schedule

      What would be the point of an emergency message that relied on the user requesting it?

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    33. Re:How effective? by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Nobody said anything about "gourmet", it was about affordability. Poor people can't afford KFC, KFC is a middle class joint. TV doesn't advertise to the poor (declaring bankrupcy doesn't mean you're poor, Donald Trump has declared bankrupcy), it advertises mostly to the middle class.

    34. Re:How effective? by uninformedLuddite · · Score: 1

      You're mentally ill but apparently so stupid you have got it back to front

      --
      The new right fascists are bilingual. They speak English and Bullshit.
    35. Re:How effective? by uninformedLuddite · · Score: 1

      Do you think that all those TV and radio programs are broadcast for the fun of it to a couple of old-timers?

      I didn't realise you were married

      --
      The new right fascists are bilingual. They speak English and Bullshit.
  8. 10 bits worth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    mov 101 1011
    jp -1

  9. Isn't this self-fulfilling? by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

    Wouldn't an 'emergency broadcast' that interferes with America's God-given right to television constitute, in itself, an national emergency?

  10. Monitoring all transmissions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I imagine that anybody with the specialized equipment will be analyzing the transmissions to identifiy specific frequencies and or protocols used to control the broadcast system.

    1. Re:Monitoring all transmissions by grumling · · Score: 2

      Or they could just download a manual.

      --
      "Well, good luck finding a judge that doesn't run a bestiality site."
    2. Re:Monitoring all transmissions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As someone who has maintained EAS hardware for a broadcast station, the protocols are all simple and published information, and FEMA/state emergency management departments will give you the information on where that data is flowing. Anyone who wants to know, knows.

  11. media choice by mapkinase · · Score: 3, Insightful

    TV and radio? That's it? I do not have it at home and the radio channels in my car are unworthy.

    I am already subscribed to a bunch of alerts from my county (text, email notifications) and it works already just fine.

    Given that I am spending about 1 hour every day in my car, 8 hours at work (email access), and the rest at home (6 hours sleep - no access to email, texts + access to email and text for the rest of the home time), I would prefer text messages as the basic alert media. With the noted exceptions I always have access to my phone, so I would prefer "text" as a media.

    I could not find any comparison in numbers between TV subscriptions and cell phones, but I suspect that more people nowadays have access to text messaging.

    Another thing is that TV should be on when the emergency broadcast happens.

    From the other hand, cell phones are more easily disrupted (voice, don't remember the anekdotes on messaging) during emergency situations...

    --
    I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
    1. Re:media choice by grumling · · Score: 4, Interesting

      In a real emergency, you'll likely get a reverse 911 call if there's time.

      However, as part of an emergency kit you should have some sort of battery powered mass communications device on hand. The EAS isn't just that 10 second alert. If an event is triggered there are designated "tune-to" channels on cable systems and radio bands that can be used to get information out about things like shelters and storm tracks.

      If they are actually used or not is another matter entirely.

      --
      "Well, good luck finding a judge that doesn't run a bestiality site."
    2. Re:media choice by Phrogman · · Score: 1

      I have a cell phone. I leave it turned off unless I need to make a call. I only have it because I need to have it for work, otherwise I would likely not have a cellphone at all. Text messages might reach a lot of the current always-staring-at-their-cellphone generation but by no means is it a better means of advertising a warning. It could be added to the list of ways to reach people I suppose but given the fact that SOMEONE out there would then want to spoof it immediately I am not sure that's a good idea either.

      --
      "The first time I got drunk, I got married. The second time I bought a chimpanzee, after that I stayed sober" Arian Seid
    3. Re:media choice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think it would be an extremely entertaining event to do it via text messages. We'd get to watch Facebook, Twitter, Google+, etc. literally explode with outrage at how "the government sent me a text that I HAVE TO PAY for". Hell, even it it was prefixed by the standard "free text from (insert carrier)" that billing text messages have, they'd complain that the government was using up their battery or some other ridiculous thing. I can see it now:

      "FREE TEXT from FEMA: This is a test, LOL. OMFG if this wuz a reel em3rgency yewd have seen it on teh twitter an hour ago. LMAO K THX"

    4. Re:media choice by mapkinase · · Score: 1

      >I leave it turned off

      cool story, bro

      --
      I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
    5. Re:media choice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cell phone alerts would be sent via the Cell Broadcast System. Since that's broadcast, it's far less sensitive to overload, and it's probably prioritized at network level anyway (emergency announcments are the main use of CBS).

      It's up your phone to do something with it, though. Apparently the iPhone doesn't support CBS (not sure about the 4S yet).

    6. Re:media choice by SumterLiving · · Score: 1

      I live in a rural town...can you explain the types of information you receive from your county. We're lucky if the city/county website gets updated on a monthly basis.

    7. Re:media choice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I could not find any comparison in numbers between TV subscriptions and cell phones, but I suspect that more people nowadays have access to text messaging.

      313M US Population (July 2011 est.) US CIA World Factbook
      286M US cell phones (as of 2009), US CIA World Factbook, approx 240M unique users (source eMarketer and
      96.7% of U.S. homes have a TV (2012 estimate) Nielsen May 2011 estimates
      Almost 99% of video content watched in the U.S. is on traditional television (2010) Nielsen 2010 fact sheet
      The average American watches 31.5 hrs of TV per week (2010) Nielsen 2010 fact sheet
      83% of American adults own cell phones and three-quarters of them (73%) send and receive text messages. www.pewinternet.org

      So it appears neither broadcast TV nor cell phones captures the entire population but both are good options to reach a substantial portion of the population.

    8. Re:media choice by mapkinase · · Score: 1

      Their alarm system is much better than website. I am subscribed to severe weather. traffic alerts, amber(etc. color) crime alerts and general emergency situation

      --
      I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
    9. Re:media choice by SumterLiving · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the info. Guess it's a little faster than "the notice in my monthly water bill" where they explain there was bad stuff in our drinking water last month. Explains the diarrhea and for that I'm grateful.

    10. Re:media choice by LordSnooty · · Score: 2

      Would Sir wish for a man to follow him around and wave a red flag each time there's a disaster?

      I'm not really sure what your point is. Are you one of these "I don't watch live TV or listen to the radio" crowd? And you turn off your mobile? How exactly do you expect to be warned, then?

    11. Re:media choice by mapkinase · · Score: 1

      This is the moment when you here the voices the audience in the movie theater reacting to the horror movie: "GET THE HELL OUT OF THERE!!!"

      --
      I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
    12. Re:media choice by stealthyburrito · · Score: 1

      AlertsUSA will send you a txt, email, or call you.

      http://www.alertsusa.com/

  12. the real coup by RecycledElectrons · · Score: 2

    The real story here is that Fed.Gov can take over control of any media outlet without the consent of the media outlet.

    Controlling the media is 90% of any coup...so who else is thinking of skipping an occupy rally today to hack this system?

    1. Re:the real coup by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They can already listen in to every phone call you make and read your email but the fact they can interrupt infommercials worries you?

