Slashdot Mirror


Blimps To Help Protect Washington DC From Air Attack

Hugh Pickens writes writes "Reuters reports that a pair of bulbous, helium-filled 'aerostats', each 243 feet long, will be moored to the ground and fly as high as 10,000 feet, as part of a high-tech shield designed to protect the Washington D.C. area from an air attack like the one that took place on September 11, 2001. One of the aerostats carries a powerful long-range surveillance radar with a 360-degree look-around capability that can reach out to 340 miles. The other carries a radar used for targeting. Operating for up to 30 days at a time, JLENS is meant to give the military more time to detect and react to threats (PDF), including cruise missiles and manned and unmanned aircraft, compared with ground-based radar and is also designed to defend against tactical ballistic missiles, large caliber rockets and moving vehicles that could be used for attacks, including boats, cars and trucks. 'We're trying to determine how the surveillance radar information from the JLENS platforms can be integrated with existing systems in the National Capital Region,' says Michael Kucharek, a spokesman for the North American Aerospace Defense Command. Washington is currently guarded by an air-defense system that includes Federal Aviation Administration radars and Department of Homeland Security helicopters and fixed-wing aircraft on alert at Reagan National Airport to intercept slow, low-flying aircraft."

49 of 270 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Brilliant! by kannibal_klown · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Yes, a giant ball of gas catching fire when fired upon and crashing into DC will sure help protect it.

    You do realize that they tend to use Helium now-a-days, right? And helium is fire retardant.

    I'd list a bunch of "Archer" quotes from one of my favorite episodes, but I'm too lazy to look them up.

  2. Scary Blimps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The designers should give the blimps a dark steampunk look so that visitors to DC can pretend like they are in a euro-WWII-alternate-timeline story.

  3. well the bad news is by nimbius · · Score: 4, Insightful

    1984 appears to be rocketing right along as movie-turned-reality. instead of addressing foreign policy mistakes we've taken to bubblewrapping and tripwiring the nation until americans stop worrying about it and learn to love the terror

    the good news i guess is DC is going to start looking a lot more like bladerunner, and if we're lucky it will mean eventually, just maybe, i can order chinese from a blimp chop suey shop like corbin dallas.
    although im not entirely looking forward to the Judge Dredd approach to criminal justice, i am admittedly kind of excited to see the voice-activated guns and flying motorcycles :)

    --
    Good people go to bed earlier.
    1. Re:well the bad news is by GameboyRMH · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Judge Dredd is a real thing, but he's a semi-autonomous flying robot and he has a lot less respect for due process than the fictional character...

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    2. Re:well the bad news is by squiggleslash · · Score: 2

      Blade Runner is the one with Harrison Ford, I think they use a blimp at one point for advertising living on other planets but beyond that the blimps aren't really a fixture. As blimps are, today (and before the movie came out), used for advertising, that's not really a prediction of the future.

      Corbin Dallas orders his meal from a blimp in The Fifth Element. While again blimps don't make other appearances (from memory) in that movie, the unusual (by 21st century standards) nature of the interaction, apparently considered usual in the Fifth Element universe, means that it's more likely to be what you're talking about.

      This has been Morning for Pedants. Coming up next: the hilarious new game show "Your using the wrong word!"

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    3. Re:well the bad news is by Sarten-X · · Score: 5, Informative

      First off, 1984 started off as a book, so it'd really be a book-turned-reality, but it's not even that.

      The scary part of 1984 isn't the surveillance. That's just the most visible aspect that everyone talks about. The villain of the story is the government that fears its people so much that it resorts to mind control as a means of keeping peace. Mind control is a tricky thing, though, so extreme scarcity and enforced conformity are used to rein in any dissent. Surveillance is just a tool the government uses to look for that dissent.

      The book hints at the possibility that the world is actually not at war, but the ongoing conflicts are actually staged to justify the artificial scarcity. Even Goldstein's underground rebellion may be a hoax perpetrated by the government to expose any rebellious tendencies. Those that are caught are tortured to break their minds, stripping away conscious thought and logic until assertions can be made without resistance. That's when the victim knows that there really is no viable escape, no higher purpose, and not even any nobility in life or death.

