Slashdot Mirror


Hearing Shows How 'Military-Style' Raid On Calif. Power Station Spooks U.S.

Lasrick writes "Interesting piece about April's physical attack on a power station near San Jose, California, that now looks like a dress rehearsal for future attacks: Quote: 'When U.S. officials warn about "attacks" on electric power facilities these days, the first thing that comes to mind is probably a computer hacker trying to shut the lights off in a city with malware. But a more traditional attack on a power station in California has U.S. officials puzzled and worried about the physical security of the the electrical grid--from attackers who come in with guns blazing.'"

396 comments

  1. No comments? by o_ferguson · · Score: 0

    Damn, now I gotta RTFA.

    --
    - In Soviet Korea, only old people loose all their bases to Natalie Portman's petrified hot grits overlords.
    1. Re:No comments? by Runaway1956 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It's just that thin veneer of civilization. A determined force can cripple the infrastructure, up close and personal, in pretty short order. You simply cannot secure all the infrastructure in this country. There are people who do little more than train themselves on methods to destroy stuff, and to kill people. Most nations maintain armies of men and women dedicated to that purpose. It shouldn't be surprising that not all people with a destructive bent are in the military.

      It is noteworthy that only two men were involved here. A squad, or a platoon, or a company of men with a mission could really wreak havoc. At least these guys weren't intent on gaining physical access to a generating plant, where they may have killed any number of people.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    2. Re:No comments? by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Damn, now I gotta RTFA.

      Here is a quick summary: Someone with a rifle can cause damage to infrastructure. Although in practice, this almost never happens, we should nonetheless pretend it is a real problem, identify all the millions of potential rifle targets, and spend billions to make them all bulletproof.

    3. Re:No comments? by o_ferguson · · Score: 1

      I once knew and engineer. He said "There are two type of engineering: Building things up, and blowing things down."

      --
      - In Soviet Korea, only old people loose all their bases to Natalie Portman's petrified hot grits overlords.
    4. Re:No comments? by o_ferguson · · Score: 0

      Exactly. And that's how the Slashdot summary should read. It shouldn't just be a dead copy of the article's lead with a hyperlink.

      --
      - In Soviet Korea, only old people loose all their bases to Natalie Portman's petrified hot grits overlords.
    5. Re:No comments? by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      It is noteworthy that only two men were involved here.

      There is no credible evidence that two people were involved. It was most likely just a single nut.

      A squad, or a platoon, or a company of men with a mission could really wreak havoc.

      They could cause even more havoc if they had a thermonuclear weapon and a Romulan Cloaking Device. That is just as realistic. How often do you encounter a platoon of enemy soldiers in the middle of America?

    6. Re:No comments? by TheloniousToady · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You simply cannot secure all the infrastructure in this country.

      I dunno...rather than just roll over and play dead on this one, let's spend a trillion dollars on a pilot program and find out. ;-)

    7. Re:No comments? by ElectricTurtle · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Several teams of terrorists hijacked four different planes on the same day, and that was when the internet wasn't even really involved. It's only a matter of time before somebody organizes a hostile flash mob, though I doubt something as intelligent as utility infrastructure will be the first target. It will probably be some political flashpoint.

      --
      I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
    8. Re:No comments? by ColdWetDog · · Score: 5, Insightful

      We should especially be wary of Congressmen who think that one or two people with rifles constitute "an unprecedented and sophisticated attack on an electric grid substation with military-style weapons" and chairmen of major regulatory bodies who believe someone 'could get 200 yards away with a .22 rifle and take the whole thing out (referring to said substation or similar infrastructure).

      We should be especially wary of such 'public servants' who basically want to keep the Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt going strong in the American public. Such people tend not to be interested in solving the problem (and it is a problem, just not the End of Civilization) in a rational and effective fashion. Such people are more interested in creating an environment that justifies overarching 'solutions' that expand the bottom line of certain companies and / or institutions that these blowhards are inevitably associated with.

      Follow the money, follow the fear.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    9. Re:No comments? by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

      Several teams of terrorists hijacked four different planes on the same day

      That took years of planning and preparation, and they all died in the process. That would be a high price to pay to cause as much damage as a snowstorm. Power plants go off-line all the time. This would not be a civilization ending event, or even another 9/11. I really don't think we need to worry too much about armies of terrorists attacking our power plants.

    10. Re:No comments? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is it a matter of security? Are you arrogant enough to think if terrorism existed in the US this stuff would have been going on or happening long before 9/11? Citizens continue this ignorant attitude that terrorists are caveman, they have no idea how to think or how the US government and its "homeland security" works.

    11. Re:No comments? by symbolset · · Score: 1

      You can accomplish as much damage with a jar of rust remover and some patience.

      --
      Help stamp out iliturcy.
    12. Re:No comments? by cold+fjord · · Score: 2

      How often do you encounter a platoon of enemy soldiers in the middle of America?

      What's a platoon? Normally about 20-40 or so?

      It happens.

      Normally it is less than a platoon.

      Lifting the Ice Curtain - October 23, 1988

      The most alarming report was in October 1982, of five men emerging from the water in wetsuits over olive drab uniforms. Spetsnaz, the elite Soviet Special Forces charged with behind-the-lines reconnaissance and sabotage, often wear olive drab.

      The evidence of covert Soviet landings on St. Lawrence is impressive but still circumstantial ....

      Spokesmen for the Defense Intelligence Agency deny that any Russians have penetrated our perimeter, but Abner Gologoren, the local coroner and longtime magistrate of Savoonga, told me of a Russian found dead inside the old Air Force listening post at Northeast Cape around 1979. ''The military took charge of the body,'' the magistrate said. Alaska State Trooper A.J. Charlton believes that the Russian was somehow separated from his unit ''and hid out as long as he could, hoping they'd come back for him.''

      Why Spetsnaz or other Soviet special forces would want to penetrate the island is another matter. A senior military intelligence source in Washington offered a plausible motive: ''It's like the old American Indian tradition of 'counting coup.' For a young Indian brave to be accepted as a man, he has to get close enough to his opponent, either in battle or in one-on-one combat, to touch him, and then to survive. Evidence, whether it be a wound or a scalp, that you were able to go in there and come back was having 'counted coup.' That's what the Soviet commandos are doing on St. Lawrence. It's a perfect place to do it.''

      My source explained the military logic. ''In peacetime, all such organizations seek training opportunities for their special units that approximate the real risks and hazards of wartime,'' he said. ''Going in covertly in ones and twos is the best possible training. The coastline is undefended and indefensible. Practicing out on St. Lawrence is not like flying a U-2 over the Soviet Union and getting shot down. There's risk, but not that dire risk.''

      His assessment of what the Russians are up to was the most candid and sensible that I'd heard. Back in Nome, though, yet another theory was propounded to me one night at the Board of Trade - a saloon. Spetsnaz were indeed making covert landings, it went, but part of their mission was to poach ivory artifacts.

      Sometimes they aren't all foreign, and they are just waiting for the sign.

      Terror Training Camps On American Soil

      “We are fighting to destroy the enemy. We are dealing with evil at its roots and its roots are America.”

      So said the Pakistani Sheikh Muburak Gilani, leader of the jihad terrorist group Jamaat ul-Fuqra. And the way that he and his organization are “dealing with evil at its roots” is to set up jihad terror training camps all over the United States — often under the noses of government and law enforcement officials who are either indifferent or too hamstrung by political correctness to do anything about it.

      Sheikh Gilani is no shrinking violet, and Jamaat ul-Fuqra is a force to be reckoned with both in the United States and elsewhere. Journalist Daniel Pearl was on his way to interview Gilani when he was kidnapped and beheaded in 2002. The following year, a member of Jamaat ul-Fuqra, Iyman Faris, pled guilty to plotting to blow up the Brooklyn Bridge. In 2005, the Department of Homeland Security included the group among “predicted possi

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    13. Re:No comments? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 2

      How often do you encounter a platoon of enemy soldiers in the middle of America?

      It depends. The interesting thing about USA is that its strong protections for freedom of speech and freedom of religion mean that it's perfectly legal to set up a Wahhabist "school" (i.e. training camp for jihadists) on its soil openly for all the world to see. Right until the point where the people trained in such a place actually go and do something like in TFA.

    14. Re:No comments? by JimSadler · · Score: 1

      One does not even need a rifle to do damage to the grid. And it would be very difficult to secure the lines and sub stations. Trains have the same problem. There is so much track out there and so many rail bridges that fanatics could cause a lot of harm. And we do have domestic nuts as well as foreign nuts who really want to harm us. At least with foreign nations directing evil acts we can extract revenge but with home grown idiots it is very expensive and difficult to catch them. The Unabomber and Charley Manson leap to mind. Think of the millions spent just on those two cases and then think if we had just 1,000 similar types all active at the same time what expenses we would be subjected to. And think about long term expenses as well. Reagrdless of how one feels about the Vietnam war the expenses from that war just keep adding up. Charley Manson still costs at least 35K a year to maintain and as he is getting older his upkeep will get larger and larger. Sirhan Sirhan presents the same problem. The expenses are like a fire that seems to burn for a century or so. We can only carry so much of a load beofre all hell breaks loose.

    15. Re:No comments? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course that school is being ran by the FBI, all of the plots instigated by the FBI, and all of the bombs given the poor schmos that wouldn't be there if it weren't for the FBI are fake.

    16. Re:No comments? by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      Of course nobody expects triggering a cascading power failure. I seem to recall California has experienced rolling blackouts in the last 10 years or so.

      The 2003 Northeast Blackout--Five Years Later

      All told, 50 million people lost power for up to two days in the biggest blackout in North American history. The event contributed to at least 11 deaths and cost an estimated $6 billion.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    17. Re:No comments? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      No, the school is run by the Saudis. Whether the FBI would still tacitly approve is arguable.

    18. Re:No comments? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      I hope you are a commedian, because your post was funny, more than anything else.Poe's law kicks in, and one can't tell of you are serious or joking.

    19. Re:No comments? by hypergreatthing · · Score: 1

      so uhh... wouldn't it make more sense to bomb infrastructure rather than shoot at it with a rifle?

      Lets say... bomb a dam or something like a bridge?

      ohh wait, i bet that's the next scare. Better invest in dam and bridge security companies.

    20. Re:No comments? by jd · · Score: 0

      True, but they exist in a full information game. One side or the other, if they follow a perfect strategy, will always win, no matter what the other side does. This is ONLY true for one side. For purists, I'll rephrase: one side will always win or draw, which is equal to saying that zero or or one sides can guarantee a win.

      It is my ambition, or rather one of mine, to prove that material science favours the builders, that it is theoretically possible to build something that cannot be damaged or destroyed by the application of external momentum or energy.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    21. Re:No comments? by cold+fjord · · Score: 2

      I think I can help you with a simple heuristic. If major news outlets such as the New York Time, the Telegraph, Human Events, or others are being quoted for news stories with a common theme of some sort, and it seems absurd to you, that should serve as an indicator to you that your judgment may be failing you and it would be best for you to refrain from comment if you want to avoid looking like an idiot. If you do choose to comment it is your good fortune that there is no shortage of idiots with mod points that are likely to mod you up, you might even get a +5 for utter nonsense. I know I've seen it before.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    22. Re:No comments? by lxs · · Score: 2

      Has the number of lives saved by the chaos been taken into consideration in those calculations? Less people going to work or school will decrease the number of traffic accidents for instance. On a population of 50 million that has to be more than 11 lives saved.

    23. Re:No comments? by lxs · · Score: 1

      Have you ever entertained the notion that paranoid freaks like you create a society that promotes violent incidents?

    24. Re:No comments? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Spin masters like this only exist to promote the agenda of their backers.

      Of course he wants you to fear the irrational, how else do you think they will get more power? You will gladly hand it over to ease your fears.

    25. Re:No comments? by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      Let's explore that idea a bit. Pretty much all that I've done is provide excerpts and links from major newspapers or sources noting those stories, about news items with a common theme. Are you suggesting that those news items didn't happen? Or could you expand upon your suggestion? What is it about those news items that you think would suggest that anyone is a paranoid freak that is creating a society that promotes violent incidents? Is there some reason that you think the people in those stories that are either engaging in violence or preparing for violence shouldn't be held responsible for their actions? Do you think the reporters are engaged in such advocacy as you suggest? Or is it only me? I'm interested in hearing more about your idea. You don't suppose it's possible that the problem is actually that you have a really silly idea there, do you?

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    26. Re:No comments? by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      That seems unlikely since there are likely to be more accidents as people cope with the darkness, increased use of fire from candles and matches, difficulties in reading prescriptions, lack of streetlights, possible problems with traffic signals, etc. Although I'm skeptical it is a somewhat interesting question. Let me know what you find out.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    27. Re:No comments? by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      To trigger a cascade failure would require an intimate knowledge of the grid's normal operation. It could be done, but only if you've a man on the inside with years of experience.

      An attacker would be better off using google's aerial view to identify the major lines into a city and just knocking down a few pylons on each one.

    28. Re:No comments? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      I think I can help you with a simple heuristic. If major news outlets such as the New York Time, the Telegraph, Human Events, or others

      Human events list their motto as "Powerful Conservative Voices", so I didn't take them too seriously. The NYT article is 25 years old (and even then, doesn't directly support the thesis, as it's about small covert teams testing US defenses in the cold war, and not "platoons"), and the Telegraph article doesn't say what you imply it does. I didn't read all your links, but the only one of the three I bothered to read before giving up that supports the presumed thesis is a conservative blog site. How does that fit in your heuristic?

    29. Re:No comments? by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      You and I have differed on some things in the past. But, on this one, all I can say is, the uninitiated simply cannot believe. I have problems with some of the things that the US does to other people - but we most certainly have our enemies.

      I don't dismiss ANY stories of foreign penetration of our shores, or our airspace. If, and I say if, I were to gain real first hand information that positively put the lie to an incident, then I would dismiss it. Since this stuff doesn't happen where I can witness it - I can't possibly say whether Spetznaz came ashore or not. It is plausible. I've walked ashore in a couple of countries where I wasn't invited, and I didn't bother to look up the local constabulary to inform them that I was there. Why can't other people do the same? I'm not real special, certainly not super human or anything. If I can do it, anyone with balls can do it.

      When I was in the Navy, I heard a bunch of stories that I've never been able to verify, or to debunk. Old sailors claim that there are several Soviet subs sunk off the coast of Cape Canaveral - now Cape Kennedy. I heard the stories from people that I was sure were full of crap - but I also heard the stories from people whom I believe are very credible.