    2. Re:the real coup by grumling · · Score: 4, Informative

      That pesky Communications act of 1934 (amended every congressional session since) specifically states that the airwaves belong to the people, and the people have designated the FCC as the trustee of the airwaves. By getting a license you grant consent.

      The Cable act of 1992 brings cable TV under the umbrella of the FCC as well. Satellite TV, being delivered over the air, falls under the 1934 rule.

      --
      "Well, good luck finding a judge that doesn't run a bestiality site."
    3. Re:the real coup by surgen · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The real story here is that Fed.Gov can take over control of any media outlet without the consent of the media outlet.

      No. That is not the story; those are paranoid delusions. Each broadcast station operates their EAS hardware. It can be overridden in many ways, from changing the control setting from "automatically forward messages" to "wait for my cue before forwarding" all the way to removing the electric relay that allows the encoder to inject between the program signal and transmitter.

      If we're ever in enough trouble where EAS is used to "take over a media outlet", there will be enough problems going on that no broadcaster will give two shits about the FCC ramifications of not forwarding EAS messages (which are currently pretty weak anyway and not enforced anyway).

    4. Re:the real coup by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 2

      Yes, and in an emergency that control is necessary. Especially if the media outlet wouldn't voluntarily cooperate. The media resistance is the coup; the government is already the government.

      If the emergency didn't warrant the government control, the media outlets could and would immediately sue the government. If the legal system were changed by the emergency response, the media outlets would continue to resist in ways that would be more powerful that the government, unless the people went along with the government.

      But all this is moot. For a decade the government has been operating without regard to law or our rights, under cover of the "Global War on Terror" or whatever they call it this year. The real story is that the media outlets covering 99%+ of the audience are part of the "coup" that daily damages our rights, and robs and kills us with our rights abandoned.

      Did you do anything about it while Bush/Cheney set it up and screwed us for 7 years with it?

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    5. Re:the real coup by arthurpaliden · · Score: 1

      Yes but it is for your own protection.

    6. Re:the real coup by Lakitu · · Score: 3, Insightful

      if this is really your concern, then you should not be worried about the FCC, which is decently well-regulated and has visible ties to Congress, or Emergency Alert System, which is a program of cooperation between major media providers in TV and radio and the government.

      What you should worry about is all of the extra-judicial cooperation between corporations and the government, with many of them not even questioning government requests even when the government requests have essentially zero legal standing. Ask a cop you know how easy it is for him to get location information from a cell phone provider, for example, without much hassle.

      Many of these types of corporations lay down and roll over at the thought of any law enforcement request, partly because they are making major profits off of the cronyism tendencies of present day America, and partly because they were bullied into giving up information without question by government administrations over the last 10 years.

      if the official, regulated agency administering very little control over media and the airwaves scare you, then you'll be shocked to find out what the unofficial, unregulated relationships are like.

    7. Re:the real coup by vlm · · Score: 1

      Yes, and in an emergency that control is necessary. Especially if the media outlet wouldn't voluntarily cooperate. The media resistance is the coup; the government is already the government.

      If five corporations own most of the media, and coincidentally, a handful of big corporations also own all the elected officials, I'm not seeing how, or why, the corporations would fight internally. Sure they do stupid stuff like all interdepartmental squabbles, and they put on an antisocial show occasionally, but I'm not seeing why any serious disagreement would/could happen.

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    8. Re:the real coup by dkleinsc · · Score: 1

      Other examples of behavior from the mainstream media that should be considered far more disturbing than the EAS:
      1. Consider, for instance, that the New York Times has reported, on its own front page, that it sends the White House an advance copy of their major stories and asks them whether it's ok to print it. This was true during both the George W Bush and Barack Obama administrations. This has caused the Times to delay publication of major news stories, including those regarding significant illegal activity by the US government.

      2. Cenk Uyger, host of The Young Turks, worked for MSNBC for a brief period. He quit before his contract was up, because his bosses called him in and told him to stop being so critical about the White House because it was annoying people in Washington. After Uyger made an appropriately large stink about this on Youtube, the NBC executives started saying they were internal company people, but Uyger still believes that it was the White House officials that told them to stop his critical reporting.

      3. Tom Brokaw saying that if his government asked him to report something other than the truth, he would remember that he was an American first and a reporter second.

      The government doesn't need to use EAS to exercise control over the mainstream media. The mainstream media already cooperates just fine.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    9. Re:the real coup by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are right about stations' options to "hold" or even prevent EAS messages from hitting the air. Every master control operator and engineer is trained on the use of the EAS box first and foremost, and making sure the units are in good working order and monitoring the requisite sources should be a part of every broadcast engineer's workflow in every station across the land.

      But you are wrong about the FCC's ability and intent to enforce the current EAS regulations. Not only do the Feds take it VERY seriously, the regs have teeth and can cost stations tens of thousands of dollars in multiplying fines (and because of the complex nature of compliance and the amount of monitoring, gear, and paperwork required, it's usually the smallest, most marginally profitable stations that wind up taking the hits here).

      I would venture to suggest that outside of tower light monitoring infractions (which are a HUGE deal for obvious reasons), EAS problems are the most likely source of FCC fines in the U.S.

      However the OP is just wacky with his suggestion that it's some kind of Federal power play. It's a potentially useful system and although it can be inconvenient for viewers (and expensive for stations), it can also do a great deal of good (Amber alerts come to mind, though I have seen those abused in many markets as well).

    10. Re:the real coup by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um, I can shut down EAS to well over 2 million people by walking 50 feet from my desk and unplugging a single cable. Or taking a small hammer to the EAS gear.

      EAS is setup to accept input from a variety of sources, including over a network connection. We get EAS alerts from a variety of agencies, and then relay them out to various markets for broadcast. I could, for example, instead of typing this post cause 2 million people to see the words "PENIS PENIS PENIS" crawl across their TV screens. I'd be looking for a new job, of course, but that's not the point.

      The point is that EAS works by cooperation, not mandate. We're mandated to have the gear, but it's not like some super-villain device that magically causes everybody's TV's and all the radio stations to freak out when The Illuminati decide to take over and institute their New World Order.

      So quit getting so paranoid. Go smoke some pot or something, take some ludes. Shoot some smack, shit man do what you have to, just relax a little bit.

    11. Re:the real coup by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      Are you talking to me? I'm not the one in this thread who said anything paranoid, the poster to whom I replied said so.

      It's nice of you to offer your drugs to me, but you should share them with the other guy. The drugs they're using are making them hyperactive.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    12. Re:the real coup by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      Yes, "The real story is that the media outlets covering 99%+ of the audience are part of the "coup" that daily damages our rights, and robs and kills us with our rights abandoned."

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    13. Re:the real coup by surgen · · Score: 1

      But you are wrong about the FCC's ability and intent to enforce the current EAS regulations. Not only do the Feds take it VERY seriously, the regs have teeth and can cost stations tens of thousands of dollars in multiplying fines (and because of the complex nature of compliance and the amount of monitoring, gear, and paperwork required, it's usually the smallest, most marginally profitable stations that wind up taking the hits here).