      Every title in 1984 is ironic. The Ministry of Plenty restricts supplies, the Ministry of Love tortures, the Ministry of Peace plans the wars, the Ministry of Truth distributes lies... and Big Brother is not a loving familial support, but rather an oppressive embodiment of an anti-social Socialist government.

      The fully-converted mindless drones of Ingsoc merely survive, not because they are being watched by Big Brother, but because there is no other choice. The constant surveillance is just a symbol of the government's constant presence. Whether that constant presence is a good or bad thing is a separate issue, which Orwell later recognized openly as peaceful post-WWII societal changes eased his wartime fears.

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    4. Re:well the bad news is by Seumas · · Score: 2

      Giant ominous blimps overseeing the population below, drones, the "See Something; Say Something" videos everywhere, including Walmart checkouts and the "See Something; Say Something" mantra being repeated at subways and train stations. TSA VIPR teams spreading out across the country to do traffic stops, inspect you in line at the train station and football events. Pre-emptive cyber-warfare. Nope, this isn't Orwellian at all. Nope.

    5. Re:well the bad news is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Every title in 1984 is ironic. The Ministry of Plenty restricts supplies, the Ministry of Love tortures, the Ministry of Peace plans the wars, the Ministry of Truth distributes lies... and Big Brother is not a loving familial support, but rather an oppressive embodiment of an anti-social Socialist government.

      I agree with everything except calling that a socialist government, it's fascist.

      Fascism (pron.: /fæzm/) is a form of radical authoritarian nationalism. Fascists seek to unify their nation through a totalitarian state that seeks the mass mobilization of the national community through discipline, indoctrination, and physical training. Fascism utilizes a vanguard party to initiate a revolution to organize the nation upon fascist principles. Fascism views direct action including political violence and war, as a means to achieve national rejuvenation, spirit and vitality.

      Fascism recognizes the occurrence of class conflict, and advocates a resolution to end the division of classes within a nation and secure national solidarity. However fascism publicly favours proletarian culture due to its association of proletarian culture with economic production and claims that the proletariat as producers must have a dominant role in the nation.[9] It rejects standard bourgeois culture that it associates with unfit sedentary lifestyle, individualism, plutocracy, and the bourgeoisie's economic exploitation of the nation's proletariat, that fascism views as inconsistent with virile nationhood. Fascism claims that cultural nationalization of society emancipates the nation's proletariat, and promotes the assimilation of all classes into a proletarian nation.

    6. Re:well the bad news is by Sarten-X · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Personally, I'm inclined to agree, but for the sake of literary analysis, I'll use the term the author used. Orwell classifies Ingsoc as socialism, because socialism (as he saw it) was something he feared. Bearing in mind that he wrote in the 1940s, socialism (of the fascist Nazi ("National Socialist") kind) was very different from any modern socialist government.

      The simplistic point of socialism is to support the population through well-managed programs. Orwell's perversion of the concept is a government whose well-managed programs intentionally oppress the people. The tactics used to accomplish the oppression were indeed fascist.

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    7. Re:well the bad news is by smugfunt · · Score: 3, Informative

      because socialism (as he saw it) was something he feared

      Orwell was a socialist:

      "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism, as I understand it." -- George Orwell

    8. Re:well the bad news is by rahvin112 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Mod Parent up. The man writing under the pen name of George Orwell was a socialist. He was also a freedom kind of guy and today would be classified among europe's mainstream parties that believe in social democracy.

      The book Animal Farm is a analogy to what he experienced working with Stalin's agents in the Spanish Revolution. He was cautioning that Stalin's brand of communism wasn't socialism, it was totalitarianism dressed of as socialism. His experience in Spain convinced him that Stalin and his form of communism was pure evil and he wrote two very famous books (under the pen name George Orwell) to warn the world about what Stalin was and where he would lead us. He also spent quite a bit of time trying to implement social democracy in England under his real name.

  4. Systems integration by scotts13 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    They state as fact the blimps will be deployed, but they're still "trying to determine" how they can be integrated into the air defense system? Isn't that kinda backwards?

    1. Re:Systems integration by rioki · · Score: 2

      Not if you think about government spending. First spend the money, then see if you can do something useful with it.