      Ehhh - if you don't have a "need to know" you are never going to get all the information.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    30. Re:No comments? by GrumpySteen · · Score: 1

      it is theoretically possible to build something that cannot be damaged or destroyed by the application of external momentum or energy.

      Actually, that's pretty easy to disprove.

      Given enough energy, we can rip apart atoms. The Large Hadron Collider was built specifically to do this.

      Anything you build is going to be made of atoms. If atoms can be blown apart into subatomic particles, anything you build can likewise be destroyed.

    31. Re:No comments? by GrumpySteen · · Score: 1

      "California had an installed generating capacity of 45GW. At the time of the blackouts, demand was 28GW. A demand supply gap was created by energy companies, mainly Enron, to create an artificial shortage. Energy traders took power plants offline for maintenance in days of peak demand to increase the price. Traders were thus able to sell power at premium prices, sometimes up to a factor of 20 times its normal value. "

      [California's rolling blackouts were a way to drive up profits](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_electricity_crisis). They have absolutely nothing in common with the Northeast Blackout event in 2003.

    32. Re:No comments? by GrumpySteen · · Score: 1

      Crap. I spend too much time on Reddit and used the wrong formatting.
      Here's the proper link.

    33. Re: No comments? by Z00L00K · · Score: 1

      If you want to create problems you only need a few men with rifles and locate major power grid hubs. Good rifle skills are needed. But the first aim shall be the power breakers, with them disabled, preferably locked in the 'on' position it's a lot harder to isolate damages to other sections. Then damage the transformers since they are hard to replace. Many grid hubs are unmanned, which would make the job easy.

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    34. Re: No comments? by Z00L00K · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't define your info as paranoid, I think that what you state is informative.

      The power grid in any randomly selected country that has a high tech level is sensitive to attacks. Redundancy is to cover for normal faults, not terrorism.

      A platoon would be more than sufficient to cause major trouble in the US and to take out the grid completely in a single state or European country.

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    35. Re:No comments? by rmdingler · · Score: 1
      Or we could stop behaving like asshats and begin to repair our standing with the other nations on the planet...

      You know, strive to become the honorable leader of the Free World, making others better for having known us.

      --
      Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

      Ernest Hemingway

    36. Re:No comments? by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      And we do have domestic nuts as well as foreign nuts who really want to harm us. At least with foreign nations directing evil acts we can extract revenge but with home grown idiots it is very expensive and difficult to catch them. The Unabomber and Charley Manson leap to mind. Think of the millions spent just on those two cases and then think if we had just 1,000 similar types all active at the same time what expenses we would be subjected to.

      Yes, think about the Unabomber and Charley Manson. Consider how the crimes they committed are so memorable decades after the fact.

      Now realize that those acts are so memorable precisely because they are so rare -- if there were 1,000 Unabombers running around, they'd get a 5-minute story on the evening news and then get promptly forgotten about (just like all the gang-related or robbery-related murders do).

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    37. Re:No comments? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm 'a man on the inside with years of experience'. I wrote software used on grid control room floors and power trading centers. Integrating real time data and running day ahead grid simulations with various scenarios and looking at the implications of maintenance, dispatch and trading decisions.

      It doesn't take years of experience to know when the grid is brittle. You could look at reports of spin violations (when power companies don't have plants on line and ready to cover worst cast) for the last few years. When do those happen? Maximum hot days, noon to 5pm. You could look at reports of when transmission lines are maxed out. When do those happen? Maximum hot days, noon to 5pm.

      Even worse, if you do it in a dry hydro year.

      This is actually kind of obvious, I'm not telling any bad actor anything they don't already know.

    38. Re: No comments? by SuricouRaven · · Score: 2

      Replacing the breakers isn't a huge time-taking repair. Load parts onto truck, man drives truck to substation, man spends a couple of hours at most fixing things up.

      Knock a pylon down - and that should be doable using only a little climbing gear and readily-available petrol-driven power tools or cutters - and it'll take lots of heavy metal, a crane, potentially days or a week or work and a whole crew. By which time you've knocked down ten more.

    39. Re:No comments? by SuricouRaven · · Score: 2

      But exactly which breaker do you have to aim for to cause it to cascade? Causing a small outage is easy: Shoot things until the lights go off. Taking power down to half a state or more is another thing altogether. It may look easy to you, but it isn't to someone who has only a theoretical understanding of power grids in general. It's not easy to know which breakers just cut off power to a small area and which ones would cause a line to go down and the load to fail-over to another, near-overload line.

    40. Re:No comments? by HiThere · · Score: 1

      He probably also told you that before you can build something, you need to tear down whatever was there before. And sometimes that means blowing it down. (Disassembly is also sometimes practical, but usually only as an adjunct to blowing it down.)

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    41. Re: No comments? by Z00L00K · · Score: 1

      Disable breakers first to make sure they stay in the "on" position, then take out the transformers.

      That will cause more problems and can also result in spectacular arc lights until "upstream" breakers do their job cutting off a larger section of the net than usually necessary. That's why I stated that the breakers shall be "fixed" first.

      When the station is randomly arc-welded together then it takes a lot more effort to fix.

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    42. Re:No comments? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's no need to add to government budgets here.

      What really matters isn't the security of substations. What matters is the security of electricity supply. It may be that toughening substations is the best way to provide that, but then, it may also be that there are more efficient measures that would achieve the same effect. Very likely it's not even terrorists who are the most serious threat - simple network instabilities can knock out more people, for longer, without any need for any enemy action. We won't know until we properly incentivize the power companies to find out.

      So aass a law that anytime consumers are exposed to an unplanned power outage that lasts more than 3 hours, they're entitled to a 25% rebate on that month's power bill. After 6 hours, it goes up to 50%. And so on, to the point where once they've been disconnected for a week they're entitled to 12 months' worth of credit on their bill. The whole to be policed by the (existing) DoE Office of Electricity Delivery & Energy Reliability.

      Then let the power networks work out among themselves the most efficient way of not having to make these payments. Whether that means securing substations, improved network monitoring, building more generating capacity, helicopters for service engineers, whatever. That's up to them, it's their business and they're the ones who should be solving it. We just need to motivate them properly.

      That's what the market is for.

    43. Re:No comments? by cusco · · Score: 1

      Let's head down to North Carolina, where I'll introduce you to several companies of enemy soldiers in possession of the largest non-governmental arsenal on the planet, including helicopter gunships, tanks, armored personnel carriers, a submarine, gunboats, and helicopter aircraft carriers, some of which they manufacture themselves and sell to whoever forks over the money. Formerly called Blackwater, then Xe, today's Academi staff includes (supposedly former) drug smugglers, internationally sought war criminals, and former African child soldiers. They're just the largest of a couple dozen mercenary corporations based in the US, any of whom would be happy to provide a platoon or two of bloodthirsty scum for whatever dirty work you want done.

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
    44. Re:No comments? by cusco · · Score: 1

      You need to talk to a electrical system engineer for an hour or so. You'll come away with an entirely different opinion.

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
    45. Re:No comments? by cusco · · Score: 1

      in practice, this almost never happens

      Actually in practice this happens several hundred times a year, as bored and/or drunk rednecks shoot up insulators and cause local blackouts. Several dozen times a year meth heads steal (or die attempting to steal) live power lines and cause local blackouts.

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
    46. Re:No comments? by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

      So if each residence have its own solar, and wind energy converters? and water purifiers? and 3d printers for food and what ever? Then [infrastructure_thing /] taking it in the shorts would only be news worthy?

    47. Re:No comments? by N1AK · · Score: 1

      I agree with you. Though to be fair, it's probably a smarter waste of money to spend it on making your grid harder to break than some of the security nonsense billions is already being spent on.

      It strikes me that probably the single biggest achievement of the security services has been to make it either too hard, or seem too hard, to get a group of like minded individuals together without the government being aware of them. Sure 20 individuals with time, money, expertise and planning could probably cause massive damage to the American economy via targeting the grid. Getting 20 individuals together and planning it without someone in the security services noticing? Not so easy.

    48. Re:No comments? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not going into details of any potential attack. Stop thinking in terms of shooting things, it doesn't have to be so brute force.

      Transmission is unguardable.

  2. Something used before... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Seems pre-planned? Seems remarkably easy to do?

    Seems like something that would require a massive new security apparatus to police.

  3. A couple things about TFA by istartedi · · Score: 4, Interesting

    First, unless I got the wrong link it's no surprise the video didn't help further the investigation. All you see on it are some flashes of light that are sparks and/or muzzle flashes, and maybe some shadowy figures. Oh wait, I just need to zoom in and keep hitting "enhance" and I'll get their faces.

    Second, at the end of TFA they compare the cost of armoring transformers at one station with the entire cyber-security budget. How about an apples-to-apples comparison, like, you know... one involving the cost of armoring transformers at all the stations?

    --
    For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
    1. Re:A couple things about TFA by crymeph0 · · Score: 1

      A note about the video at http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_23388359/san-jose-sheriffs-office-release-video-attack-pg (linked in TFA) for those of you using Firefox with NoScript on Windows: I had to allow mercurynews.com and brightcove.com.

      --
      It should be illegal to say that freedom of speech should be limited.
    2. Re:A couple things about TFA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The best approach is to deal with the motivations of terrorists. Find out what they want, why they want it, and persuade them that violence is not the best way to get it.

    3. Re: A couple things about TFA by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      They often want chaos. How do you convince anarchists that chaos is bad?

    4. Re: A couple things about TFA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Anarchists want an end to use of violence to get what you want. Rule is based on violence. It is an end goal of reducing the role of violence in our lives that clearly can't suddenly happen under the current circumstances.

    5. Re: A couple things about TFA by pla · · Score: 3, Insightful

      They often want chaos. How do you convince anarchists that chaos is bad?

      Although we certainly have enemies that just want to give us a papercut at any expense, most terrorists do not count as mere anarchists. They hate us for usually-pretty-valid reasons (even if we can't say the same for their methods).

      Also, anarchists don't want "chaos". They want a lack of (or at least minimal-needed-to-keep-us-from-killing-each-other) government. Huge difference. One amounts to a comic book villain; the other considers what we have to keep us in check as slightly worse than having nothing at all.

    6. Re:A couple things about TFA by phantomfive · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The best approach is to deal with the motivations of terrorists. Find out what they want, why they want it, and persuade them that violence is not the best way to get it.

      OK, let's try that method with Osama Bin Ladin.

      His goal was in brief to become a Caliph over all the muslim world, instigate a fight between the believers and non-believers, and then beat down the non-believers. (one source).

      How exactly do you persuade him that violence is not the best way to get that goal? I am really interested in hearing what you have to say.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    7. Re: A couple things about TFA by pepty · · Score: 1

      How many terrorist attacks which caused deaths or at least millions of dollars in damages in the US in the past 30 years were committed by anarchists?

    8. Re: A couple things about TFA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It is as valid to a person with a strict interpretation of Islam as being anti-gay marriage is to Christianity or unrelenting pacifism to a Buddhist.

    9. Re: A couple things about TFA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I know that the party line is that they hate us for not being muslim, and I'm sure they exploit religion in their recruitment efforts to the fullest extent that they can. But can you seriously not think of any other reason why they might be upset with us? We tear down legitimate democratic governments, support regional asshats (sometimes genocidal), arm Israel despite the fact that they seem to take such delight in persecuting innocent Palestinians (guilty ones too, but that's justifiable), we cause massive collateral damage which we then pretend isn't collateral damage (redefining "terrorist" to include anyone we wound who is male and over 10, or whatever the age was), etc.

      Osama's stated goal with 9/11 was to get us out of the Middle East by precipitating our economic collapse.

      > Any other reason they claim to hate us for doesn't ever stop the hate when we address it.

      When did we ever "address" any of the legitimate reasons I gave? If Iran sent a drone and bombed a US wedding, would you be satisfied with a few kind words from Ahmadinejad followed by a legal declaration that the bombing was somehow our fault because the wedding guests were terrorists (due to the fact that they were bombed, because Iran only bombs terrorists...)?

    10. Re: A couple things about TFA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yet any time anarchists participate in protests and demonstrations, they're usually on the front lines causing violence and destruction.

    11. Re: A couple things about TFA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      >If Canada sent a drone and bombed a US wedding
      If we were allowing violent Quebecois Liberation groups to build bases and perform cross border raids...

      Iran is a bad example because they are anti-Al Qaeda and would probably support the US war on extreme sunni islam. Also, Ahmadinejad isn't president anymore.

    12. Re: A couple things about TFA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Give them chaos, in a virtual setting. Let them say what they want, instead of banning their speech. Then engage that speech in a reasonable manner, not falling into the trap of over-reacting emotionally.

      Deal with the problem before it ever reaches the violent stage, by giving the would-be perpetrators a way to express themselves first without censorship. Then come up with good arguments to convince them they are wrong, or give them what they want (maybe you're wrong).

    13. Re: A couple things about TFA by SuperKendall · · Score: 0

      I can think of lots of other reasons why they would also be upset. But the non-Muslim reason is primary and not something you can wave away, even if you fix the other things.

      Some people you literally cannot please - so why try if it makes no sense? They are also offended at our allowing gay marriage, perhaps instead the nation should stop placating the gay population and stone or execute them instead? Is that really want you want? I would instead say, we ignore what people we cannot be pleased think.

      --
      "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    14. Re: A couple things about TFA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      They are usually more some kind of disaffected statists. But yea that word has been ruined.

    15. Re:A couple things about TFA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm pretty sure that the last thing that went through his mind (besides a bullet) was "Maybe I was wrong about the violence."

    16. Re:A couple things about TFA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Lots of felatio, hopefully by someone with experience...not a virgin.

    17. Re: A couple things about TFA by X.25 · · Score: 1

      All islamic terrorists - therefore pretty much all of the violent ones - hate us for not being Muslim, full stop.

      How is that a "pretty valid reason"?

      Any other reason they claim to hate us for doesn't ever stop the hate when we address it.

      I am really not sure whether you are serious or jus trolling.

      I hope you're trolling, for your sanity sake.

    18. Re:A couple things about TFA by Hadlock · · Score: 1

      We pointed out that he and his cause were a bad way of going about doing things, and people stopped joining his cause. It's hard to become a Caliph if nobody will listen to you.