      Huh, interesting to hear, I was just operating off of assumptions made from observations in market I operated in once upon a time. We observed plenty of other stations not following EAS procedures, heard verbal accounts from consultant engineers we brought in every now and then, and my own shock at how lax some of the EAS requirements were when reading FCC rules. I guess it just worked out that nobody from that area manged to get on the wrong side of the FCC.

    14. Re:the real coup by LocalH · · Score: 1

      You're an idiot. Please remove your foot from your mouth, I can't imagine that tastes good.

      --
      FC Closer
    15. Re:the real coup by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Did you do anything about it while Bush/Cheney set it up and screwed us for 7 years with it?

      But they weren't evil liberals!

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    16. Re:the real coup by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Controlling the media is 90% of any coup.

      So the "having the military with all their tanks and guns and shit on your side" idea of a coup is now out of date, you just need to occupy a couple of TV stations?

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    17. Re:the real coup by uninformedLuddite · · Score: 1

      You can't help it can you?

      --
      The new right fascists are bilingual. They speak English and Bullshit.
  13. well, it IS a "test" by argStyopa · · Score: 1

    "'Due to some technical limitations, a visual message indicating that "this is a test" may not pop up on every TV channel, especially where people use cable to receive their television stations.'"

    So can we say in advance that that aspect of the test quite clearly FAILS? /facepalm

    --
    -Styopa
    1. Re:well, it IS a "test" by gbjbaanb · · Score: 1

      lets just hope that the visual message indicating that "this is NOT a test" will pop up when needed!

    2. Re:well, it IS a "test" by surgen · · Score: 1

      So can we say in advance that that aspect of the test quite clearly FAILS? /facepalm

      Not really.

      This test probably just focuses on FEMAs ability to get the message to the PEP (Primary Entry Points) for the EAS network, not the end broadcaster to properly transmit, or even receive from the PEP (thats what weekly tests are for). And once the message gets to the PEP, its going to look an awful lot like every other EAS test anyway.

      Its not like its TV stations are going to pop up messages saying "ALERT! EMERGENCY! OH MY GOD! EVERYTHINGS OVER!" with no additional information. Its going to be like the EAS test that happens every single week. Not overriding video is IIRC tolerable under the FCC requirements. The audio message will be there like always.

    3. Re:well, it IS a "test" by jmanforever · · Score: 1

      Its not like its TV stations are going to pop up messages saying "ALERT! EMERGENCY! OH MY GOD! EVERYTHINGS OVER!" with no additional information. Its going to be like the EAS test that happens every single week. Not overriding video is IIRC tolerable under the FCC requirements. The audio message will be there like always.

      Part of the problem, and the reason the FCC and FEMA are trying to get the work out early, is that the video text crawl will NOT indicate that it is a test. The audio portion will, but the text portion will say "A Primary Entry Point station has issued a National Emergency Action Notification for the United States beginning at 2:00 PM EST, valid until 3:00 PM EST"

      This automatically generated text will show up on every TV screen whether connected to cable, satellite, or off-air antenna. If you are not listening to the sound, how would you know it is only a test? This is also the same text message you will see if you subscribe to one of the internet or cell phone text EAS services. There will be no indication of "only a test" anywhere on it.

      YIAABE (Yes, I am a broadcast engineer)

  14. Will it affect Phones, Facebook, and Twitter? by realsilly · · Score: 2

    If our government really wants to reach the people, just take down Facebook for a 30 second window and watch the panic ensue. There is a mass of the population who will see this Nationally broadcast message, but unless they hit the internet and key sites, this is not broad enough to reach a majority of the people.

    Just send a Tweet. I understand that Tweets actually beat the aftershock waves along the Eastern seaboard when the quake hit Virginia a few months ago.

    And a free Text message broadcasted to all phones would also work, but you know they won't do that, it shows how much power our government has and they don't want to tip their hand too early with that one.

    --
    Life takes interesting turns, but the most interest is when you're off the beaten path.
    1. Re:Will it affect Phones, Facebook, and Twitter? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      understand that Tweets actually beat the aftershock waves along the Eastern seaboard when the quake hit Virginia a few months ago.

      that's a myth!!!!! perpetrated by XKCD which stands for xtra kavity cearces, da

  15. DON'T PANIC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Honestly, don't. The chances of an actual emergency occurring during an emergency test are infinitesimal.

    All reactor core safeguards are now non-functional. Please prepare for reactor core meltdown.

    Seriously, everything is fine.

    WARNING: Core overheating. Nuclear meltdown imminent.

    This is just a test. Please try to focus on the buttons and cubes.

    1. Re:DON'T PANIC by rossdee · · Score: 1

      "Honestly, don't. The chances of an actual emergency occurring during an emergency test are infinitesimal."

      This may be true for a natural disaster, but for a decade or more one possible national emergeancy could be a terrorist attack.
      Since this test has been given enough publicity there may be terrorists (locall and international) that want to take advantage of the opportunity.

      Even ordinary criminals could use it as a cover.

    2. Re:DON'T PANIC by Politburo · · Score: 1

      As an opportunity for what? As a cover for what?

      Many people keep saying this is an 'opportunity' but never say how it would make an attack any more successful. It's not like law enforcement is going to be sitting around watching the test.

    3. Re:DON'T PANIC by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      This has nothing to do with terrorists and everything to do with a submarine launched ICBM, sorry, airplane, that was launched off the coast of California^H^H^H^H that had a very peculiar ICBM-like contrail by an unspecified Chinese superpower^H^H^H^Hairline a year or so ago, reminding people in the government that nuclear attack can happen at any time just like in the 80's when this kind of test used to be common.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  16. Cable by Phrogman · · Score: 1

    'Due to some technical limitations, a visual message indicating that "this is a test" may not pop up on every TV channel, especially where people use cable to receive their television stations.'

    Ah forgive me, I live up in Canada. Does anyone NOT receive their television from cable these days? Looking online (for what thats worth), it seems 72.7% of Canadians get their TV signal from cable, and 27% get it from Direct to Home (which is presumably referring to satellite TV) with 0.4% getting it from MDS Satellite (whatever that is), all as of 2005.

    Is it not the same down there in the US? The fact that this might not pop up "THIS IS A TEST" on the majority of home TV systems would be enough for me to consider the entire system completely broken. There is no point in having a warning system that causes as much panic as a real event its intended to help warn against if you choose to test it.

    In any given week it is entirely possible for me to not watch any TV (except perhaps downloaded content), or listen to the radio. I would likely read about it on the web but its quite possible I could miss the warning that a test was coming up. It wouldn't surprise me if a lot of other people managed to miss the notification that a test was happening, and then panic when the test happens. It would seem to me to be absolutely crucial that the fact that its just a test would be displayed on any warning sent out. I hope I am wrong of course, but I do hope no one dies from this test...

    --
    "The first time I got drunk, I got married. The second time I bought a chimpanzee, after that I stayed sober" Arian Seid
    1. Re:Cable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, plenty of people still don't use cable. Mostly the poor, who can typically afford a TV and antenna but not a cable or satellite contract.