    2. Re:Systems integration by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I work in government. Don't spend money you've been allocated and not only will your budget be cut even harder next year, but you'll also be criticized for "sitting on" the money. It's totally fucked up. Once your budget is set (playing a game of "I want a pony" to receive a small dog) it's better to overspend than to save. My department was almost set on a plan to blow cash on some very expensive software packages that we knew would be lightly used to "bleed off" some budget, but then we got the order to go into survival mode and save everywhere - which works fine for me since that package was almost used in place of some FLOSS that could do the job just fine, what a waste that would have been.

  5. Re:Brilliant! by WillAdams · · Score: 3, Informative

    But what are they going to fill it w/?

    Congress is still going forward w/ plans to close the Federal Helium Reserve:

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443545504577567102314948314.html
    http://www.aapg.org/explorer/2012/12dec/helium1212.cfm

    and has intentionally been pricing helium low, so as to allow it to be used in party balloons instead of MRI units, &c.

    --
    Sphinx of black quartz, judge my vow.
  6. You're joking, right? by poofmeisterp · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Yeah, because the 9/11 attacks were all about not having radar visibility of the aircraft, uh huh. Sure.

    They were perfectly visible by radar.

    So this is a hidden agenda (technology that will not be mentioned by them) or a complete BS example of making Americans feel comfortable, like nothing will ever happen again because they're being watched out for.

    1. Re:You're joking, right? by h4rr4r · · Score: 2

      Stop thinking about conspiracies, the answer is looking you in the face.

      This is a way to spend money on defense and defense contractors. That is really it. No conspiracy or secret motive, just another move to hand our tax dollars to someone's buddies.

    2. Re:You're joking, right? by h4rr4r · · Score: 2

      Wouldn't a hunting rifle be much cheaper and more practical?

      I can hit a clay pigeon on a pole at 300 yards with one, I am sure a better marksmen could hit such a huge target from much further away.

    3. Re:You're joking, right? by h4rr4r · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No, a conspiracy has to be something hidden, this is being done in public with everyone in full knowledge of the money being spent.

    4. Re:You're joking, right? by mcd7756 · · Score: 3, Informative

      They're not going to pop like a party balloon:

      "Because the aerostats are not highly pressurized, bullets won’t burst them; they can actually remain buoyant for hours after suffering multiple punctures." (http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/the-usas-raid-program-small-aerostats-big-surveillance-time-02779/)

      If you google harder than I did, you'll find more information about aerostats.

      However, if you'd like to be a worrier consider the following:

      • Aircraft landing at Washington Nation, Dulles and Andrews (home of Air Force One).
      • Ubiquitous surveillance of civilians
      --
      Am I not destroying my enemies when I make friends of them? --Abraham Lincoln
  7. Re:Why not use hydrogen? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Water?

  8. So rather than... by Darkness404 · · Score: 2

    So rather than do the sane thing to reduce attacks (which saves money both in the short and long run!) which is to fix our foreign policy to one of free trade and friendship rather than secret assassinations, embargoes, invasions and occupation that we currently have. We instead decide to spend even more money on useless counter-measures.

    An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

    --
    Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    1. Re:So rather than... by dkleinsc · · Score: 4, Insightful

      See, you're misunderstanding: The spending tons of money on useless counter-measures is big profits to the politically-connected seller who's just happened to provide appropriate amounts of graft to the government folks.

      The goal isn't (and generally has never been) to fix the problem, the goal is to maximize profits.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
  9. Re:Why not use hydrogen? by jgtg32a · · Score: 2, Funny

    You aren't talking about Dihydrogen Monoxide are you? That's some scary stuff.

  10. Re:Why not use hydrogen? by h4rr4r · · Score: 2

    You could say that about any element we might face a shortage of.

    Given unlimited funds you can always make your own elements. Since that is not true your statement is pretty nonsensical.