      --
      moox. for a new generation.
    19. Re:A couple things about TFA by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      and people stopped joining his cause.

      If only this were true.....

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    20. Re:A couple things about TFA by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      We used to get a lot of rhetoric from Northern Ireland as well. Not quite as extreme, but divided on religious and historical lines, both sides saying they would never negotiate or settle for anything less than total victory. Given a real chance they built a workable peace though.

      Even in Afghanistan it looks like the best thing to do is negotiate.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    21. Re: A couple things about TFA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They often want chaos.

      If we can narrow the terrorists down to only the people who make longe-range careful plans just because they like chaos, then we've got the list down to the Joker and similar comic-book villains. Since those don't actually exist, that would be an improvement. Come on, you can troll better than that.

    22. Re: A couple things about TFA by blackraven14250 · · Score: 1

      That's what their leadership claims to their masses, but it's not their true motivation for their actions. For example, bin Laden may have claimed Jihad against non-Muslims as the cause in and of itself, but actually believed that the US's foreign policy harmed Muslims in the Middle East.

    23. Re: A couple things about TFA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Balderdash, religion is clearly a tool for their leaders and /not/ their driving motivation.The 9-11 hijackers engage d in all sorts of non-devout behavior like drinking and frequenting strip clubs. Bin Laden's porn stash was infamously large. It is pretty much a rhetorical tool. "Not being islamic" as an explanation for their targetting fails on several counts, namely the major intrafaith violence.

    24. Re:A couple things about TFA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Actually bin laden never mentioned any of the above. In his 1996 fatwa he had three conditions in order to call for a "truce" with the west. They were

      1. Remove all foreign troops from " the land of the prophet" meaning Saudi Arabia. (The US pulled out all troops in 2003 right before invading Iraq)
      2. Remove sanctions against Iraq. (This was accomplished after the US invaded Iraq in 2003)
      3. End US support of Israel.

      Source

      http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/military/july-dec96/fatwa_1996.html

    25. Re: A couple things about TFA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just as valid as you not liking people because they arent christian.

    26. Re: A couple things about TFA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tell that to Alpha 66, and the IRA, who have both bombed western nations but not because they're non-muslim.

      Oh, you're only talking about muslim terrorists? Why? Because it suits your particular argument?

    27. Re:A couple things about TFA by ultranova · · Score: 1

      How about an apples-to-apples comparison, like, you know... one involving the cost of armoring transformers at all the stations?

      And poles. Because it won't do much good to have intact transformers if they're unpowered because the wires are down.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    28. Re: A couple things about TFA by ultranova · · Score: 1

      I can think of lots of other reasons why they would also be upset. But the non-Muslim reason is primary and not something you can wave away, even if you fix the other things.

      Or it could be just a way of saying "God is on our side!", like people have in every conflict since time immemorial. Just like they have excused the actions of your own tribe while vilifying the members of others victimized by said actions. Which was bad enough for bronze age barbarians but is something we simply can't afford anymore in the modern world, so please stop doing that shit. Unless, of course, you fancy sitting in the dark, paying even more taxes for "defence" and wondering when someone finally goes over the line and drops a nuke on you.

      They are also offended at our allowing gay marriage, perhaps instead the nation should stop placating the gay population and stone or execute them instead?

      This must be why every islamic group on the planet is focusing on annihilating Sweden, where gay marriage has been legal since 2009. Oh sorry, I forgot: they'll destroy Denmark first, for publishing those Muhammed cartoons.

      ...Nope, it's still the United States that's enemy number one, despite all its evangelical gay-hate. I wonder why that is?

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    29. Re:A couple things about TFA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How exactly do you persuade him that violence is not the best way to get that goal? I am really interested in hearing what you have to say.

      You are being intentionally obtuse without function, often referred to as "being an ass". You don't persuade OBL, he doesn't pilot the planes, Einstein.

    30. Re: A couple things about TFA by Livius · · Score: 1

      But the non-Muslim reason is primary and not something you can wave away

      The reason you can't wave it away is because it's an outright lie.

      If you want to know their actual motivations, simply listen when they explain them.

    31. Re: A couple things about TFA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You'd think someone with a five-digit uid would be old enough to see the world as something other than a simplistic, black-and-white, us-vs-them cartoon.
      But here's SuperKendall, using phrases like "full stop", demonstrating that wisdom doesn't always come with age.

    32. Re: A couple things about TFA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hello Mr. Strawman Killer,

      How do you know they hate us only for being non-muslim? They have plenty of legitimate reasons, none of which were addressed.

      They do use Islam as a recruitment tool in much the same way the US Armed Forces use nationalism as a recruitment tool. You'd be hard pressed to find someone in the US military who's willing to bomb Canada under the reason, they're not the US. It's used more of a solidarity "you're one of us" tool than a raison d'être.

      And if we solve the problems they have with us that we don't morally object to, then we have a legitimate reason to antagonize them. Legitimate problem: us propping up genocidal maniacs. Illegitimate problem: allowing gays to marry. I say the first problem is one that should be solved, anklet them continuing twisting over the existence of the second problem. They attack us specifically for the second problem, bring the goddamn hammer down on them with a big, gift-wrapped FU.

    33. Re:A couple things about TFA by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      ok, what sort of compromise are you thinking that Bin Laden (and now, Al Qaeda) would have been willing to accept?

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    34. Re:A couple things about TFA by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Actually bin laden never mentioned any of the above.

      Yes, yes he did. Please read what I linked to and realize what he said in 1996 is not inconsistent with other things he said later.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    35. Re: A couple things about TFA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Horseshit. The world is full of non-Muslims who aren't engaging in economic imperialism and military intervention, and, not surprisingly, aren't targets of terrorist attacks.

    36. Re:A couple things about TFA by phantomfive · · Score: 2

      Even in Afghanistan it looks like the best thing to do is negotiate.

      It is an interesting parallel with Ireland, because the issues there were brought by religious division. It is not at all clear that the Irish would have accepted peace 100 years ago; sometimes it takes time for the parties to be ready to accept peace over victory.

      The Middle East right now looks like the beginning of Europe's 30 years war; multiple religious sects (Jews and Christians being a side party to the complex patchwork of Muslim faiths) all coming closer and closer to killing each other (a few months ago, for example, I heard someone calling for the death of all Sufis). It took Europe many years to accept the idea of freedom of religion, that it's ok if your neighbor believes something different than you.

      In that way, the Middle East is stuck in the dark ages, they haven't accepted freedom of religion. Until that happens, and a peace is negotiated that respects those differences, there isn't much hope for peace in Afghanistan.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    37. Re: A couple things about TFA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also, anarchists don't want "chaos". They want a lack of (or at least minimal-needed-to-keep-us-from-killing-each-other) government.

      No, that's wrong. Anarchists are completely against ANY form of government. If you're in favor of a minimalist government then you're thinking of a Libertarian, not an Anarchist.

    38. Re: A couple things about TFA by umafuckit · · Score: 1

      I can think of lots of other reasons why they would also be upset. But the non-Muslim reason is primary and not something you can wave away, even if you fix the other things.

      I'm not so sure about that. The "non-Muslim reason" only becomes a valid reason for hating others if the Muslim in question is an extremist. Moderate Muslims don't hate non-Muslims. Extreme Muslims do hate non-Muslims, but they probably have become extreme Muslims for non-religious reasons. Extremism usually flourishes when people are unhappy and the society has major problems. There are plenty of people in the middle east who are unhappy with the West and they have very particular reasons for being unhappy. Islamic extremists are leveraging religion because it's the easiest way to create an "us vs them" mentality, to brain wash people, to de-humanise the enemy, and to make people prepared to die for their cause. The west being non-Muslim is very convenient for them, however I'm sure that if we were Muslim then the extremists would simply be telling their people that we were the wrong sort of Muslim.

    39. Re: A couple things about TFA by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      Far more realistically how much damage was caused by a drunk with easy access to a gun. Forget terrorists, forget anarchists, even forget trigger happy law enforcement, the worst results are always achieved with easy access to alcohol and guns. Want to control that then 'bight the bullet' enact some sensible gun control laws and substitute chilling out marijuana for inhibition killing alcohol.

      Now that will stop far more problems than further ramping up the police state ever will, unless of course you are really masochistic enough to want more taserings, beating, random pepper spraying and of course all out empting of magazine into your chest. Fear has already done way to much damage to citizens rights in favour of police brutality and everyone knows it, so they keep trying to drive more fear to keep the power that people are starting to finally demand be taken away.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    40. Re:A couple things about TFA by LoRdTAW · · Score: 1

      I am very surprised they didn't come to the obvious conclusion. Copper thieves enter manhole and cut fiber cables realizing they aren't copper. They then get frustrated and then shoot at the transformers.

      TFA then throws this asinine phrase into the mix: "military-style weapons". WTF? This country is filled with "military-style weapons". Every gun toting red blooded god-fearing republican owns some type of "military-style weapon" such as an AR-15 or AK-47. Its fear mongering plain and simple. I have very religious, right standing cousins, a few of them former military. They own various semi automatic magazine fed rifles or as the article says "military-style weapons". My friend has an AK47 with a loaded 30 round magazine in his closet. Maybe they are terrorists too?

      My money is on meth heads or some other form of junkie. They didn't get what they wanted and were jonesing so they went bezerk and shot up the substation. Case closed.

      Another fear mongering gem:

      Jon Wellinghoff, the chairman of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, said last month that an attack by intruders with guns and rifles could be just as devastating as a cyber attack.
      A shooter "could get 200 yards away with a .22 rifle and take the whole thing out," Wellinghoff said last month at a conference sponsored by Bloomberg.

      200 yards with a .22? What kind of 22? A rimfire 22 or something like a 5.56x51mm NATO or .223 Remington? A 22 refers to a .22 rimfire cartridge, AKA 22 LR or .22 Long Rifle, which is commonly used for target and small varmint shooting (Eg squirrels, gophers, rats etc.). It will bounce off a transformers steel skin like a BB at 200 yards. A 5.56 or .223 is a rifle cartridge with quite a bit more power and is used in the AR-15 and many other semi auto rifles (the 5.56 is the standard NATO round used in the M4, FAMAS, G34 etc.). That could penetrate at 200 yards using the right ammo but seriously it would mostly be an inconvenience unless it damages the windings. You only need to worry about oil loss from holes in the skin which leads to overheating or loss of electrical insulation allowing devastating arcing.

    41. Re:A couple things about TFA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The best approach is to deal with the motivations of terrorists. Find out what they want, why they want it, and persuade them that violence is not the best way to get it.

      No. The best approach is to kill the terrorists. Find out who they are, where they are. Then exterminate them like the vermin they are.

    42. Re: A couple things about TFA by N1AK · · Score: 1

      The vast majority of terrorist acts aren't perpetrated by groups looking for chaos; they have defined goals or believe they are at 'war' with the target. There might be some groups out there that just bomb stuff for shits and giggles but given the comparative rarity I say we wait until we've dealt with the rest first.

    43. Re: A couple things about TFA by N1AK · · Score: 1

      Anarchists want an end to use of violence to get what you want.

      Stop trying to redefine it. Anarchy is an incredibly vague notion, it means "without rulers", nothing more or less. Some 'anarchists' may believe that this will lead to less violence. Some may believe that it will better suit them. It doesn't really matter what motivates them because the term anarchist doesn't define it.

    44. Re: A couple things about TFA by pla · · Score: 1

      No, that's wrong. Anarchists are completely against ANY form of government. If you're in favor of a minimalist government then you're thinking of a Libertarian, not an Anarchist.

      Not all anarchists count as parodies of themselves, believe it or not. Yes, they oppose ALL government, as you point out; in the real world, however, they understand the utility of some level of centralized organization in a society as large and densely populated as ours.

    45. Re:A couple things about TFA by archont · · Score: 1

      "I" don't have to. Remember the news story a week ago about Al-Qaeda apologizing for accidentally assaulting a hospital and mosque when their intended target was the ministry of defence of Yemen?

      The ministry of defense would be a textbook legitimate target for any nation-state or organization aspiring to fulfil the role of such.

      A hospital and mosque on the other hand is something a nation-state would not want to target because of PR fallout. Which is exactly what happened, hence the apology.

      No need to persuade Ossama, him being dead and all. Turns out the new leadership does understand that the rules of the game have changed since the days of the soviet union and indiscriminate violence has it's price.

      Of course, that still leaves them with violence as a tool, just more directed. But it would be silly to hold an international terrorist organization and synonym of "bad guy" to higher standards than the "good guys".

    46. Re:A couple things about TFA by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      ok, so how does that convince them that violence is not the best way to get what they want? Or are you just rambling about an unrelated topic?

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    47. Re:A couple things about TFA by archont · · Score: 1

      It takes a change of attitudes and expectations in the middle east, I think, before a far fringe organization like Al-Qaeda can no longer exist on their own. For now they support not only violence but deal in slavery and opium. Convincing them violence isn't the best way to achieve their goals won't work as it's one of their signature tools.

      Then again nation-states, even first world ones, do use capital punishment and start wars of aggression - the soviet invasion of Afghanistan and the subsequent US war by proxy created and defined the modus operandi of this very organization.

      Ultimately Al-Qaeda gets way more attention than it deserves compared to it's actual impact. Rather than focus on this particular boogeyman I'd rather see violence be stigmatized as a tool of politics in the same way open slavery is.

    48. Re:A couple things about TFA by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      I would like to see violence done away with as well, but 'stigmatization' isn't enough.

      War has mostly ended because it doesn't give the benefits it used to give (no longer can you ransack a capital and pay your army with the gold from their treasury). However, there are still people, and countries, who do benefit from war. How do you convince them to not fight anymore?

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    49. Re:A couple things about TFA by archont · · Score: 1

      Slavery didn't disappear just because of stigmatization, but mostly because machines replaced slave labor while creating skilled worker jobs. In countries where human life is still valued below the costs machinery you do see slavery. In fact, you see still sexual slavery in first world countries, where the price is deemed acceptable.

      So you have to think of ways of making violence unprofitable and making it the the suboptimal solution to problems. Increased transparency, accountability and stronger international agreements against aggression, as well as their effective enforcement would be the general direction. Either way, this is a problem that needs to be tacked systemically, operating on incentives and disincentives rather than any moral prerogative.