      Or people who just don't watch TV, but do have a TV, such as me.

    2. Re:Cable by surgen · · Score: 2

      Is it not the same down there in the US? The fact that this might not pop up "THIS IS A TEST" on the majority of home TV systems would be enough for me to consider the entire system completely broken. There is no point in having a warning system that causes as much panic as a real event its intended to help warn against if you choose to test it.

      Its not broken, its just that some people are really, really dumb.

      Not only will the actual audio of the alert be there saying that its just a test, there should be no panic at the presence of an alert if it were real. Every broadcast station here is required to activate the alert system for a test once a week and its used for real whenever there is severe weather.

      There doesn't need to be a graphic "this is just a test" message, the emergency alerts in our country are audio-based with a bit of textual metadata (which is really only necessary for the broadcaster). The audio recording will say its a test. Some TV stations just have their audio signal overridden and continue displaying program video. Yes, its because they're too cheap for a character generator, but its not really a failure of the system to deliver a message. Perhaps a failure of the FCC's requirements and they should mandate video to be overridden too, but the message is still delivered fine.

    3. Re:Cable by tibit · · Score: 1

      Does anyone NOT receive their television from cable these days?

      I'm considering dropping the cable TV part of my cable package since all that I watch is either available online on the network sites (with a slight delay), or it's on the channels that are available over-the-air, in HD no less. I have to get my behind up into the attic and install two antennas, though: there are two masts downtown that do OTA broadcasts, and they are separated enough that you need two antennas.

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    4. Re:Cable by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      In 2010 Nielsen said that only 9% of American households received only terrestrial broadcast TV (ie. not cable or satellite). That number might have increased as the recession has made dropping paid services in favor of free (plus a possible digital converter/antenna) terrestrial broadcasts, but not much.

      However, I would expect that a much larger proportion of that tenth of American households is in reach of an alertable emergency, like flood or tornado. More who don't work, so are isolated at home, need it. More children on average in those households, so more Americans. So I wouldn't be surprised if over 25-30% of Americans who needs these alerts can get them only over broadcast TV. I also expect they watch more TV on average than Americans overall, especially without the Internet.

      And because people in that condition have a higher chance of being stupid losers, who watch TV all day in their trailer park surrounded by more children than they can afford to feed or relocate from an emergency. But those people still need the public to warn them of emergencies.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    5. Re:Cable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because you know, no one is deaf or anything.

    6. Re:Cable by vlm · · Score: 1

      Its not broken, its just that some people are really, really dumb.

      I think a lot of it is people living in areas where there ARE NO ALERTS, for whatever legal / cultural / geographic reasons, so they think human beings cannot survive under those conditions.

      Where I live, the local cableco tests local EAS the first wednesday morn monthly, and the local cops test the useless tornado sirens every thursday morning at 0930 if the weather is non-threatening. Also we activate EAS every weekend evening, roughly, for child custody disputes 50 miles away, sure glad we have that interruption to our lives. I can imagine places exist where this kind of testing simply never happens... where people simply don't know how to react.

      Kind of like some southerners simply cannot wrap their brains around the concept that an inch of snow isn't even newsworthy where I live, they go into utter freak out at the very concept of something like an inch of snow happening.

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    7. Re:Cable by vlm · · Score: 1

      In 2010 Nielsen said [broadcastengineering.com] that only 9% of American households received only terrestrial broadcast TV (ie. not cable or satellite). That number might have increased as the recession has made dropping paid services in favor of free

      Don't forget long term ramifications... If for more than a generation, the median American inflation adjusted income has been dropping, while the cost of paid TV services has been increasing faster than inflation, planning for the future indicates that eventually, very few people will be paying for TV service, its just simple math. It is rare for govt or industry to plan ahead, but it could theoretically happen.

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    8. Re:Cable by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      It's clear that emergency broadcasts must address data networks, including mobile phone networks. In fact the government has recently added broadcasts to the mobile phone networks. I'm surprised that there's been nothing I've heard of to force alert messages to Internet terminals of all kinds, since that's such a smooth way for government to force their way onto monitoring and controlling those terminals.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

  17. You designed it, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    wanted it foolproof. You said every television in London.

  18. Mmkay... by Old+Sparky · · Score: 1

    But how is this Bush's Fault ?

    1. Re:Mmkay... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bush was president when Obama was elected. The fact that Bush didn't prevent Obama getting elected means he planned it that way.

    2. Re:Mmkay... by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 0

      Because your Bush Derangement Syndrome makes you deny anything is Bush's fault, regardless of even relevance. You Republicans got it the worst. Which is how you gave us Bush twice.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    3. Re:Mmkay... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      FEMA & Homeland Security became powerful during his term. You would think that they would have tried something like this already. Yet, I'm not sure if I can think of a true 'nation-wide' emergency besides a solar flare and needing to unplug everything.

    4. Re:Mmkay... by Mashiki · · Score: 0

      Yeah. I mean democrats sure picked a winner, the US hasn't seen a president this bad since Carter.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    5. Re:Mmkay... by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 0

      Thanks for the supporting evidence of what I just said.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    6. Re:Mmkay... by Old+Sparky · · Score: 1

      Boy howdy! Just try to make a fsckin JOKE on here, and you're automatically branded a Republican!!! OK Doc; using YOUR LOGIC; 9/11 was Clinton's Fault.

    7. Re:Mmkay... by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 2

      It's not a joke if it's not funny. And certainly not when it's what millions of Republicans say every day to deny their giving us Bush/Cheney made the worst president of all time their fault.

      I suppose that you're now using my logic to continue talking like a Republican. Not funny either.

      BTW, they're not funny not because the truth is so bad, but because what you're saying just has no humor to it. If you can't tell, your sense of humor isn't up to the task of posting in public.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    8. Re:Mmkay... by Old+Sparky · · Score: 1

      Well Doc - you keep on believing what you believe, and I'll keep on posting in public.

    9. Re:Mmkay... by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      Yep. Because we all know that on the face, everything is equal. And if you're that blinded by being a partisan hack, you'll always be a partisan hack. Don't worry Doc, you'll learn one day. It's a never ending process after all.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    10. Re:Mmkay... by uninformedLuddite · · Score: 1

      Just wait till you see the next one

      --
      The new right fascists are bilingual. They speak English and Bullshit.
  19. authenticity by SgtChaireBourne · · Score: 1

    I would prefer text messages as the basic alert media. With the noted exceptions I always have access to my phone, so I would prefer "text" as a media.

    How would you know the message is authentic?

    --
    Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
    1. Re:authenticity by OzPeter · · Score: 1

      I would prefer text messages as the basic alert media. With the noted exceptions I always have access to my phone, so I would prefer "text" as a media.

      How would you know the message is authentic?

      Text message delivery is not guaranteed to be immediate, so how do you know the message is timely?
       
      Or better yet, you finally turn on your cell phone and get inundated with a zillion alert text messages which gives you the impression that the zombie apocalypse has already started and you'd better start shooting your neighbors - as after all, they are all walking around as if there is no emergency what so ever.