  11. Blimps, manned and unmanned by girlinatrainingbra · · Score: 4, Informative
    I remember reading about an unmanned blimp crashing:
    .
    San Diego Union Tribune article about an unmanned Army blimp brought down in Pa. woods A remote-controlled, unmanned reconnaissance blimp launched from Ohio by defense contractor Lockheed Martin was brought down Wednesday in a controlled descent in the woods of southwestern Pennsylvania after it was unable to climb to the desired altitude. The HALE-D blimp was designed to float above the jet stream at 60,000 feet and can be used for reconnaissance, intelligence and other purposes often accomplished by satellites, but at lower cost. The blimp was being tested as a communications relay device as part of a contract Lockheed Martin has with the Army

    And another one, found by searching for military and blimps, also found in gizmag and wired, is a dedicated blimp site article about the army preparing and training for using a huge/mammoth spy blimp, an LEMV = US Army's massive Long Endurance Multi-Intelligence Vehicle:

    The Air Force's highly computerized (and potentially missile-armed) Blue Devil 2 airship recently ran into integration problems, forcing the flying branch to cancel a planned test run in Afghanistan. (Although the service had never been too hot on airships in the first place.) The Navy meanwhile grounded its much smaller MZ-3A research blimp for a lack of work until the Army paid to take it over. The LEMV seemed to be losing air, too, as Northrop and the Army repeatedly delayed its first flight and planned combat deployment originally slated for the end of 2011.

    also http://www.gizmag.com/lemv-first-flight/22675/
    and http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/05/massive-spy-blimp : Army Readies Its Mammoth Spy Blimp for First Flight ...
    There wass also an auxilliary naval air field north of La Jolla in Del Mar that also was used for blimps: http://www.militarymuseum.org/NAAFDelMar.html

    1. Re:Blimps, manned and unmanned by darkmeridian · · Score: 3, Informative

      Soldiers on the ground in Afghanistan, which has bumpy terrain and bad weather, have always wanted "eyes in the sky" that would give them a heads up on enemy attacks. The bad terrain stops the soldiers from seeing too far away because the bad guys hide in the hills. The bad weather is alternately freezing or too hot, so fixed wing aircraft such as the Predator crash and can't stay overhead constantly. A blimp could just sit there with their sensors spying away, and if you can make the tether long enough, the blimp would be outside the range of enemy fire.

      --
      A NYC lawyer blogs. http://www.chuangblog.com/
  12. Time for our elected officials to "man up." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'm sick and tired of elected officials thinking of themselves as a valuable commodity. They're just citizens. No better, no worse than the rest of us. They need to send a message to the "terrorists." This message should be something to the effect, "You can hurt me, kill me, do whatever you want, but know that there are plenty of other people in line to take my place."

    I really do believe that the current breed of politician would make the founders of the U.S.A. sick.

  13. Re:Brilliant! by GameboyRMH · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Helium is also in short supply and absolutely non-renewable, hydrogen would be a big improvement.

    But +1 for the hot air suggestion :-P

    --
    "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  14. Re:Blimps to Help Protect DC? by jgtg32a · · Score: 2

    Too much hot air, he's stuck in the lower mesosphere

  15. Zeppelin by marcroelofs · · Score: 5, Funny

    I was just thinking lately, the only thing missing in the similarities between the US and 1935 Germany is a nice big Zeppelin.

  16. Re:Brilliant! by h4rr4r · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Because those who call themselves that often advocate privatizing government resources.

    These folks are as interested in a real free market as much as the Chinese are in actual communism.

    A free market without government intervention is of course not possible, for reference I suggest Adam Smith. Monopolies and such are a real pain.

  17. JLENS is an electro-optical/IR surveillance system by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Former imagery analyst and UAV contractor here.

    While I'm not denying that these aerostats are capable of floating high resolution air-search radar, etc, their purpose over in the non-war combat zones of afghanistan and iraq where I lived for 2-3 years was to loft high resolution zoom optics with an EO/IR sensor payload in order to spot shooters and mortar teams within several miles of their ground stations. Essentially it was like having a full-time predator feed orbiting your base, which was really convenient for the aforementioned purposes.

    On smaller bases you would have a guyed lattice tower with a camera ball on top, on larger ones, you got an aerostat. The ground station equipment used to view and transport the video feeds was similar/identical to those used for smaller UAV systems.