    50. Re:A couple things about TFA by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      So you have to think of ways of making violence unprofitable and making it the the suboptimal solution to problems. Increased transparency, accountability and stronger international agreements against aggression, as well as their effective enforcement would be the general direction

      OK, let's see what you can come up with in one specific case. A lot of Palestinians want to destroy Israel because they (probably correctly) believe that if Israel is gone, they can take the Israeli lands and live there.

      How do you make that an unprofitable solution?

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    51. Re:A couple things about TFA by archont · · Score: 1

      It already is unprofitable, which is why instead of an open warzone like Syria you're seeing only the sporadic rocket or suicide attack. The Palestinian territories are stricken by poverty and being absorbed into Israel, fighting which would mean serious expense for any nation and risking US intervention.

      For a solution now, I don't have one, I think it's too late for one at this point. As mentioned, the process of absorbing palestinian soil has begun a while ago - without any hints of cultural integration, it's all raze and pave. By trying to reestablish official borders you'd have to contend with levelling Jewish neighbourhoods.

    52. Re:A couple things about TFA by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      It already is unprofitable,

      Nah, now you're avoiding the question. It's unprofitable because they keep being destroyed by Israel, ie, they are losing. If they won, it would be profitable.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    53. Re:A couple things about TFA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is an interesting parallel with Ireland, because the issues there were brought by religious division. It is not at all clear that the Irish would have accepted peace 100 years ago; sometimes it takes time for the parties to be ready to accept peace over victory.

      The religious differences in Ireland weren't initially that big of an issue. They were deliberately fanned as part of Britain's Divide and Rule strategy. The history illustrates a pretty textbook example of it, with land grants and preferential jobs/residences/etc going to Protestants (and Protestant Scot settlers) going up to literally dividing the country in two.

  4. Yawns. by MobSwatter · · Score: 5, Funny

    [Puts candles on grocery list]

    1. Re:Yawns. by jd · · Score: 1

      Scented or unscented? Basic or self-relighting? With or without wax skulls carved on the outside?

      These are important decisions!

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    2. Re:Yawns. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Scented ... to help cover the smell of cordite and corpses.

    3. Re:Yawns. by MobSwatter · · Score: 1

      Yep, them power outages... Oh! the carnage...

    4. Re:Yawns. by aNonnyMouseCowered · · Score: 1

      Remind mom/wife you really need to buy that solar panel kit you've been drooling over. [Candles are so last century.]

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

      Candles burn at night, you might at large battery pack (> $5000) to get anything out of your solar panels.

    6. Re:Yawns. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you're close enough to smell the gunfire at the power plant then you're close enough to smell the bodies.

    7. Re:Yawns. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep. It's funny. I could leave it at that...

      On the other hand, I live in a colder climate, and my home heat is entirely electric.

      What do you propose I put on my grocery list?

    8. Re:Yawns. by blindseer · · Score: 1

      Hand warmers?

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    9. Re:Yawns. by MobSwatter · · Score: 1

      Well then, seems maybe we might need to issue CCW's to the power plant workers, or maybe spend 5 billion tax payer bucks on "PSA", subsidiary corporation of "TSA" and give them power workers a good anal prob'n each day before they go to work huh? Government requisitioned corporate "safety" ain't nothing but snake oil, how deep will the rabbit hole go before it is called out as fraud?

    10. Re:Yawns. by MobSwatter · · Score: 1

      Solar is a great concept, however the cells are so fragile and require constant attention with regards to cleaning to maintain efficiency. I do have some other ideas for power generation but they are not compatible with a blood sucking economy, I'll just have to wait until the NSA is done tanking that to put it together.

    11. Re: Yawns. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      CCW? I'd rather they have National Guard stationed at each location. I don't think power plant employees should have to receive combat training.

    12. Re:Yawns. by MobSwatter · · Score: 1

      Gas, oil, chainsaw? And yes it is funny, we've mastered harnessing the wind, but not the force of magnetism, oil and electric cartels much are more important.

    13. Re: Yawns. by MobSwatter · · Score: 1

      You don't think that power station employee's might have the quality of self preservation beyond the will to preserve their infrastructure? You don't think a person that hangs out of a helicopter to work on high cap lines has the balls to pull the trigger to do so? You don't see that aspect of emergency services like those of law enforcement end up most times just there to mop up the mess after the fact? Then opt in for voluntary servitude, may your opinion be reflected in your own basis of taxation in paying for the snake oil "safety". Shop as a good consumer you've been schooled to be and always buy Chinese manufactured products that need to be replaced every year. One thing though, keep all that crap to yourself.

  5. amateurs by confused+one · · Score: 1

    Congressional members, regulators and even the "terrorists", amateurs all.

    1. Re:amateurs by MobSwatter · · Score: 1

      Good thing it's not the boogyman, now that would be scary.

    2. Re:amateurs by confused+one · · Score: 2

      I don't care about the boogyman either. He's just in it for the scare. Or perhaps the good representative from California should be given that title. I also get annoyed at the descriptions: "hi-powered rifle" fits any modern rifle big enough to hunt deer. A 7.62x39 (SK and AK ammo, one of the most common in the world) is a relatively tame round, roughly equivalent to a 120 year old .30-30 in terms of muzzle energy. "military style weapon" fits any rifle with a capacity > 3 rounds, an adjustable stock or pistol grip stock and mounting points for accessories, like scopes and flashlights. That loosely fits the description of my deer gun, a shotgun with a slug barrel.

      I don't get concerned until there's a real effort by someone who clearly knows wtf they're doing. This looked then, and now, more like someone with a grudge (think ex-employee) trying to cause trouble by cutting a bunch of semi-random phone lines running past the station, then firing a rifle at the transformers. If this was really what is being implied in the article (assuming some reasonably sound intelligence indicates it to be so) my description -- they're a bunch of rank amateurs -- stands. These folks need to stop needlessly scaring people.

    3. Re:amateurs by MobSwatter · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but it seems it is the boogyman is what they are selling to justify deficit spending, selling out the future of generations down the line to line their pockets today, this was not part of the agreement of the governed that I am aware of. I don't think they would be scaring people if it wasn't so profitable, they have a bit in common with my ex wife's father, putting money above human life. The .50 BMG being contraband in Cali is annoying, though there is the DLC being they wrote the law specifically on the round. I'm fine with a .45/70 keeping the big cats/coyote's off the poultry, .270 for deer, .35 Whelan Ackley improved for larger game until they manage to finally push the people over the edge, sooner or later I'll probably have to make a run to my FFL in out in NV to get the right tools, the government selling protection ain't nothing but snake oil. Seems their idea of making the people "safe", is financially pushing them and their future over the edge ...

    4. Re:amateurs by DutchUncle · · Score: 1

      Perhaps the important point is that it doesn't take much "real" effort to damage infrastructure and cause trouble, or even death and destruction. And it doesn't even take guns; derailing a train should only take a bunch of bricks and the quick-drying cement you patch steps with, if you know the line isn't busy for a few hours.

      In the simplest example, one would think that power stations would have communications online constantly and someone would notice when they were cut (though emptying a few magazines into high voltage equipment probably takes less time than the police do).

    5. Re:amateurs by MobSwatter · · Score: 1

      Yes, it is true, neither guns, explosives, rocks, heavy equipment, tools of any sort will allow people to kill people without human intervention, sometimes that can even happen accidentally but in the case that its not, there is generally motive. This implies a person was motivated by some reasoning be it sane or not, most things happen for a reason. To take out power could be an act of war in a concerted effort to obtain a larger goal, a bunch of folks just sitting in the dark is not entirely tragic, in fact that happens all the time depending on where you live, or like now with a blood sucking, fear mongering, corporate cash grab going on.

    6. Re:amateurs by archont · · Score: 1

      Was this a highly skilled attack meant to disable infrastructure?
      No, obviously not.

      Was this a probe attack?
      Unlikely.

      But for reasons obvious, the mere chance of this being the case is extremely worrying for the government. Infrastructure sabotage is IMO an extremely effective form of asymmetric warfare in the US. Go blow up a pressure cooker and everybody will want to kill you while rallying behind the government. For a government whose legitimacy is based in large part on the ability to provide convenience and a sense of protection, those types of attacks serve to undermine faith in the government's reach and promises, are expensive to defend against, cheap to execute and create a much less negative public reaction towards the attackers, channeling some of that sentiment towards a government that is made to appear incompetent and weak.

      It is, in short, a much more effective form of terrorism than casualty oriented indiscriminate violence.

  6. Terrorism or power play by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Enron showed you can make a lot of money by manipulating commodities that are traded. The quiet 911 problem was money raised by shorting airline stock. Attacks on infrastructure might be terrorism, might be market plays or might be both.

    1. Re:Terrorism or power play by MobSwatter · · Score: 1

      SHHH, they aren't done with the fear mongering part yet!

  7. STILL worried about "cyber attacks"? by whoever57 · · Score: 2

    What is it about the threat of "cyber attacks" that makes people so worried about them? Even in the face of evidence that physical attacks can be successful and easy?

    --
    The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    1. Re:STILL worried about "cyber attacks"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      What is it about the threat of "cyber attacks" that makes people so worried about them? Even in the face of evidence that physical attacks can be successful and easy?

      "you always fear what you don't understand" -- Carmine Falcone

    2. Re:STILL worried about "cyber attacks"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even in the face of evidence that physical attacks can be successful and easy?

      Simple. Physical violence is something everyone understands.

      Cyber-wizardry is scary and we must burn the witches.

    3. Re:STILL worried about "cyber attacks"? by maliqua · · Score: 1

      violent attacks require much more commitment since the a highly probably outcome is dying. a botched cyber attack results in trials and comfy first world prisons likely in min or medium security with visitation

    4. Re:STILL worried about "cyber attacks"? by fermion · · Score: 2
      The perception is that a physical attack is expensive and risky while a cyber attack can be cheap and have little risk. This physical attack risks two people lives and only did limited damage. To do more damage you have to hire and train more people willing to be killed, and get them into place simultaneously before security responds.

      The reality is that utilities have control systems that can be accessed from the outside by a well funded attacker, then that is a huge risk. Cyber attack can also be used for other nefarious purposes. For instance, if one wants to attack a location, and the location has a smart meter, then the smart meter can be used to track the traffic patterns, remotely, with no risk of discovery.

      Many years ago there was a similar discussion of conventional versus biological or chemical weapons. The consensus was these types of weapons required a high level of skill and higher levels of risk that just blowing something up. I think the types of attacks we have seen of the past 15 years has substantiated this. We have seen very few successful biological or chemical attacks by 'terrorist' groups, but have seen even small governments manage. Does this mean we don't protect against these attacks. Sure we do. But it is probably more likely that someone gets a dirty bomb, or even a fusion device, to the top of the tallest building in a city than someone poisons the water supply, although both are probably highly unlikely.

      --
      "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
    5. Re:STILL worried about "cyber attacks"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      botched cyber attack results in trials and comfy first world prisons likely in min or medium security with visitation

      [CITATION NEEDED!]

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_Mitnick

      Mitnick served five years in prisonâ"four and a half years pre-trial and eight months in solitary confinementâ"because, according to Mitnick, law enforcement officials convinced a judge that he had the ability to "start a nuclear war by whistling into a pay phone", meaning that law enforcement told the judge that he could somehow dial into the NORAD modem via a payphone from prison and communicate with the modem by whistling to launch nuclear missiles.

      And that guy didn't even try to destroy anything. The most likely outcome for your scenario is some supermax in middle of nowhere.

    6. Re:STILL worried about "cyber attacks"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What is it about the threat of "cyber attacks" that makes people so worried about them? Even in the face of evidence that physical attacks can be successful and easy?

      What was it about the threat of nuclear warfare that drove countries to arm themselves to the fucking teeth with enough nuclear power to wipe out the earth many times over, with a known outcome of NO winners?

      Didn't seem to stop or slow those countries from spending trillions on nuclear weapons programs, which brings us right back to the "perceived threat" the drives trillions into protecting us from terrorists. After all, we need the TSA to make us feel safe...right?

      Greed and corruption at it's finest. If you don't get that by now, then just wait until the eTSA is created. After all, we'll need a brand-new trillion-dollar cyber version of the TSA so we can bilk the 99% even more, so the 1% can get even more rich. It's rather unfortunate that those in charge will realize the damage being done by the elite only after the US dollar is no longer the global monetary standard due to massive greed that collapsed the whole fucking system.

    7. Re:STILL worried about "cyber attacks"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      really Mitnick? thats ancient history now he was put away at a time when laws regarding cyber crimes didn't even exist we've come a long way since then i think the point he was trying to make is simply put: if you go in guns blazing your most likely going to die at the hands of law enforcement, cyber criminals when caught will more likely get to live to go to trial

    8. Re:STILL worried about "cyber attacks"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cyber attacks can be automated. It's the difference between shooting someone who has a pacemaker and then creating malware that kills everyone who has a pacemaker.

    9. Re:STILL worried about "cyber attacks"? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Cyber attacks are the latest invisible boogyman. The media loves them. Impossible to quantify, easy to speculate about, good for generating thousands of bullshit articles over many years.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    10. Re:STILL worried about "cyber attacks"? by NicBenjamin · · Score: 1

      That the Russian Army could do them without getting out of it's pajamas, and that we wouldn't necessarily know it was the Russian Army for a couple days after they totally destroyed our power grid and got up to whatever mischief they were planning on getting up to while we were busy with the power grid.

      I'll admit that's an unlikely scenario, but a big part of the reason we have political leaders is so somebody can look into these unlikely doomsday scenarios and figure out how to make them even less likely.

      I'm not sure I'd supported spending hundreds of my tax dollars to stop the scenario, but $10-$20 (which works out to $3-$6 Billion) seems reasonable.

    11. Re:STILL worried about "cyber attacks"? by Zorpheus · · Score: 1

      Cyber attacks can cause large damage without much risk.
      That physical attack was just stupid. It can't do much damage since it hits only one power plant, and the attacker can be caught moreeasily.

    12. Re:STILL worried about "cyber attacks"? by cusco · · Score: 1

      violent attacks require much more commitment since the a highly probably outcome is dying.

      You don't know many security guards then. I work in the profession, and if you think the TSA staff are a bunch of babbling incompetents the security staff at most of the country's infrastructure sites make them look like brain surgeons. That's at the few sites where there actually ARE security guards, in my area that includes the headquarters, primary command and control sites, two refineries, an LNG storage tank, and a vehicle storage/repair yard. All the natural gas pipeline pumping stations, gasoline pipeline pumping stations, electrical substations, switching centers, generation stations, wind farms, you name it, there are no guards. At the other sites almost none of the guard staff are armed with anything more than a tazer, their function is to lock the doors and call police in the case of trouble. A lot of these guys I rather wonder about their competence to manage that much.