      --
      I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
    2. Re:authenticity by vlm · · Score: 1

      I would prefer text messages as the basic alert media. With the noted exceptions I always have access to my phone, so I would prefer "text" as a media.

      How would you know the message is authentic?

      If its a text, it is not authentic unless you're within a very small restricted age range that uses texts constantly.

      I would assume any "attention grabbing" text is just spam. "Zombie apocalypse reported downtown... please email zombie@ripoffonlinephamacy.com for details"

      Just like the QR code fad. I'm not interested in QR codes because I know from history that within a year, 90% of public QR codes are going to be hacked URLs pointing to goatse or some virus delivery payload website that will add another toolbar and tracking virus to my machine or at absolute best, a rickroll. I'm surprised people aren't doing this already, placing new stickers with "enhanced" QR codes on top of existing QR code marketing materials.

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    3. Re:authenticity by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      That's not difficult. Whomever sends the message just needs to include a timestamp in the message itself.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    4. Re:authenticity by mapkinase · · Score: 1

      Any sci-fi fan would tell you that this problem exists on the radio as well (famously popped up 75 years ago) :-)

      I am not taking your question seriously because I do not take a problem of text message pranks seriously.

      --
      I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
  20. Ditching cable and this is amond the reasons why by silas_moeckel · · Score: 1

    I've hating this since my S3 tivo's decided that any of these alerts it must change the channel to them and make me watch it 2 times in English and in Spanish and disable all functionality till it's over. The bad part is it tells me about things a hundred miles away or local river flooding (I'm 150 feet above the nearest river about the thousand year flood mark). The random amber alerts. This is political theater to scare more people into voting these guys back in. The weather alert systems are cheap and reliable. I'm waiting for flashy the security threat level in you area is mauve random mandatory anal probes at all checkpoints until further notice have a nice day.

    --
    No sir I dont like it.
  21. I'll Tivo it by ehiris · · Score: 1

    I can't wait to be alerted hours after the fact when I'll just have my show ruined because I have to fast forward through the annoyance.

    Awfully pretentious of them to think that everyone watches and listens on frequencies that the FCC has made so unattractive that they're pretty much obsolete.

  22. It's a Hoax by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 4, Interesting

    On September 11, 2001, the Emergency Alert System (that replaced the Emergency Broadcast System in 1998) did not alert anything. NYC and DC were under multiple attack by planes that immediately crippled the country, surging panic throughout the nation and the world, and driving the USA down the path of ruinous war. But there were no announcements, no sirens, no alerts. Emergency, but no alerts. Precisely the kind of emergency the system was sold to the public to address. After decades, finally needed, useless.

    The official explanation is so much media coverage that it wasn't needed. As if any event requiring the system to work is going to go uncovered by the commercial media. That means the policy is for the system never to actually be used.

    All those years of "testing" the system, all the money spent, all the alternate preparations ignored in favor of that one - all a total waste.

    The weirdest thing is that it took years before I even heard someone mention that it didn't work. A forgettable comedian in about 2004-2005 had about 45 seconds about it

    Now they'll spend a load of money on something else. It might even work. But since nobody even noticed, there'll be no reason for this new one to work. Except for those annoying tests that interrupt us. And leave us expecting we've built something necessary in an emergency, when we've just wasted more money on military contractors who delivered nothing.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

    1. Re:It's a Hoax by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      That is a very good point, while they are probably right that the EAS was not needed on 9/11, it is the type of incident that the system was created for.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    2. Re:It's a Hoax by subreality · · Score: 1

      The idea is to broadcast useful instructions during an emergency. In the early days, that meant "nukes incoming; prepare to duck and cover / head to bomb shelter / find local fallout shelter". Sometimes we get "tornado incoming; get away from glass"; that one's pretty handy.

      What would you broadcast on 9/11 during the brief window between WTF and 100% landed? "Beware of airplanes"? The news had THAT covered well before anyone in the government could put together a coherent sentence.

    3. Re:It's a Hoax by blueg3 · · Score: 1

      It only has any effect if you're watching television or listening to the radio. By the time people knew what was going on, enough to make an emergency broadcast, every TV and radio station had already announced it voluntarily.

      The emergency-alert system is actually pretty effective for local serious-weather alerts. (Not the minor weather alerts put together by the TV station itself, but the occasional Icy Roads of Death warning.)

    4. Re:It's a Hoax by weave · · Score: 2

      A good point, but it did kick in where I live during Hurricane Irene to let us know there was a tornado sighted within a few miles of our home and what track it was taking and advised seeking shelter quickly. Very useful.

    5. Re:It's a Hoax by chill · · Score: 3, Informative

      It worked for me during the 1998 outbreak of tornados in Tennessee. I was in Nashville at the time and heading south by car when it kicked in. It was off and on all day and helped me navigate between storms and keep safe.

      Quite useful that time.

      --
      Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
    6. Re:It's a Hoax by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      How did you know that the attack was "100% landed"?

      Wait - if you think that the news has put together a coherent sentence since the planes started crashing, don't answer that. Especially if you think the news has had a sentence, coherent or not, before the government has given it to say.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    7. Re:It's a Hoax by ScentCone · · Score: 3, Insightful

      What were you expecting, an announcement that said, "Alert: We have no idea what to tell you to do, since we have no idea what just happened or what will happen next, who is involved, or the scope of the situation!" ?

      Or perhaps: "Alert! Complex conflict with Jihaddist Wackadoos now coming to a head, since they're supporting and harboring the people who launched this attack! We can't tell you a thing to do except watch the news, because it's not the sort of emergency that lends itself to any specific instructions other than to avoid the Pentagon parking lot and Lower Manhattan, not that you could get near them anyway right now."

      9/11 wasn't the least sort of situation that the EAS is meant to handle.It's meant to break into something you're already watching, and to pass along specific information. On 9/11, pretty much everything you were already watching was already diverted to news coverage, in real time.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    8. Re:It's a Hoax by Dhalka226 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Your point is fair enough, but I can't help but notice you fully avoided the question. What would you have said and to what effect? "Beware Arabs?"

      The purpose of the system isn't to inform, it is to alert to action. "Tornado coming, duck!" is an actionable alert. The more probable intent at the time of invention, "incoming bombers" or "incoming missile, get to a shelter" is an actionable alert. You would have told people on 9/11 what? At any point in the situation?

      Once we knew what was going on, planes were grounded. Fighters were in the air. For all the terrible injury and death that occurred I can't think of hearing about a single case that was because the police hadn't properly cordoned off the area around the towers, or any other such issue where action might actually be feasible. The only things we might have said we didn't know to say.

      There may well be problems with the Emergency Alert System, but I would hardly call 9/11 an example of a failure.

    9. Re:It's a Hoax by Thelasko · · Score: 2

      That is a very good point, while they are probably right that the EAS was not needed on 9/11, it is the type of incident that the system was created for.

      No, it was created for thermonuclear war. The only people that would know about such an impending catastrophe would be NORAD, so the EBS (now EAS) was created to disseminate this information to the general public.