    Again, it's possible these will be used for the stated purpose, but if they are, it'd be the first time I've seen it done. The most advanced surface to air missile systems do not use aerostats; take a look at the Russian S-300 (SA-10/20). It uses a ground-based air search radar and a ground-based target acquisition radar. Of course, this system is designed to be highly mobile, but the terrain around DC isnt so mountainous that a traditional early warning system wouldn't suffice. Even less so a target acquisition or illumination radar, as those two systems usually require LOS to the target. Unless terrorists have learned advanced terrain-following flight profiles and can manage to fly them in a fully fueled passenger aircraft (lol). The extreme precision radars that guide anti-mortar gun systems which can shoot a softball falling at terminal velocity out of the sky are still _ground based_

    Believe me, I have every confidence that Washington has managed to find a new lightweight high res radar system to waste money on.

    (hint) However, I also advise that it would eliminate a lot of the troublesome FAA and national-security related regulations barring UAV surveillance of the populace if this system is considered a ground-tethered conventional surveillance camera like the ones at wal-mart, rather than a high precision aerial sensor platform, y'know, like it actually is... (/hint)

  18. Re:Why not use hydrogen? by Rogerborg · · Score: 4, Funny

    WikiLeaks confirms that the government are planning to put in the water supply.

    --
    If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
  19. Re:Brilliant! by rwyoder · · Score: 2

    Yes what a wonderful use for the limited amount of Helium on this planet. Let's put it in baloons to protect ourselves from imaginary threats.

    It is not to protect *us*; It is to protect politicians.

  20. Re:Brilliant! by Shoten · · Score: 5, Informative

    First of all, as stated by another...DUH, it's full of helium. Helium is a noble gas, and does not burn. But even if it were filled with hydrogen, AND you hit it with an incendiary round of some sort, I doubt very much that anything would be on fire by the time it landed, from that high up. If you look at the footage of the Hindenburg, you can see that it didn't take terribly long for the hydrogen to burn itself out...now imagine that airship starting its burn 2 miles up instead of less than 100 feet up, and guess how bad the flames would be by the time it landed?

    Second of all, fired upon by whom, exactly, and using what? The stats operate at 10,000 feet...that's close to 2 miles. That's further away than any but the very best snipers in the world can shoot, and even then they require exotic hardware like a .50 caliber rifle (of a few types) or the Chey-Tac Intervention system...and they're shooting horizontally, instead of straight up. There's no way to judge crosswinds...which will be of multiple speeds in the intervening distance. And if you shoot from an angle, instead of straight up (because let's face it, the anchor for the stat won't exactly be something you can walk up to...or anywhere near it, and keep in mind how people will come running once they hear the deafening report of a high-power rifle) then the range gets even worse. You're not going to sneak up on it with a plane, obviously, and if you fired at it with a MANPADS (if you can even find one with that range...most cannot hit something that far away) you will miss because it doesn't have a significant heat signature. And if you are a bad guy and have one of the better MANPADS available to you while you're walking around in Washington, DC...why are you shooting at a blimp?

    --

    For your security, this post has been encrypted with ROT-13, twice.
  21. Fringe by WillgasM · · Score: 3, Insightful

    OMG! We're the other universe!

  22. Re:Brilliant! by Vreejack · · Score: 2

    "Fire retardant" actually means, "burns too slowly to be a hazard under most conditions." Helium is completely inert with respect to everything, and will not even form a stable compound with itself. In a closed container helium will put the fire out. Not so much in an open system as it has a low heat capacity compared to something like water, and it fails to smother like CO2 because it tends to float away. It won't interfere with reactions like PKP because it remains unreactive. But inside a blimp? Nothing will burn.

    --
    "Will future ages believe that such stupid bigotry ever existed!" -- Ivanhoe
  23. Re:Balloons? by BlueStrat · · Score: 2

    If it had a rigid frame it could even be a zeppelin and an aerostat at the same time.

    I'm sorry but, no.

    Because nobody would ever buy a record album by a band named:

    "Led Zeppelostat"

    Strat

    --
    Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
  24. Just another air traffic obstacle for DCA airport by Virtucon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I find this amusing because Reagan National Airport already has one of the most restrictive air traffic patterns in the country. I can see it now, take off to the North and then do a hard bank left to avoid the No Fly Zone and the Washington Monument, then a bank right to avoid the blimp. I can see commercial pilots now having to have simulator sessions to avoid tethered dirigible avoidance. Of course this means that airfare prices will increase by 50% to cover this training.