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
    13. Re:STILL worried about "cyber attacks"? by cusco · · Score: 2

      hire and train more people willing to be killed, and get them into place simultaneously before security responds.

      Are you under the impression that utilities employ squads of armed tactical response teams to respond to attacks? The utility that I used to work with had a total of 10 contracted security guards, none of them armed, only two of whom might be able to fight their way out of a wet paper bag, to provide 24x7 coverage over an entire county including two very remote power dams. Of the half dozen large infrastructure sites near my house only two even have video cameras, one of those I'm pretty sure has only local recording. If there were an issue at any of those sites repair crews would be sent first, when the SCADA system threw alerts. Then police might be called.

      Yes, IAAPSP (physical security professional).

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
    14. Re:STILL worried about "cyber attacks"? by DutchUncle · · Score: 1

      OTOH Physical attack just takes a few hotheads with more machismo than brains. Biological or chemical attack in a crowded mall or transportation hub would be fairly simple. "Just blowing something up" and "limited damage" could still pull down the power grid.

  8. Re:first shot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    I don't know what is scarier, selling guns to terrorists or the lunatic white people that already own them.

  9. IANAT (terrorist) by paiute · · Score: 5, Insightful

    But if I were, I wouldn't run a test of my method using live fire to get my target all forewarned.

    But if I were a bored teenager who thinks he is an anarchist, I could go out one night with my .30-06 and hole a few transformers just to watch the man overreact.

    --
    If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
    1. Re:IANAT (terrorist) by Wonko+the+Sane · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If you were a business looking to make money on selling security equipment to power companies, or if you were an up-and-coming policitial player looking for a reason to start a new agency you can be the head of, you'd do the same thing.

    2. Re:IANAT (terrorist) by ElectricTurtle · · Score: 4, Informative

      Actually, if you were serious about acting against a particular target, then finding out the methods, timing, degree, and flexibility of their response is indeed important, especially if your own resources are particularly limited or if the location is inimical to withdrawal (which actually could be used for a secondary attack against responders, depending on the outcome of the "test" attack). These sorts of things are not nearly so straightforward or intuitive as you imagine. They're not called "strategy" and "tactics" without a reason.

      --
      I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
    3. Re:IANAT (terrorist) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If you were a business looking to make money on selling security equipment to power companies, or if you were an up-and-coming policitial player looking for a reason to start a new agency you can be the head of, you'd do the same thing.

      No, in those cases you'd indirectly hire an idiot to do it for you. There are plenty available willing to work cheap.

    4. Re:IANAT (terrorist) by paiute · · Score: 1

      Actually, if you were serious about acting against a particular target, then finding out the methods, timing, degree, and flexibility of their response is indeed important,

      And I would, just not by attacking it. I would have a fake accident or stage some kind of shooting nearby but not related to the target to test responses.

      --
      If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
    5. Re:IANAT (terrorist) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are now. Don't try to get on a plane.

  10. What, the NSA couldn't stop this? by TerminaMorte · · Score: 4, Funny

    Good job guys

    1. Re:What, the NSA couldn't stop this? by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 1

      they *were* listening to the power grid. but after a few hours of 60.0hz, they got bored and changed the channel.

      can't blame them, can you?

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    2. Re:What, the NSA couldn't stop this? by BringsApples · · Score: 1

      No man, now all they have to do is sift through all of the data to find these guys - no problem.

      In the meantime, I've got a bail of hay that covers the state of Texas, and then some, about 20 feet thick. I'm sure that there's a needle in there somewhere, and I'm going to find it. Any bets on who'll accomplish their goal first?

      --
      Politics; n. : A religion whereby man is god.
    3. Re:What, the NSA couldn't stop this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      PRS - (not killer guitars), P roblem R eaction S olution

      First we create a problem by some kind of proxy we can't have it tracked back to us.

      The Americanus Boobtubis then demand a fix and react by flooding the x, y, z

      Finally the solution we wanted all along is rolled out in the form of law by the barrel of a gun.

      welp kiddies this nice talk, brought to by
      BTFATH
      and
      MIAG
      ICLEI
      IRS
      EPA
      ERIC PLACE HOLDER
      DUAL ISRALE/US CITIZENZZ IN TEH VAULTZ
      AND GUN CONTROL (don't miss it!)

  11. Re:first shot by anubi · · Score: 2

    I just RTFA'd. Scared the hell out of me when I considered the ramifications of a co-ordinated attack,

    Made me wonder if I would be justified in taking out anyone I saw trying to attempt such a thing.

    ( Of course, I guess even thinking that makes me one of the types who our government seems to believe should not have access to the means to do so. )

    Its not like spares for those big transformers are laying around all over... those things were manufactured to order.

    --
    "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]

  12. Re:first shot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Maybe we should do like Venezuela and enact a global gun ban. Since the past year when firearm ownership was completely removed from the unwashed masses, violent crime is 1/1000 what it was before. One can easily read the before and after in the paper.

    The fewer guns on the streets, the less likely an attack like this happening. Yes, people will complain about criminals having them, but the police doing their job means that criminals with firearms turn into inmates serving hard time, and eventually this hazard should cease to be a nationwide blight.

    The carnage at Sandy Hook shows that guns should not be in the hands of citizens, period.

  13. Bullshit by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Around 1:00 AM on April 16, at least one individual (possibly two) entered two different manholes at the PG&E Metcalf power substation, southeast of San Jose, and cut fiber cables in the area around the substation. That knocked out some local 911 services, landline service to the substation, and cell phone service in the area, a senior U.S. intelligence official told Foreign Policy. The intruder(s) then fired more than 100 rounds from what two officials described as a high-powered rifle at several transformers in the facility. Ten transformers were damaged in one area of the facility, and three transformer banks -- or groups of transformers -- were hit in another, according to a PG&E spokesman.

    Sounds a lot like some whacked out off-duty "Law Enforcement Officer" trying to scare us as more and more people get fed up with the current Police State and are trying to "dial back" the Fear Mongers.

    "Initially, the attack was being treated as vandalism and handled by local law enforcement," the senior intelligence official said. "However, investigators have been quoted in the press expressing opinions that there are indications that the timing of the attacks and target selection indicate a higher level of planning and sophistication."

    Of course! That these folks didn't try this at high noon on a week day proved they were TERRORISTS RUNNING A PLAN! Of course it does. And "target selection"? Seriously, if you're going to shoot up a power station in the middle of the night (or any time really) what would you aim at? Yup, power transformers. Big targets, easy to hit. NO FUCKING SHIT, SHERLOCK!

    I know the solution to this: A multi-million dollar security system made by Raytheon... And more expensive toys for the local "LE" folks...

    --
    If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    1. Re:Bullshit by VortexCortex · · Score: 2

      Don't forget, they'll want funding for more militarization of the local police force.

    2. Re:Bullshit by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      Its an interesting change from past issues under "self-assessment". In the past a few lobbying efforts against the need for 'extra' security due to rising costs of having to pay for a federally set quota of skilled security professionals on site over all shifts.
      Over the lifetime of any site that cost adds up.
      Now it seems the lobbying efforts for a federally set quota of skilled security professionals on 'all' sites has gained more cashed up political traction.
      Think of the cash for background investigations of all the staff via the private sector.
      New psychological testing of all the staff via the private sector.
      Long term observation of all the staff via the private sector :)
      Testing of all the new security staff... then the cash for longterm 'courses'

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    3. Re:Bullshit by jd · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If so, it might backfire. The NSA weren't able to prevent the attack, and if law enforcement are baffled then clearly the NSA have nothing that can identify the attackers. One genuine attack and one possible attack, nothing the existing system could do before, during or after. Fifty claims about things the NSA freely admit were fiction - well, those remain fiction.

      Fifty claims that can be legitimately called false positives and one, maybe two false negatives. If you were running a company and one of your employees screwed up major decisions 51-52 times in succession, you'd probably fire them. From a canon on the top floor.

      In this case, I'd argue the intelligence services and crime units have proven themselves unfit for purpose, and that the power company is too negligent on providing robust, fault-tolerant services and should have their business license withdrawn.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    4. Re:Bullshit by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 1

      In this case, I'd argue the intelligence services and crime units have proven themselves unfit for purpose, and that the power company is too negligent on providing robust, fault-tolerant services and should have their business license withdrawn.

      The problem is that they will use this failure as an excuse to ramp up even more surveillance and unchecked spending for high-tech toys.

      --
      If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    5. Re:Bullshit by Electricity+Likes+Me · · Score: 1

      ....

      It was what, two guys with guns?

      So the candidate is what, every anti-government idiot in America who owns guns and posts a lot about it on the internet?

      It's the talk of organized platoons and squads which is absurd, because - get this - organizing things involves a lot of communications and is quite hard to do secretly for exactly that reason!

    6. Re:Bullshit by jd · · Score: 1

      You are correct about the list of suspects. Though it needn't be anti-American beliefs. Timothy McVeigh doubtless sincerely believed he was the one being pro-America.

      And, yes, one or two nutters will generate next to no footprint. Given that the NSA tracks everything, footprints smaller than regular social circles (which will be dozens of people) will likely be drowned out in the noise. Six or so people playing Wild West with military surplus hardware is probably about the upper limit, both of what cannot be seen by seeing everything and what can hold together through the drugs and whiskey.

      That would be enough to cause concern. Not a vast amount. Survivalists are the most dangerous breed of pro-American, at the individual level, but can barely cooperate with themselves. Those able to cooperate are political or religious fruitcakes, which automatically means their intellectual prowess rivals that of a delinquent teenage hedgehog.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    7. Re:Bullshit by Electricity+Likes+Me · · Score: 1

      Well hence "anti-government" - which McVeigh definitely was.

  14. STFU by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You both are idiots.

  15. Guns vs Thermite by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Shooting up a transformer? Seriously? Haven't these guys heard of thermite? You can just go to a high voltage tower and melt the legs with thermite.

  16. Re:first shot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sounds good to me

  17. Re:first shot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    But solar energy is bad and must be combated. Reliance on the grid FTW.

  18. This? Again? by jd · · Score: 5, Interesting

    We've known the US has crappy infrastructure since, well, as close to forever as matters in America.

    Attacks on a power station or substation would be immaterial if the grid was a grid, redundancy was built into the system, and getting things done was a higher priority than ego strokes and profit margins. (Yeah, heresy, I know.)

    The moment you deliberately create single points of failure is the moment you hand out invites to nutcases, lunatics, wannabe cowboys and the rest of the US security infrastructure*. The moment you make such violence nothing more than a public nuisance, something not even worth a writeup in the local paper, is the moment it stops being interesting for the fringe groups to do.

    *Yes, the local crackhead with the M16 and armoured personnel carrier is the "militia" the Constitution speaketh of. They are part of the national defence system. Due to two major wars inflicting a massive drain on reserves and an exceptional loss of forces due to PTSD and injuries, said crackheads form an increasingly large part of the regular forces, police and intelligence services. Frankly, I'd be far more concerned about a coup from within than a bunch of moonshine-laden rednecks who have watched too many Dukes of Hazard episodes.

    Of course, given the NSA can dictate terms to the President, Congress and Federal judges, the coup might have already happened. Would you notice if it had? Would you care?

    --
    It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    1. Re:This? Again? by VortexCortex · · Score: 3, Interesting

      the coup might have already happened. Would you notice if it had? Would you care?

      Yes, and yes.
      Whether I would have the power to do anything about it is an altogether different matter.
      Rallying support would require some huge screw-up, for instance: If someone leaked the details about what Room 641A is for.

    2. Re:This? Again? by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      Of course, given the NSA can dictate terms to the President, Congress and Federal judges, the coup might have already happened. Would you notice if it had? Would you care?

      Sorry, I'm going to have to ask for some evidence on that one since it is not a "given."

      People would notice when the next elections weren't held, or the person winning the vote didn't take office. Since elections are locally run in the US somebody would notice if the vote tallies weren't reported right.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    3. Re:This? Again? by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 1

      ^ It isn't the vote that counts, but who counts the votes...

    4. Re:This? Again? by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      Yes, and the people who count the votes tend to be locals that can see their totals with the states. The Federal government has very little to do with elections, and the NSA nothing at all.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    5. Re:This? Again? by NicBenjamin · · Score: 1

      The advantage of a decentralized election system is that it is difficult for a vast national conspiracy to secretly rig.

      The disadvantages are that a) local conspiracies are very good at rigging results, and b) the big parties can manipulate them openly. For examples of a) you mostly have Democratic machines in big cities, but they mostly rig other local elections. If they start rigging national elections they risk pissing off important people in DC, so if your read "Boss" the Daley machine makes sure a local Republican candidate loses the Attorney General's race but does nothing to help Nixon. For examples of b) you have Democrats allowing making it easy vote, particularly on Sundays when working class African Americans can actually have a day off to go the polls, and Republicans making it more difficult. Note that this means local GOP elected officials are, by definition, trying to keep themselves in power by keeping people who oppose them from voting.

      Overall I'd prefer the model everyone else uses, with a painfully ethical apolitical bureaucracy running things, but Americans have an extreme tendency to assume apolitical bureaucracies are simply cover for political conspiracies led by their enemies so that probably won't work here.

    6. Re:This? Again? by BemoanAndMoan · · Score: 1

      Of course, given the NSA can dictate terms to the President, Congress and Federal judges, the coup might have already happened. Would you notice if it had? Would you care?

      People would notice when the next elections weren't held, or the person winning the vote didn't take office.

      The Devil's greatest trick is convincing you he doesn't exist. Now, while I'm loathe to use a religious maxim to point out the error in your thinking, it seemed apt.

      If you looked behind the curtain of freedom and democracy you are pointing your finger at, you'd see self-interest groups (corporations, the very rich) applying lobbyists and likely more nefarious means of manipulation/regulation/control on their local/state/federal politicians, those very politicians whose only real motivation is to win the next election, and the media manipulating the population's fear/greed/loneliness to keep them tuned into their 'message' and keep them consuming (to appease their corporate owners and financial sponsors respectively). All backed up by a failed education system and two-parents-working economy that produces nothing but mindless minions who almost universally ignore and accept as required (or forget/abandon their occasional outrage so fast the separation from outright indifference is negligible).