      The government didn't know the September 11th attacks were about to occur, and had very little information after the attack. Therefore they had no reason to use the EAS.

      --
      One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
    10. Re:It's a Hoax by Thelasko · · Score: 1

      Just because the 9/11 attack caught our government by surprise, doesn't mean such a system isn't needed. Put the tin foil down!

      --
      One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
    11. Re:It's a Hoax by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, it was created for thermonuclear war.

      That's the point I was going to make. While it might have been called the "Emergency Broadcast System" and the "Emergency Alert System", what it really was and is is the "End of the Motherfucking World is Happening Right Fucking Now System".

      I grew up listening to EBS. To this day when I hear that tone I stop what I'm doing and go check to see if it is a test or if the shit hit the fan.

    12. Re:It's a Hoax by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      I thought the statement you made was far more interesting than the question you asked. In fact I thought your statement discredited you to the point where I wasn't interested in whether you had a question.

      The answer to your question is what the military statement to the public was supposed to be in the event of such an attack. That attack was not the "nobody could have anticipated" BS that the Bush administration (especially Rice) worked on us. The military and various response agencies have simulated attacks like that for a long time. Their planned responses include public statements. None of which were announced over the EAS. If the problem was that the military did not provide the message for the EAS, then the difference is academic: that's the part of the EAS that failed.

      I'm not the military with the budget, personnel and time to develop such a message in case of such an attack, but I can offer: "Planes have hit the World Trade Center in New York, and the Pentagon in DC. All air traffic nationwide has been halted, the military is deployed, the president is in command and the government is deploying its planned response." Even though the part about "the president is in command" would have been a lie.

      Now you answer my question, that you have been avoiding: how did you know that the attack was "100% landed"? You didn't. That's why you're not answering my question.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    13. Re:It's a Hoax by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 3, Interesting

      No, it was originally created for a nuclear war. But that was 50 years ago. The system has been substantially reinvented at least 3 times since then, of which the current testing is part of the latest change. The system currently warns of all kinds of emergencies, most commonly weather and other natural disasters.

      The government knew the attacks were happening. The government had the info within an hour after the initial attacks that all planes were grounded, and that there were only the two targeted attacks. The government had spent all kinds of time and money modeling attacks including ones like that one (despite the CYA BS from Rice and other Bushers about "nobody could have anticipated"), including intel like that made into the August 6, 2001 PDB that anticipated this attack as likely coming soon.

      Meanwhile news orgs were saying all kinds of stuff about the attacks immediately, much of which was wrong. The government should have used the EAS to announce the known facts, including the basic government response, to cut off such misinfo and give the public something to indicate our government was working to protect us, despite letting the attack occur. That is what the EAS is for.

      Of course, this is the Bush/Cheney government that let New Orleans drown just a few years later. Their job was to discredit the government by spending its time and money on their cronies instead of the public. The EAS failure fits right in.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    14. Re:It's a Hoax by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      I didn't say it's not needed. What I said is that a system that fails like what we've got failed is not needed. Because a working one is needed.

      You should read my actual posts, instead of the rorschach in your head.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    15. Re:It's a Hoax by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 1

      Is there any reason to inform the public about thermonuclear war? What would they say, "a gazillion nukes are coming, duck under the table"? Sounds pretty useless to me.

      --
      Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
    16. Re:It's a Hoax by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Other than the first Tuesday of every month at 10:00 am, I have heard the siren once when a really bad storm came thru Chicago this summer. Tornado hit parts of the suburbs. It was dark, cloudy with rain and high winds but most storms in Chicago are like that. Once I heard the siren, I knew that some serious shit was brewing out there. Had I been outside I would have made my ways in doors, fast.

    17. Re:It's a Hoax by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is there any reason to inform the public about thermonuclear war? What would they say, "a gazillion nukes are coming, duck under the table"? Sounds pretty useless to me.

      Actually, that's very useful.

      If you're within a mile of where the bomb hits, you're vapor no matter what.

      But if you're outside of the fireball, but inside the radius where thermal and/or blast effects are significant, you can protect yourself pretty well by taking cover. That can make the difference between being the guy who looks like a boiled lobster and spends the next few days writhing in agony from burns and shrapnel damage, vs being the guy who wanders away with a few cuts and scrapes because he was behind a brick wall when the bombs went off. (Still further out, it's the difference between being the guy who walks away completely unscathed, vs. being the guy who has a really bad sunburn.)

      Multiply those sorts of outcomes by ten thousand people (per bomb), and you've not only saved a few thousand lives - you've significantly lowered the load on any surviving triage and health care facilities.

      You might not want to survive a limited (or even global) nuclear exchange, but EAS gives you a few minutes to make up your mind. Given that option, I'd take shelter and gamble on survival. Maybe there's just one bomb (still enough to ruin your whole day) that's headed your way, and it's not the end of human civilization. LARPing Fallout: New $YOURTOWN for a few days might not be your idea of a good time, but it'll be lot more fun if you can avoid third-degree burns or heavy shrapnel damage. (If you survive and decide you don't want to play anymore, you can always kill yourself later.)

    18. Re:It's a Hoax by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      9/11 was NOT the type of incident that the system was created for. The EAS was created to deal with nuclear fallout spreading over large geological portions of the US, inbound hostile ICBMs that are about to annihilate civilization as we know it, biological/civil disasters that prevent civilization from functioning, etc. It was designed for use when the Continuation Of Government (COG) contingencies kick in, and they are the only official organization left with the logistical capability of making logical/coherent decisions for civilian matters. It was also designed to put a stop to any potential false flag operations in the event of an hostile foreign invasion.

      9/11 doesn't even come close to what the EAS was designed to handle. Lets just hope for your sake and mine that we never will have an event that will actually warrant a live-code EAN to be sent out to the entire US.

    19. Re:It's a Hoax by subreality · · Score: 1

      The FAA knew when all planes that were in the air were 100% landed. There could have been other attacks still pending, but what possible useful instructions could have been broadcast for that?

      And no, I didn't say the news was providing coherent information. They DID get across "OMFG planes!". For an emergency broadcast to be useful, it has to have better information than that, and there simply weren't any useful instructions that could be given.

      People were already at 100% vigilance, so saying "keep an eye out for unusual stuff" would only increase the level of panic. Saying "We have things under control, keep calm and carry on" would be an outright lie, and wouldn't help anyone except politicians. So what SHOULD they have said?

    20. Re:It's a Hoax by gmhowell · · Score: 1

      The government didn't know the September 11th attacks were about to occur, and had very little information after the attack.

      Oh, you're so naive...

      --
      Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
  23. Re:Ditching cable and this is amond the reasons wh by Hittman · · Score: 1
    It's even better when you're watching a show you recorded days ago and the alert mutes the sound and replaces it with annoying beeps.

    All of the alerts I've seen are for severe weather. Hey, guess what? We're used to thunderstorms. We're already prepared for them. Yeah, if it were a tornado I'd be concerned, but not three days later.