    What they're building are barrage balloons which have been used since before WWII. While mildly effective, I seriously doubt that a well heeled terrorist organization will have their own air force or cruise missiles. Maybe a rogue nation, such as the PRK perhaps but then again I'd think they'd know well in advance of that kind of attack. DC is less than 36 square miles and if all of our strategic national assets are there, then we're in deep S**T. There's lots of bureaucrats of course and Congress and their staff, but could we do without them for awhile? Yeah, I know that's wishful thinking. Does anybody in DC honestly think these Rube Goldberg devices will actually do anything or just be a giant, taxpayer funded, deficit increasing waste of money? Obviously not.

    Balloons were sometimes more trouble than they were worth. In 1942 Canadian and American forces began joint operations to protect the sensitive locks and shipping channel at Sault Ste. Marie along their common border among the Great Lakes against possible air attack.[3] During severe storms in August and October 1942 some barrage balloons broke loose, and the trailing cables short-circuited power lines, causing serious disruption to mining and manufacturing. In particular, the metals production vital to the war effort was disrupted.

    I'm stocking up on Jiffy Pop now and waiting for the first set of severe thunderstorms to dislodge them and then have the F16s scramble to shoot them down. Some of the debris will be flammable and will land on the South East of DC, causing severe panic and riots. I just can't wait.

    As Patton said:

    “Fixed fortifications are a monument to the stupidity of man.”

    Even if they are fronted by balloons.

    --
    Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
  25. Re:Brilliant! by Jeng · · Score: 2

    Ok, so what is stopping some enterprising person or entity from purchasing huge reserves of helium at these rock bottom prices?

    --
    Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
  26. Not new by Alioth · · Score: 2

    These balloons are nothing new - they have them on the Texas coast and down the Mexican border, and they've been using them for decades to spot illegal flights coming out of Mexico. Look at any aeronautical chart for these areas and you'll see a circle with the warning "Unmarked balloon on cable up to 15,000 feet" or something similar (sorry, I don't have a Houston sectional to hand to check).

  27. Re:The REAL solution by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 4, Funny

    You've gotta give it a PR angle...

    The Freedome.

    That'll be $100,000.

    --
    systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
  28. Re:Brilliant! by RoboRay · · Score: 2

    Buy low, sell high!

  29. Re:Brilliant! by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Ok, so what is stopping some enterprising person or entity from purchasing huge reserves of helium at these rock bottom prices?

    The fact that the "helium shortage" is nonsense made up by bloggers that are dumb enough to think they are smarter than the market, but aren't quite dumb enough to put their money where their mouth is. America's proven reserves of helium will meet current demand for centuries. Unproven, but extractable, reserves are probably an order of magnitude higher. We are not running out of helium, at least not in this millennium.

  30. Re:Brilliant! by MyNameIsJohn · · Score: 2

    There are infinite ways to create 'barriers to entry' that do not involve government as all they are are 'issues' created by an already established player to hinder existing and/or new players in the market. Type of product (network infrastructure, mining/resource harvesting), trade secrets (do patents and/or copyrights apply to 'free markets?), etc.. Free Market as an ideal is a goal that will never be fully realized as much as 'Total Control' cannot be realized. We have to live in the grey area between all extremes and as such we need to way the pro's and con's and be ever vigilant as a voting populace to the always evolving ways of certain groups of people to try to corrupt and control for their own benefits vs the people's benefits.

  31. Re:Brilliant! by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

    Doesn't the story go that we aren't extracting the helium from natural gas anymore because there is no financial incentive while the government is selling off the strategic helium reserve?

    ... and as soon as the price goes up, the "financial incentive" will return, and we will resume extracting it.

    The fact that helium is too cheap and plentiful to even bother collecting is hardly evidence that we are "running out".

    If you disagree, and you really think you are smarter than the market, then go invest in helium futures.

  32. British Attache by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 2

    In a show of international cooperation, the commanding officer is on loan from England: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonel_Blimp

  33. Re:Brilliant! by Shoten · · Score: 2

    Appears none of you faggots know the difference between further and farther. What a bunch of losers.

    Better than not knowing how to act like a decent human being. I can fix that one thing in five minutes...tomorrow, you'll still be an asshole :)

    --

    For your security, this post has been encrypted with ROT-13, twice.