      But hey, if you are comfortable with the illusion of freedom and control over your future, more power to you.

    7. Re:This? Again? by Edgester · · Score: 1

      ... Frankly, I'd be far more concerned about a coup from within than a bunch of moonshine-laden rednecks who have watched too many Dukes of Hazard episodes.

      I'll take those rednecks over some of the "civilized" people.

    8. Re:This? Again? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think you're following. Elections can still be held and the legitimate winner can still take office. Nothing need appear amiss with that process. After all, what does it matter who's in office if their behaviour can be guided or controlled?

    9. Re:This? Again? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Extraordinary allegations require extraordinary proof.

    10. Re:This? Again? by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Federal government employees almost all vote their pocket book. They are a strong D constituency, almost as dangerous as the shysters.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    11. Re:This? Again? by chihowa · · Score: 1

      Not really. You don't wait for a breach to fix an apparent security hole. Extraordinary proof is required to claim that an apparent security hole is not worth patching... not the other way around.

      --
      If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
  19. Likelihood -- ? by evil_aaronm · · Score: 2

    What's the likelihood that something like this will happen? Are we to fear China sending a crack team of commandos to disable our power grid? Someone could knock down high-tension power lines, too. Do we fence off every last one of those?

    1. Re:Likelihood -- ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yeah, it's not like it's easy to get guns in America.

    2. Re:Likelihood -- ? by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      China has the entrepreneurial skill and cash to:
      Buy the site, bring it up to state and federal standards and correctly spread the costs and lucrative profits over years of local usage.
      Teams of commandos are usually tracked by the DIA, CIA and many others :)
      The FBI has fully infiltrated all domestic groups...
      The main fear is that there is federal and state security cash on the table and new/old domestic/"US" created foreign owned front companies/security firms fear missing out.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  20. Cinder-block walls around transformers. by Animats · · Score: 4, Informative

    Building cinder-block walls around transformers in the transmission power grid might not be a bad idea. Cheap, and if concrete-filled, will stop most ammo. After a decade of anti-terrorism hype, it's surprising this hasn't been done yet. Most anti-terrorism studies of electric power grids mention transformers in the transmission system as a vulnerable point. It's not necessary to heavily protect the whole switchyard. Switchgear is easier and cheaper to replace than transformers, and less vulnerable. The transformers occupy only a small fraction of substation area.

    Transformer substations are something that people, even in the utility industry, don't think about much. They're very reliable, need little attention, and are usually unmanned. So they tend to be ignored unless there's a problem.

    It's embarrassing that PG&E has such poor surveillance of a major substation. The video, grainy analog black and white with slow VHS-type artifacts, means they haven't upgraded since the 1980s or 1990s. It's not like color HD cameras are expensive any more.

    1. Re:Cinder-block walls around transformers. by distilate · · Score: 1

      Would you be prepared to pay 50% more on your power bill for these unneeded modifications. Transformers need cooling so when encased they would need more fans etc...

    2. Re:Cinder-block walls around transformers. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      50% more for a cinder-block wall? You are mad.

    3. Re:Cinder-block walls around transformers. by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      Think back to how the US plain old telephone service and other unique US data networks where hardened for nuclear issues during the cold war- super good funding for thick walls, no windows, deep sites, lots of new sites, lots of extra local redundant power supply options, redundancy, costly fault "rebuild" vs economical basic service restoration.
      Well paid, unionized staff for generations for at many sites that could have been cheaply automated over time.
      The gov cash flow is back :)

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    4. Re:Cinder-block walls around transformers. by ColdWetDog · · Score: 4, Insightful

      A second year engineering student could design a walled structure that would improve air flow. Think of a cooling tower. Hell, they could make them look like giant Mac Pros.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    5. Re:Cinder-block walls around transformers. by Rich0 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Would you be prepared to pay 50% more on your power bill for these unneeded modifications.
      Transformers need cooling so when encased they would need more fans etc...

      The problem with security is that you don't need it until you do, kind of like the fire insurance on my house. When you have good security you tend to deter attacks, which makes it seem like a waste. When you don't have good security all it takes is one black swan event to cripple half the country.

      I'm sure we could cinderblock every substation in the country for the cost of a few F-22s. Considering all it takes is a bunch of nutjobs with rifles to take out all the transformers servicing a major city I'd consider the cinderblocks money well spent, well, assuming cinderblocks really are enough to do the job (I tend to think it would take a bit more).

      Heck, half the northeast US had a blackout a decade ago due to some honest mistakes. I can only imagine what a coordinated attack would accomplish.

    6. Re:Cinder-block walls around transformers. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      50% more for a cinder-block wall? You are mad.

      No, he sells cinder blocks.

    7. Re:Cinder-block walls around transformers. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Building cinder-block walls around transformers in the transmission power grid might not be a bad idea.

      But that won't stop the terrorists from throwing burlap sacks full of squirrels over those walls.

    8. Re:Cinder-block walls around transformers. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Great idea Sherlock.

      Now how about building cinder block walls around every insulator on every tower/pole, because all it takes is shooting those out to bring down the local grid.

      I spoke with a power company employee years ago out in the desert, and he told me folks shoot out insulators "all the time" and that it's unfortunately a part of their "routine maintenance" to replace the broken one's.

      All it would take is one guy with a box of ammo to wreak havoc in a remote area.

      It's not defensible, money is better spent in other ways than building cinder block walls around transformers.

    9. Re:Cinder-block walls around transformers. by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Building cinder-block walls around transformers in the transmission power grid might not be a bad idea. Cheap, and if concrete-filled, will stop most ammo.

      It might prevent a single .30-06 bullet (not to mention some powerful yet still common hunting round, like .300 WSM) from reaching what's beyond it, but most of the block would be destroyed in the process, allowing further shots to pass through.

    10. Re:Cinder-block walls around transformers. by couchslug · · Score: 1

      "and are usually unmanned."

      Terrorist sees block wall. Terrorist takes tool(s) of choice to whatever is supposedly securing power station, then has field day destroying the equipment.

      Power station is then manned for security. Terrorist takes tool(s) of choice to powerline infrastructure.

      I'm not being specific so as not to put thoughts into idle heads, but anyone determined to hit infrastructure could easily do their homework. No one needs firearms to perpetrate major infrastructure damage, only rudimentary knowledge of how any target system works.

      It's functionally (not morally because every life is valuable beyond measure yadda yadda) better from the perspective of actual social disruption that most terroists attack easily replaceable humans than expensive infrastructure.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    11. Re:Cinder-block walls around transformers. by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      It's pointless. Terrorists are not fighting a war, there is no overall strategy. They are not interested in damaging infrastructure or causing general mayhem, which would be easy to do. They just want big, high profile targets with lots of casualties that require little skill to hit so they can use suicide attacks or crude bombs.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    12. Re:Cinder-block walls around transformers. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You need to learn to think like a manager/owner. It ain't a problem until it's a problem. We ain't replacing no video cameras until some serious incident shows that the old cameras are a problem. Greenhorn...

    13. Re:Cinder-block walls around transformers. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Most anti-terrorism studies of electric power grids mention transformers in the transmission system as a vulnerable point

      It has not happened because those threats are simply not there.

      What is there are a few nutcases whose creativity and intelligence ends at home made bombs and even those are very rare.

      Creative and knowledgable terrorists who know what *terror* is and who methodically plan how to terrorise a population are so rare we're worldwide seeing like one or two incidents like that per century. It is not power grids, all infrastructure is very easy to attack. Power grids. Gasoline infrastructure. Markets. Food supply. Drinking water. All those are relatively easy with basic knowledge in bombmaking, poison or chemistry attackable - but something like that does not happen *because this threat is simply not there*.

    14. Re:Cinder-block walls around transformers. by blackraven14250 · · Score: 1

      He's talking about reinforced cinderblocks (i.e. rebar + grout), not empty ones like the ones used in the video you linked.

    15. Re:Cinder-block walls around transformers. by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Well, if a .300 WSM obliterates a non-reinforced block with one shot, let's say it'll take three or four to get through a reinforced one?

      Something like sandbags would probably be more efficient, and cheaper.

    16. Re:Cinder-block walls around transformers. by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      Great idea Sherlock.

      Wasn't my idea.

      Now how about building cinder block walls around every insulator on every tower/pole, because all it takes is shooting those out to bring down the local grid.

      Gee, I had no idea that was possible.

      The concern is that the transformers are much more difficult to replace than the insulators. You are of course correct that either will cause an outage. However, one has the potential to create an outage many months in duration, and the other days.

      Stockpiling transformers would be an alternative solution - probably a better one. Not doing anything has been working well, but then again it worked great for credit default swaps for a while as well.

    17. Re:Cinder-block walls around transformers. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You'd have to be nuts to try that.

    18. Re:Cinder-block walls around transformers. by mysidia · · Score: 1

      How about we just build Bus traps and Cattle guards around all the plants?

      The terrorists are dumb animals, and sure to fall into the cattleguards, and get stuck there until the police arrive -- thus thwarting the attack

    19. Re:Cinder-block walls around transformers. by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      The second year engineering student's structure would likely leave the transformer unmaintainable.

      Engineering is easy, until you actually try to do it.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    20. Re:Cinder-block walls around transformers. by Patent+Lover · · Score: 1

      Terrorists don't care about killing transformers. They care about killing people... and right away. Not standing around later to see if a ventilator fails somewhere. This is a non issue.

    21. Re:Cinder-block walls around transformers. by DeathToThePatriarchy · · Score: 1

      Sounds like a better use of money than cleaning up after major explosions or paying the jackasses from Enron (both of which we have been through comparatively recently). Having anyone in SCADA think forward rather than backward would be glorious.

  21. Re:first shot by maliqua · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I just RTFA'd. Scared the hell out of me when I considered the ramifications of a co-ordinated attack,

    good then they achieved there goal lets remove more civil liberties while your still scared for something absurdly unlikely to actually happen

  22. Re:first shot by maliqua · · Score: 1

    again*

    i fail at proof reading my posts

  23. Re:first shot by maliqua · · Score: 2

    then they'd just use swords or crudely made home made guns or illegally acquired ones people with bad intentions will always find a way to get the tools they require

  24. Re:first shot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm imagining the following scenario: Joe's carrying his trombone case out to the woods to do some practicing. He crosses a power line strip. anubi happens to catch sight of him and immediately jumps to the conclusion that he's a terrorist, and shoots him with his assault rifle. "But he looked like a terrorist!"

  25. RE: Venezuela gun ban by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    a 1/1000 drop? Umm, that didn't happen.
    Even the Venezuela government didn't claim that.

    http://www.insightcrime.org/news-briefs/venezuela-govt-claims-homicides-down-30-percent-really

  26. Re:first shot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    approximately 2 342 983 times more likely to happen than stopping an actual terrorist attack on the plant...

  27. Re:first shot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Your post makes many assumptions, which doesn't help. There is no good black and white stance on anything. The question is, how dark should the grey be for the best ROI.

    The US is huge. We have very large swaths of land that people can just go out to and mind their own business hunting if they feel like it. Sensationalism maybe up, but deaths by firearms is down, even with the "tragic" events like Sandy Hook. Such events are caused by a failure of the social safety net. If you want to get rid of things like medicare and social security, worse things will happen by people that have no where left to go or want to get revenge on the failures of society. The shooter in the terrible Sandy Hook incident has had a well known psychological problem. Wounds of the mind and spirit slip through the system, because we can't gauge them at sight. They are the problems that need resolution and litigation to help heal.

    The only thing that outlawing of guns would do, would be to lower the suicide rate. It would stop people from killing themselves when they aren't serious enough to take other routes which many will, and their deaths or survival will be that much more painful. This also falls back on treating mental ills. The cause is important, not the result.

    Failure to keep guns away from kids is a failure and fault of the parents. I think losing their kid is more than enough punishment for that crime on society.

  28. nuclear power plants have armed guard by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    and they are paid good with the right to shoot on site.

    1. Re:nuclear power plants have armed guard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can they also shoot off site people on sight?

    2. Re:nuclear power plants have armed guard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and they are paid good with the right to shoot on site.

      But not off site, right?

  29. Not To Worry by Zamphatta · · Score: 2

    The NSA will catch them before anything goes seriously wrong, and that's why we allow the gov't to spy on us. It's a service we're paying for. Remember guys, if the gov't spies on its own innocent people then they will be able to stop terror attacks and stuff against the people. So, there's nothing to worry about, the government has already got our backs and they won't let anything happen to us.

    1. Re:Not To Worry by bidule · · Score: 1

      I think you forgot to add your cynical tag.

      --
      ID: the nose did not occur naturally, how would we wear glasses otherwise? (apologies to Voltaire)
  30. Re:first shot by Immerman · · Score: 4, Insightful

    >Who the fuck made you judge, jury, and executioner?

    The guy who is continuing to use deadly force within my sphere of influence. Or are you one of those people that feel that paying your taxes to fund the police (whose job is explicitly to reduce crime, not protect individuals) gives you complete moral amnesty to the implications of walking away from a rape/mugging/etc in progress?

    Or maybe you think we should sit down and talk to the guy firing an assault rifle over a nice cup of tea? Sure I'd prefer to live in that universe too, but back in reality... ... and of course now that I actually skim TFA in this particular case it sounds like things are a lot less clear cut - a potential sabotage operation rather than the Military-style raid touted in the headline, which makes alerting the proper authorities and, if you're feeling lucky, perhaps monitoring or restraining the suspects a much more justifiable course of action.

    --
    --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
  31. Re:first shot by Rich0 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I just RTFA'd. Scared the hell out of me when I considered the ramifications of a co-ordinated attack,

    I remember reading an article about this sort of doomsday scenario back in the 80s. You don't even need a big army to attack these substations/etc. All you need is some guys with rifles to hit a whole bunch at the same time. Just shoot the insulators on the high-voltage lines and watch the whole thing go up in a shower of sparks. If you want to use 50 cal rifles and shoot up the transformers you could of course do so - the last time I drove past a substation they didn't exactly have guards on ready alert, so you could take shots at the thing for half an hour before the police showed up most likely.

    For the billions of dollars we spend on bombers you'd think that somebody could stockpile a bunch of spare transformers and standardize the substation designs.

  32. Sad, really quite sad... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...that there are so many reactionary Right-Wingers on Slashdot now that the parent is modded "flamebait".

  33. Re:first shot by fnj · · Score: 1

    Nice save.