  24. The real truth about the test by arthurpaliden · · Score: 1

    What is really happening is the asteroid that is heading to earth is not really in a stable orbit and it may actually hit the Earth. So the NWO has scheduled this test so that they can get the word out to all the elites to proceed to the shelter stations. Now they have been saying that it is just a test so that the general public will not really pay any attention to what is said in the broadcast. However, the elites will be listening for the key words in the broadcast.

  25. Could someone explain what the point is? by fredrated · · Score: 1

    After all, short of the Yellowstone supervolcano blasting ash over the whole coultry, what kind of emergency would involve the whole country at once?

    1. Re:Could someone explain what the point is? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      China attacks West coast. Inbound missiles observed. Evacuate all major cities.

    2. Re:Could someone explain what the point is? by vlm · · Score: 1

      China attacks West coast. Inbound missiles observed. Evacuate all major cities.

      I have a sort of the inside track on this from station engineer acquaintances / friends

      They would never announce that for military reasons. Need the roads clear for the VIP evacs, troop carriers, tanks and artillery, etc. Panic in the streets is exactly the effect they are not looking for. Local nuke plant leak, chem plant leak, oh yes, lots of detail preparation and planning and procedures. Military / terror attack? No.

      Coastal station engineers tell me tsunami warning delivery is considered kind of their shining goal as everything else (other than leaking plants mentioned above) is handled better using alternative methods. I guess theoretically a big tsunami could hit an entire coast.

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    3. Re:Could someone explain what the point is? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Inbound ICBMs carrying a nuclear/chemical/biological payload or the Yellowstone supervolcano blasting ash over the whole country.

      In reality, the EAS was designed only for times when society in general has ceased to function. As in, mass casualty events in which its "every man/woman/child for himself/herself" sort of deal. There still are very real, although unlikely, scenarios where traditional news sources would no longer be able to deliver information to the masses. For scenarios like those we have continuation of government contingencies combined with the EAS to provide instructions to survivors.

  26. Don't see it on directv other then loacls or TWC by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    When I used to have cable it sucked they cut out the sound even on the local channels so you can't even hear the local live weather report that is more detailed then then in there is a alert in $county.

  27. Perfect time for a false flag operation... by advocate_one · · Score: 1

    I would not be surprised if there is a dirty bomb set off in America to galvanize public opinion into invading Iran... let's face it... 9/11 took place while a major air defence exercise was taking place, 7/7 in London took place while a major exercise was underway in the London Tube.

    --
    Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
    1. Re:Perfect time for a false flag operation... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      let's face it... 9/11 took place while a major air defence exercise was taking place, 7/7 in London took place while a major exercise was underway in the London Tube.

      Plus 10/66, which took place in the shadow of the Vikings attacking. Proof if proof were needed!

    2. Re:Perfect time for a false flag operation... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Absolutely CORRECT !
      These "drills" are a perfect time for a false flag operation.
      Watch out !

  28. There will be a broarcast message from GMs in WOW by Shivetya · · Score: 1

    so I am sure you will be covered.

    If this were an actual emergency most slashdot subscribers would survive just fine being that the basement is a safe place to be. Please note, your mom may stop bringing you meals which means you might have to go upstairs to witness the disaster

    --
    * Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
  29. Why would we panic? by koan · · Score: 1

    It's not like the media has been spewing terrorist FUD for the last 10 years, or whittling down peoples psychological stability with "end of the world" financial FUD, or... well you get my point.

    This is a nation prepped for panic.

    --
    "If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
  30. See no evil, hear no evil ... by Skapare · · Score: 1

    I no longer have a TV so I won't see it. I no longer have a radio so I won't hear it. I have a spam filter on my email so I won't read it. So while everyone else panics, I'll be getting RICH (after someone posts on Slashdot how to do it).

    --
    now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
  31. Seven Days in May by cknowles · · Score: 1

    In eight days, for the first time in the nation's history, all of the radio and TV stations in the country will be under the direct control of the federal government. At 2:00PM Eastern Time on Wednesday, November 9, 2011, the FCC and FEMA will commandeer the airwaves for a minimum of 2 1/2 to 3 1/2 minutes. For those of you old enough to remember CONELRAD or the EBS (Emergency Broadcasting System), they are the ones who broadcast that deafening tone while displaying a test pattern or "This Is Only A Test" slide. But in the 1962 book Seven Days in May, and the 1964 movie of the same name, the President and the Joint Chiefs of Staff were going to use this mechanism as the kickoff of a coup d'etat. Now, I have complete trust in the hierarchy of the military, and believe that they put their lives on the line every day to protect the health and welfare of the nation. But are you ABSOLUTELY sure of every component in the Command and Control system? IF the "Occupy" protestors were to be roiled to a fever pitch, become violent, and pose a clear and present danger to the nation's security, martial law could be declared and habeus corpus suspended. Then the protestors could be rounded up and interned. Finally, someone could suspend elections and the current bureaucracy could preside over the nation for the duration of the unrest. Does anyone else find this just a little unnerving? Or am I letting my Minor in Political Science get the better of me?

    1. Re:Seven Days in May by kermidge · · Score: 1

      Nice reference. Um, and "interesting" speculation; how does one assign probabilities with so many unknowns versus postulated possibilities?

      Yeah, I remember CONELRAD, 640 and 1240 on your dial. Also 'duck and cover' and evac drills, SAC alerts (watching and _hearing_ local bases scramble their B-47s and B-52s was awesome, especially to an eight-year old kid) along with the ADC/TAC scrambles. When you're crouched under your desk and look out the classroom window to see an F-101 zoom past so close you can see the pilot's helmet, yeah, it makes an impression. Almost fun if you don't think about the rest of it.

    2. Re:Seven Days in May by cknowles · · Score: 1

      That's why, living on Martha's Vineyard, I liked it when they had a tactical fighter wing at Otis. At least I could hear them over head, and occasionally see them. Now they've moved them to Westover.

  32. Why is this useful? by Bardwick · · Score: 1

    I'm confused. What's the point? I mean, I don't care that they are doing it, whatever, but why? When would you need to alert the entire country to get into thier basement? War and some kind of space event only two things that come to mind..

  33. And In an Unrelated News Story by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

    Bush appointees are worried about the Sun not rising tomorrow.

  34. Seven Days In May.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There's a book (and the movie with Burt Lancaster, et al) about an attempted military coup that depended on a national test of the emergency alert system...
    It's actually pretty good, although a little dated because of technology improvements - it's actually kinda funny watching them doing a teleconference.....

  35. That system is used frequently for weather by Animats · · Score: 1

    FEMA uses that system regionally for hurricane and tornado alerts. It's not a big deal.

    1. Re:That system is used frequently for weather by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      National Weather Service uses it for weather alerts, not FEMA. NWS alerts are very localized. This FEMA test is national. About time FEMA tries it. Even then, it shouldn't be that big of a deal as you say.