  34. Re:first shot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I just RTFA'd. Scared the hell out of me when I considered the ramifications of a co-ordinated attack,

    I remember reading an article about this sort of doomsday scenario back in the 80s. You don't even need a big army to attack these substations/etc. All you need is some guys with rifles to hit a whole bunch at the same time. Just shoot the insulators on the high-voltage lines and watch the whole thing go up in a shower of sparks. If you want to use 50 cal rifles and shoot up the transformers you could of course do so - the last time I drove past a substation they didn't exactly have guards on ready alert, so you could take shots at the thing for half an hour before the police showed up most likely.

    For the billions of dollars we spend on bombers you'd think that somebody could stockpile a bunch of spare transformers and standardize the substation designs.

    Naaw, just have the NSA capture more of grandma's e-mail. That's a sure way to find out who the terrorists are.

  35. Defense in depth by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    The current strategy of the U.S. in regards to infrastructure defense is simple - defense in depth.

    By spending very little on road maintenance, it's highly likely terrorists will either get a flat tire on the way to attack a power station, or the guns will cook off a few rounds when a bump is hit likely harming the car or terrorists.

    As a last ditch defense, the federally required signs not to pee on high-voltage transformers will be removed, thereby cooking the terrorists when they get there as they are sure to do such a stupid thing with no warnings posted.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  36. Re:first shot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who the fuck made you judge, jury, and executioner? So-called "self defense" laws in the US need some serious reigning in because of whack jobs like you.

    i guess the same people that made you judge, jury, and executioner of him and US 'self defense' laws.

  37. This has implications by Radworker · · Score: 1

    for nuclear power plants that are off line. I will not describe specifically what I am thinking about but this could be a problem to Diablo or other PWRs while they are in modes higher than 1 (operating).

  38. Damn you Snowden! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You compromised national security with your acts and the NSA failed to stop this! I say we use this obvious example of the kinds of terrorist activities that happen ALL THE TIME to justify more data gathering!

    Who's with me!?

    Anyone?

    Hello?

  39. Re:first shot by Immerman · · Score: 3, Insightful

    And the long history of eventual rampant abuses of authority by pretty much every government, ever, shows that the authorities cannot be trusted as the sole bearers of the tools of violence.

    So we have a bit of a conundrum on our hands. As ever the question is "What price, freedom?" Our ancestors have time and again joined their children in fighting off oppression, and time and again they have died by the thousands to do so. And certainly anyone who has been paying attention can't deny that there have been some very worrying trends in government as of late - is now really the time to discuss disarming ourselves? How about we hold off on the discussion until we get our government back under our control again?

    The real question is how many children's lives is it worth to give the rest a fighting chance the next time we must take our masters by the throat and force them to grant us a measure of respect? Because whether it's tomorrow or a few centuries from now that day is coming, and a lot of our children will die. The choice is only if it's mostly dribs and drabs today due to pointless accidents and acts of violence, or in great waves of massacre when they can no longer endure the lash upon their back and have no effective way to resist.

    --
    --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
  40. Re:first shot by sycodon · · Score: 0

    "Initially, the attack was being treated as vandalism and handled by local law enforcement,"

    Because we know a terrorist attack is impossible. Obama killed Bin Laden.

    --
    When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
  41. That's impossible! by blindseer · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The intruder(s) then fired more than 100 rounds from what two officials described as a high-powered rifle at several transformers in the facility.

    That's not possible. Someone must be lying. I know this because California banned all those evil high powered rifles.

    I once saw an offer to tour a nuclear power plant. I thought that would be fun, I never saw the inside of a nuclear power plant before. I imagined it would be much like the coal fired plants I toured, I doubted I'd get near anything even remotely radioactive, but I still thought it would be quite interesting and educational. I then read the fine print on the tour invite. To go on the tour I'd have to submit to a background check, I believe that included getting fingerprinted. I lost all interest.

    I didn't think I'd have any problems passing a background check, I've done them before for things like getting in the military and getting government work. I just didn't like the idea of having to take my time going through that again for something as mundane as a tour of a power plant.

    While on vacation one summer I happened across a sign for a hydroelectric power plant. I recall it was called Raccoon Lake but a quick Google search tells me that is in the middle of Indiana and I'm pretty sure the dam I was at was in Tennessee. Anyway, I had time so I took a detour to see if I could take a tour or something. I got there and found the visitors center. I had a look around, they had a video playing on continuous loop showing the history of the area and how the dam worked. The video ended with a message to ask for a tour. I then asked to get a tour. I was told tours were no longer offered "for security reasons".

    I recall seeing a Youtube video recently about nuclear power where some nuclear power plant operator hated the security policies that banned tours. He wanted to show people how safe these power plants are. I understand where he's coming from, if nuclear power is so safe and secure then why can't we see that for ourselves? I can just imagine what people are thinking, do they have something to hide that they can't let me in?

    While they have these security policies in place for the power plants the wires leaving them are totally insecure. I remember driving down the interstate and seeing these HUGE power lines going overhead. It was not long after getting denied a tour of the hydro plant "for security reasons" that I saw those power lines so the first thought through my head was just how easy it would be to take out that power line. The foundations for the towers that ran overhead were just out in the middle of someone's corn field. There was a fence around the field but it was just something to keep cattle from wandering in or out, not anything that any able bodied adult couldn't climb over or through.

    The people that secure the power in this country have some seriously skewed priorities. We can't have people tour a hydroelectric plant "for security reasons" but some one can cut the communications to a power plant, shoot up some transformers, and no one knows who did it.

    --
    I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    1. Re:That's impossible! by Radworker · · Score: 1

      You were just as well not to take the tour. Unless the plant was in an outage and you could finagle your way out on the fuel bridge while the reactor still had some fuel in it. Then you would have seen something interesting. They don't let the general public into an RCA in general and definitely not into a radiation area that is also an FME area like the fuel pool. What I was referring to is called Cherenkov effect. It is beautiful even if it is deadly.

    2. Re:That's impossible! by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      While they have these security policies in place for the power plants the wires leaving them are totally insecure. I remember driving down the interstate and seeing these HUGE power lines going overhead. It was not long after getting denied a tour of the hydro plant "for security reasons" that I saw those power lines so the first thought through my head was just how easy it would be to take out that power line. The foundations for the towers that ran overhead were just out in the middle of someone's corn field. There was a fence around the field but it was just something to keep cattle from wandering in or out, not anything that any able bodied adult couldn't climb over or through.

      Those huge power lines are extremely high voltage AC. Taking one out without explosives(controlled item, probably 'better' for the terrorists to use them to bomb a mall or something) without frying yourself, probably before you cause significant damage, requires specialized tools. We're talking voltage so high that things you'd normally consider 'insulating' aren't. They'll actually use helicopters while wearing special suits to maintain the wires - because any connection to ground equals 'you're toast'.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    3. Re:That's impossible! by Radworker · · Score: 1

      What is a couple of hundred KV amongst friends? Suspension type insulators might pose some challenges but the basic idea of using a large caliber rifle to attack the insulators has merit. The real question is this: can it be secured? Probably not.

    4. Re:That's impossible! by blindseer · · Score: 1

      I didn't mean scaling up the tower and sawing through the wires with a pocket knife by "taking them out". I was thinking of ramming them with a large dozer, or using explosives like you suggested. Some more suicidal methods that came to mind, cutting through the support structure with a torch, running into the wires with a small airplane, or short them out by launching wires over them. Another idea was just a redneck with a rifle and a lot of time, just shoot at insulators and wires from a safe distance until sparks flew or the police came.

      Getting explosives is not as difficult as you think. I saw this stuff on the shelf at a gun show called "Tannerite". I was curious about this stuff so when I got home I looked it up. This is serious stuff if in enough quantity. It's a binary explosive so it's safe to ship by mail, and numerous places will sell it. I saw Tannerite again later on the shelf at a sporting goods store I frequent. I haven't bought any so I don't know if there's ID needed to buy it. It was on the shelf where I could grab it, not behind the counter like the handgun ammunition. Tannerite is a low order explosive but I'm sure that there are ways to boost up the power if someone wanted to take the time to learn some chemistry.

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    5. Re:That's impossible! by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      That's not possible. Someone must be lying. I know this because California banned all those evil high powered rifles.

      They banned the evil assault rifles. The evil high-powered tactical sniper rifles (that can shoot through bulletproof vests like knife through butter, and allow accurate shoots at hapless victims at distances as far as a mile away!) are still out there. But worry not, this will eventually be fixed, too.

    6. Re:That's impossible! by bidule · · Score: 1

      But you see, rebuilding a down tower or two is a quick task. These things happen regularly and as long as the power station is fine, it should be back up in less than a week. Blasting bridges or overpasses would be a bigger pain to fix. And neither of those are sexy enough for our terrorist friends: not enough bang for the bucks.

      A guided tour would offer more than what google satellite maps does, I don't know how critical that extra information could be and maybe the "security reasons" is just because they're too lazy to find out. Security through obscurity.

      --
      ID: the nose did not occur naturally, how would we wear glasses otherwise? (apologies to Voltaire)
    7. Re:That's impossible! by blindseer · · Score: 1

      Yes, it will be fixed. I just read an article on how Californians are buying all kinds of rifles before the registration requirement goes into effect. The government can't take the rifles until they know where they are.

      Registration leads to confiscation so often that it is difficult to deny. I would argue that registration IS confiscation. The government is telling people that they don't own their rifles anymore, instead they are property of the state and the state needs to know where its property is located. The government may be kind enough to allow people to possess the firearms they paid for currently but how long will that last?

      Sure, we have laws that require people to register cars but there are two big differences between car registration and gun registration. First, people can legally choose to not register a car if they do not intend to drive it on public roads, there is no such option with gun ownership. Second, I have yet to see any government use a car registry to confiscate cars from people that lawfully purchased them, history has many examples of such confiscations of rifles.

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    8. Re:That's impossible! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Those huge power lines are extremely high voltage AC. Taking one out without explosives(controlled item, probably 'better' for the terrorists to use them to bomb a mall or something) without frying yourself, probably before you cause significant damage, requires specialized tools.

      Specialized tools... Like a gas powered cut off saw with a metal grinding wheel. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w6BkWeCNMxM

      Anyone with half a brain could bring down a power-line tower in fairly short order.

    9. Re:That's impossible! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But you see, rebuilding a down tower or two is a quick task. These things happen regularly and as long as the power station is fine, it should be back up in less than a week.

      Repairing a tower is not a quick task. It's also very likely that upstream and downstream infrastructure will be damaged or destroyed when the high-voltage lines ground out or short in the tower collapse.

    10. Re:That's impossible! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If a terrorist were just hitting one tower, I'd be shocked. What a smart group that really wanted to fuck things up would do is hit a whole slew of them at the same time. It wouldn't just take a week for them to rebuild hundreds of towers, and that's not to mention the cost associated with rebuilding that many.

    11. Re:That's impossible! by DarkOx · · Score: 1

      I mostly agree with what you have to say but I would offer a couple reasons for their priorities.

      first:
      A plant may contain dangerous materials which under the right conditions such as if someone successfully disabled the cooling at nuclear facility cause damage to the surrounding region, ditto for a hydro electric plan where disabling operation of the spill ways in some manor, ie make it impossible to close them or open them further could result in floods.

      second: Damage done to a plant may be costly and time consuming to fix potentially disrupting regional electrical delivery for a long period of time. It would on the other hand be difficult to damage enough distribution lines that the time scale for repairs ( under concerted multi utility possibly federally assisted effort ) would be measured in something other than days. Although I understand the lead time on some of those large transformers can be substantial.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    12. Re:That's impossible! by DarkOx · · Score: 1

      Special tools being a plasma cutter to weaken the base of the steel tower, and an old pickup with a brick on the accelerator, to run into the thing once you are done compromising the base. Knocking stuff down ain't that hard, if you are the least bit determined.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    13. Re:That's impossible! by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      If you went through a federal background check, you are registered.

      The feds have been caught, repeatedly, with 'archives' of the background check data. Even with the same data they had previously been ordered to delete.

      Of course sense the last time they were ordered to stop, it's all better; and I've got a bridge to sell you.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    14. Re:That's impossible! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The people that secure the power in this country have some seriously skewed priorities. We can't have people tour a hydroelectric plant "for security reasons" but some one can cut the communications to a power plant, shoot up some transformers, and no one knows who did it.

      What do you propose then?

    15. Re:That's impossible! by swillden · · Score: 1

      California banned all those evil high powered rifles.

      Actually, California banned so-called "assault weapons", which are small-caliber, low to moderate-power rifles. Your granddad's deer rifle, on the other hand, is high-powered.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    16. Re:That's impossible! by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      but the basic idea of using a large caliber rifle to attack the insulators has merit

      With the height differential you're talking a fairly challanging shot(and most terrorists aren't good shots), you're probably going to need multiple shots, etc...

      In short, it's what I'd consider a 'go ahead and attack it' target. I'm more concerned by the person with a high caliber highly accurage rifle going after people.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    17. Re:That's impossible! by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      I was thinking of ramming them with a large dozer, or using explosives like you suggested.

      As I mentioned as well, if they get ahold of explosives there are, as bidule put it, 'sexier' targets to worry about - malls, cafes, government buildings, etc...

      The problem with the dozer is that they have to obtain said dozer, means to transport it to the site, get it off the transport vehicle, and have somebody skilled enough in it's use to knock down the tower, with a good chance of getting themselves killed doing it. Again, easier/more attractive targets and methods are available. Suicidal methods include the airplane(needs to be a suicidal pilot terrorist; 9/11 aside they're actually hard to find), and launching a wire over the cables. You still run into that said lines are generally higher than what you can throw up there and the moment it makes contact you're a crispy critter; if you're lucky you might pop a breaker, but at those voltages and amps you might not... Trading one of your operatives for a blip on the power meter isn't a good trade.

      'Redneck with a gun', well, again, I'd rather he spend all day plinking at a power line than doing the same against people. I once had a similar argument when I proposed solar farms on deployed bases. Areas where shipping in diesel for the power generartors raises the costs to $10 or more per gallon. Somebody mentioned 'what if they attack the solar panels?', my response was 'Then at a couple thousand a pop they're still extremely cheap decoys vs them shooting at soldiers'.