  36. The Revolution is scheduled for Wed at 2:00 PM EST by DamnStupidElf · · Score: 1

    The problem with hyping a test of an emergency system is that its effectiveness drops nearly to zero around the time of the test. Even testing an alert system too often reduces its effectiveness. For a national alert system (and the September 11, 2001 attacks didn't even warrant an alert, apparently) it will probably end up being roughly useless. A propaganda tool at best.

  37. Is there... by nigel_atkinson · · Score: 1

    ... an app for that?

  38. FINALLY by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    FINALLY! The governement seizes control of all communications, nationwide

  39. Coincidence? by Chelloveck · · Score: 1

    Is it a coincidence that they're gearing up for a nationwide emergency "test" the day after an asteroid is supposed to have a "near miss"? I don't think so! Someone out there knows that we're going to need some serious emergency response the day after tomorrow, and they're trying to get everyone ready without causing a major panic. Duck and cover!

    --
    Chelloveck
    I give up on debugging. From now on, SIGSEGV is a feature.
  40. Hope I remember Wednesday by cusco · · Score: 1

    Back in the Ronnie Raygun years, when we were quite aware that Seattle was only about 20 minutes from launch sites near Vladivostok, a friend and I were listening to the radio one day when the Emergency Broadcast System alert came on. We hadn't heard anything about a test at the beginning of the alert (the station had forgotten), but Mark just pushed the button to change to another station.

    Another Emergency Broadcast System tone.

    I pushed another button, inadvertently sending us back to the first station. Mark took the next off ramp and we headed towards the waterfront. By the time that the announcer came on to say "This was only a test" we were consigned to our fate. When I later asked Mark where he was driving he said, "Well, I figured that the waterfront was probably the best place to watch the Bangor sub base go up before we were incinerated."

    My nieces and nephews have never lived with that sort of certainty that the world was probably going to end soon, and I'm very glad of it.

    --
    "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
  41. Be wise. Be safe. Be aware. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If are only testing the system, why the hell does it have to be at 2 in the afternoon? Why not 2 in the morning?

  42. No aliens huh? by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

    It seems to me that the only realistic need for this would be in case of alien invasion, which means that the government denial of the ET/UFO petitions is clearly a bald face lie.

  43. In Soviet Russia by Roachie · · Score: 1

    YOU warn Television!

    --
    This sig is not paradoxical or ironic.
  44. Examples of drills the same days as incidents by Paul+Fernhout · · Score: 1
    --
    A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
    1. Re:Examples of drills the same days as incidents by tomhudson · · Score: 1
      If you want to see something weirder, watch the first episode of the TV Series The Lone Gunmen

      The plot of the first episode, which aired March 4, 2001, involves a US government conspiracy to hijack an airliner, fly it into the World Trade Center and blame it on terrorists, thereby gaining support for a new profit-making war.

      Parallels of this plotted scenario of government conspiracy to revitalize its war industry, to the events of 9/11 in this episode are noteworthy, if not uncanny, since the episode was aired six months prior to 9/11.

      Who says life doesn't follow art?

  45. Reality Check by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'd like to take a moment and provide a small reality check.

    While it is de rigueur these days to proclaim all non Twitter or no-internet media long dead, the fact remains that television viewership eclipses BY FAR all other media. And, surprise surprise, even AM/FM radio listenership still exceeds Last.fm, Pandora, iTunes, Spottify and XM Satellite subscribers COMBINED.

    So, while it seems that cool hipsters like you won't be getting the news about the reactor melt down, the vast majority of the population will. I"m very comfortable with that.

    TTFN

  46. Big Brother wishes to remind us all... by bhmcintosh · · Score: 1

    ... not to succumb to a "War of The Worlds" effect. If this had been an actual emergency, the terrorists would already have turned Poughkeepsie into a mushroom-cloud-covered obsidian lake bed. Everybody take deep breaths, think calming thoughts, and you can all go back to calling Snooki a skank after it's over with. Or so the voices in my head want me to assure you.

    End of line.

    @!#%$@%^@&& NO CARRIER

    --
    Network geek with a strong affinity for Telecasters
  47. Just a Test? by Khith · · Score: 1

    If this were merely a test, it would be done in the early morning when most people are asleep, so that it doesn't disrupt programming schedules.

    I believe that the fact that it's being done when people are likely to be watching means that this is not just a test but a drill. Expect more "tests" like we have with the existing emergency alert systems.

    What bothers me is that the government seems to have a way to cut off most television broadcasts if it chooses. They may start with emergencies, but technically they could use it to provide "important announcements" of a non-emergency nature. For example, they might also have an "alert" during a political debate, cutting off the broadcast when a candidate unfavorable to those in power starts to speak. With this system, at least we know why the revolution will not be televised.

    In all seriousness, I don't truly believe that the above WILL happen, but I wouldn't put it past the US government. If you give someone a shiny new toy that gives them more control then they will want to play with it.

  48. This is not news by LocalH · · Score: 1

    Stations have done weekly EAS tests, initiated locally, for years, All this means is that EAS tests can be initiated automatically on a nationwide level. EAS doesn't "cut off" a TV broadcast, it is a superimposed crawl and audio alarm. I honestly don't understand why people are making such a big deal about this.

    --
    FC Closer
  49. What's different? by bryan1945 · · Score: 1

    The local EAS messages pop up all the time on my TV and radio. Are the FEMA one's going to have videos of aliens blowing shit up and people melting? Someone screaming "Run for the hills, we're all going to die!!!!!" ? It's a freaking annoying noise with someone blabbering, usually "This is just a test." Sometimes I hear about a Megan(?) alert.

    --
    Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
  50. Then again, there seem to be a lot going on ... by DarkStarZumaBeach · · Score: 1

    Well - the FEMA EAS test is happening:

    0. One day after the IAEA delivers to the UN the report on Iran's uranium enrichment activities at Qom.
    1. One Day after the Arizona State Emergency Management Office finishes their first nuclear terrorist incident scenario exercise
    2. On the day that South Carolina has its annual earthquake response exercise starting at 9:30 am ...
    3. On the first day of PACWAVE11 - the two-day military response exercise to a tsunami alert and recovery scenario involving PacRim countries.
    4. Four days after incoming ballistic missile alert drills in Tel Aviv, Israel, to help the general public
              practice shelter location and toxic chemical/biological/radiological containment procedures.
    5. Six days after test firing of an intermediate range ballistic missile from Israel.
    6. Three days after the major north-south strike fault running under El Hierro in the Canary Islands started to unzip
              creating a chain of volcanic vents driven by a seismic energy release equal to over 600 tons of TNT since July 17th.
              See: http://youtu.be/FFzZB9VuBlk
              and: http://earthquake-report.com/2011/09/25/el-hierro-canary-islands-spain-volcanic-risk-alert-increased-to-yellow/
              and: http://www.01.ign.es/ign/resources/volcanologia/html/eventosHierro.html
    7. Three days after the Sparks, OK, 5.6 magnitude quake and aftershocks.

    Anyone else can chime in here with other disaster preparedness training scheduled for Wednesday, Nov. 9th, 2011.
    Be safe out there!

    --
    DarkStarZumaBeachSurfinApocalypseWow