      Tannerite I'm familiar with. It's much less powerful than even gunpowder. If you know the chemistry to increase the power of Tannerite, you know the chemistry to synthesize more powerful explosives more directly, but this puts on on the premium list for terrorists(IE there's more valuable things they want you doing than bombing power line towers).

      It's a threat analysis thing: You can't ever make yourself completely immune from attack. What you can do is harden yourself enough that you're not seen as worth the reward. Given that attacking power lines will only cause indirect death, if that, it's not actually that much of a target.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    18. Re:That's impossible! by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      Unless you're doing it during a natural disaster, you still have the problem that there's lots of workers who specialize in fixing this stuff, there's generally alternate lines, you're probably not going to be able to escape the eventual police response, no direct deaths means that it's unlikely to hit the news very well, etc...

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
  42. Re:first shot by jd2112 · · Score: 2

    Or maybe you think we should sit down and talk to the guy firing an assault rifle over a nice cup of tea?

    Sounds like a good idea. Just let me build up a tolerance to iocane powder first.

    --
    Any insufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.
  43. Re:first shot by dbraden · · Score: 2

    Nah, not really. "Their," not "there." "Let's," not "lets." "You're," not "your." ;)

  44. Re:first shot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Try not to let everything scare the hell out of you.

    Something that baffles me about Americans is they all go on about how free they are, and how much they value their freedoms, and then at the drop of a pin, they get the hell scared out of them and they run begging the government to keep them safe. By packing them in cotton wool and monitoring every move they make. To protect their freedoms.

  45. Welcome to asymmetrical warfare by holophrastic · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It's always been the case that a more advanced foe can be defeated by a much simpler foe through indirect attacks on infrastructure, acruing nothing more than a huge expense for the advanced foe. This is no different.

    You can't possibly defend something like the power grids we have today. It's just not possible. They are large, they are disparate, they are expensive, they are sensitive. What's more, they are each vital and completely non-redundant. And they are also literally everywhere. You can take out a curb-side box in seconds with a pickup truck, and kill power to a neighbourhood for a day.

    No one's going to build the redundancy to withstand any destruction -- it's simply far too expensive.

    But that's true of all centralized systems based on distribution -- which includes gasolene, by the way. That's actually the advantage of a centralized system. No kidding it doesn't stand up to warfare.

    So, start supporting neighbourhood nuclear mini-reactors -- like your neighbourhood water towers -- or a bus-load of solar panels per house. Anything less won't be redundant, and hence will be easily attacked.

  46. Re:first shot by currently_awake · · Score: 1

    The power grid has four major components. 1-the generators, 2-the power sub-stations, 3-the wires, 4-the control system. Guarding 4 is easy (small, hidden), guarding 3 is doable(small targets with redundancy), guarding 1 is easy(remote locations). Guarding 4 (over half a million miles, just for the major lines) is impossible. In this attack the damage to the power grid was the least of their worries. Having snipers waiting for the repair crews, and the damage to the phone grid are what keeps the government up at night.

  47. You should see my airport by holophrastic · · Score: 1

    I'm in (near) a giant city -- 8 million people -- with a very well-known international airport, as you would imagine. Also as you would imagine, airport security is what it is: completely housed inside the building.

    My friend used to say that from the roof of the parking garage -- outside of airport security -- you're only about 200 yards from the runway. Any number of weapons can take out a plane from that distance. But it got worse a couple of years ago, twice.

    On the way to a business client meeting, at their offices, we drove past the airport. A chain-link fence, with many cameras, separates the end of the runway from the public road -- and by public, I mean a desolate side-road used to drive around the airport by six people per hour, mainly employees of the airport to get to their back-hanger parking lots. Airplanes taxi right by this fence -- so you're within about 50 yards of a full passenger plane waiting to take off.

    We figured that maybe the cameras are heavily monitored, and that someone would noticed if we parked for even thirty seconds. Ok, fine.

    Five minutes later, we got to the client's office. Their parking lot is within a typical commercial/industrial complex of offices and warehouses of ordinary businesses. As we readied for the meeting, we discovered that this parking lot is directly beneath the landing slope for the runway. By that I mean that every 97 seconds (during rush hour) another giant jet is landing directly overhead -- and it's landing, wheels-down, about 100 yards overhead.

    Forget bottle-rockets, how about a helium baloon with some red paint? It'd be hard to miss, considering the steady stream of air traffic. And it'd be hard to be seen, surrounded by a two-storey office complex. And it'd be easy to leave, considering the three major freeways within a 30-second drive.

    But I still need to show up two hours early to take off my shoes.

  48. Re:first shot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Who the fuck made you judge, jury, and executioner? So-called "self defense" laws in the US need some serious reigning in because of whack jobs like you.

    Hi! I'm an anonymous coward! I'm completely fucking irrelevant, and so are my inane comments! Blah, blah and fucking blah once again! I'm probably a male in my late teens or early twenties, but my testicles haven't descended yet, so I'm unable to actually associate my name to my knee-jerk, self-righteously indignant comments, so I must post whatever I feel anonymously!

    Bye for now, until I'm outraged again by someone who doesn't share my world-view! Bye-Bye!

  49. gun owner logic by SuperBanana · · Score: 1, Insightful

    That's not possible. Someone must be lying. I know this because California banned all those evil high powered rifles.

    Murder still happens. We still ban murder.

    In fact, virtually every kind of crime happens. We don't just go "oh well" and remove the laws because a bunch of people did it anyway.

    Stop being so goddamn butthurt that you can't play with the lethal toys you want to. Please, by all means, move to a country with fewer gun restrictions, and enjoy actually having to use them to protect yourself from all the people who have 'em, too.

    1. Re:gun owner logic by blindseer · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You don't get it. They told me that IF we ban these evil rifles THEN people won't be shooting at transformers. Well they passed their law and someone shot at the transformers, did some pretty expensive damage too it looks like. Now what are they going to do, ban them AGAIN?

      Now what they are going to do is use this as an example for advocating confiscating these rifles. How do I know? Because they always do that. These are the same people that tell me that they won't take my hunting rifle. They can't both confiscate the rifles that did this damage while also allowing me to keep my hunting rifle because they are the same rifle.

      Yes, we ban murder. It also does not keep people from murdering. A ban is nothing more than prescribing a punishment for an action. The laws says if you do something then we punish you for it. If you scream "fire" in a crowded theater, and there is no fire, then we punish you for it. A rifle ban is like punishing people for screaming "fire" in that theater even when there is a fire.

      Please, by all means, move to a country with fewer gun restrictions, and enjoy actually having to use them to protect yourself from all the people who have 'em, too.

      Which one would that be?

      I live in the USA where we don't have bans on rifles, unlike the Republic of California. We also don't have a lot of people shooting up power stations or getting murdered either. Might have something to do with the fact that people around here can shoot back. The state I live in has 1/4 the murder rate of California and twice the firearm owner rate. I don't know what the rifle ownership rate is for either state, those firearms in California must be shotguns because those are Biden approved.

      At least with murder we can get a pretty high agreement that it should be banned. With gun laws that agreement is not so high. We saw a lot of gun laws go away this past year. Saw our murder rate go down too. I know correlation does not mean causation but it's real hard to deny causation when the correlation keeps showing up.

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    2. Re:gun owner logic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      move to a country with fewer gun restrictions

      California is in the US and subject to the 2nd amendment. Just because it is not enforced anymore does not mean it doesn't matter.

      Stop being so goddamn butthurt that you can't play with the lethal toys you want to.

      You do know an average automobile has nearly two orders of magnitude more kinetic energy than a high powered round right? Or that they kill far more people than guns do.

      I don't care about guns. I don't own any. What I do care about is reason, respect, and people not being assholes. Three traits that you clearly lack.

    3. Re:gun owner logic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That's not possible. Someone must be lying. I know this because California banned all those evil high powered rifles.

      Murder still happens. We still ban murder.

      In fact, virtually every kind of crime happens. We don't just go "oh well" and remove the laws because a bunch of people did it anyway.

      Stop being so goddamn butthurt that you can't play with the lethal toys you want to. Please, by all means, move to a country with fewer gun restrictions, and enjoy actually having to use them to protect yourself from all the people who have 'em, too.

      Speaking of logic, please by all means, feel free to tell me how the fuck you feel gun bans or moving has a damn thing to do with criminals with guns who will use them on you whether you're armed or not.

      Gee, how I love anti-logic...especially from those idiots who feel banning guns will make you safe. Perhaps you should stop being so goddamn butthurt over the fact that murder still happens after the gun bans you likely voted for, passed.

    4. Re:gun owner logic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While you don't say what state you're in I'd bet that the violent crime rate differences have far more to do with population density than gun ownership as there is an overwhelming amount of data out there that shows that higher density areas see higher rates of violent crime. If you took Oakland, LA and maybe one or two other cities out of "The Republic of" California (what the hell does that mean?) all of a sudden the violent crime rate for the state starts to look a hell of a lot like the more rural states

      As for pointing out fun correlations, how about all the countries which enjoy a similar standard of living as the US and the fact that almost all of them have far stricter gun laws and lower rates of gun ownership and yet see gun violence rates far below ours? Maybe there are so many illegal guns out there because there are so many legal ones. They all start off as legal when they're made.

    5. Re:gun owner logic by blindseer · · Score: 1

      As for pointing out fun correlations, how about all the countries which enjoy a similar standard of living as the US and the fact that almost all of them have far stricter gun laws and lower rates of gun ownership and yet see gun violence rates far below ours?

      I see you fell into the gun grabbers trap. The key there is "gun violence", as if getting killed by a gun shot makes a person "deader". Of course we'd lower "gun violence" by lowering gun ownership. We'd also lower the rate of people getting run over by cars if we lowered the car ownership rate. That might also make more sense than gun bans because cars kill far more people than guns. Medical mistakes kill more people every year than guns but no one seems to be calling for a ban on physicians either.

      If you took Oakland, LA and maybe one or two other cities out of "The Republic of" California (what the hell does that mean?) all of a sudden the violent crime rate for the state starts to look a hell of a lot like the more rural states

      If that is the case then how am I to know that the lower violent crime rate isn't just because these nations are more rural? There's a lot of big cities in the USA, if the crime in Oakland is because of the high population density then that should also apply to other nations in the world.

      Maybe there are so many illegal guns out there because there are so many legal ones. They all start off as legal when they're made.

      Yep, they do. There is a solution to the illegal gun ownership problem, repeal the laws that make them illegal. These guns are "illegal" only because laws declare them so. How about instead of looking for guns and throwing them in the ocean we find all the criminals that are killing people and throw them in the ocean?

      An "illegal" gun is illegal many times is because people steal them. Taking guns from law abiding people to reduce "illegal guns" makes as much sense as taking cars away from their owners to reduce "illegal cars".

      I have an idea. Instead of taking guns away to keep people from shooting holes in electric transformers we ban transformers? That does not make sense of course, people will just make transformers to shoot then.

      Seriously though, gun control does not lower crime because the gun is not the problem, it's the criminal. Criminals will get guns. If they can't buy them they will steal them. If they can't steal them then they will create them. Gun control is irrelevant now. Even if gun control did control crime before people can now print out a gun from a 3D printer if they want one. That genie is out of the bottle. Gun control will never work again because any idiot can make a gun now.

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    6. Re:gun owner logic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'll admit, I'm a bit confused as far as a few of your comments go. For starters, you seem to agree with me that lower gun ownership equals less gun violence but you seem to be arguing for more gun ownership.

      As for "ruralness", I thought this would be common knowledge but the US is the most rural of all countries of similar standards of living.

      As for illegal gun ownership, you don't seem to get it. Criminals who can't pass backround checks are able to buy guns because the market is awash with guns. Criminals are able to get their hands on guns in the US precisely because there are so many guns. On an international level the stats clearly shows what should be common sense, less guns means less gun violence

    7. Re:gun owner logic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry, missed a point. 3d printing changed nothing for guns. Right now, just like a century ago, if I want to make my own gun its stupid easy

    8. Re:gun owner logic by felrom · · Score: 1

      If there is a "gun violence" problem, and you remove the guns, you'll still be left with a violence problem. Violence and "gun violence" are symptoms. The sicknesses that cause them are poverty, lack of education, inequality (real or perceived), unemployment, etc. Treat the sicknesses that cause violence and the violence will go away.

    9. Re:gun owner logic by blindseer · · Score: 1

      less guns means less gun violence

      Lower gun ownership does lower gun violence. Remove the guns and you still have the violence. The guns don't cause the violence, criminals do. Remove the criminals and you'd lower the gun violence rate too, in fact you'd lower the total violence rate.

      Why the focus on "gun violence"? Shouldn't we be concerned about all violence?

      Criminals who can't pass backround checks are able to buy guns because the market is awash with guns.

      So, you are admitting that background checks don't keep criminals from getting guns? Thank you! This seems to be a more and more popular realization. Now, how about we stop spending so much time and money on background checks and use those resources to keep violent criminals away from polite society?

      As for "ruralness", I thought this would be common knowledge but the US is the most rural of all countries of similar standards of living.

      If you torture the data enough you can get it to admit anything. Why are you carving out a group of nations with a similar standard of living for comparison? You do that because if you didn't then gun control looks like a really bad idea.

      Could it be that gun control is why these countries have such a low standard of living? I mean if criminals have no fear of getting shot by homeowners then they will steal everything not nailed down, once they have enough stuff worth stealing in their house. People having their stuff stolen all the time would seem to lower their standard of living.

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
  50. Re:first shot by dryeo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Has there ever been a case of the people raising up and over throwing a repressive government and improved things? I don't mean successful wars of independence where a colony or such successfully seceded but where the people without much help from the army overthrew the government? The only ones I can think of ended up as bad or worse then where they started from.
    Seems that massive demonstrations, general strikes, and at the worse the army mutinying has had a much better rate of success. The army is much less likely to shoot on peaceful demonstrators, especially if they agree with the protest, then shoot on people shooting at them.
    Recent examples include most of the ex-Soviet block and various Arab springs. Failures include the French revolution and the Russian revolution. Violent revolution usually seems to see a strong man end up on top as dictator along with a reign of terror to purge all the undesirables.

    --
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
  51. Re:first shot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    There are a number of crimes, the commission of which is automatically considered intent to use deadly force in most states, like assault, burglary and (sometimes) arson.

    I wonder if we should do the same with open carry of rifles in city limits, ranges excepted. Don't make them illegal - no AWB bullshit - but as soon as you pull one out in public, you're paining a target on your body, with everyone in your vicinity, from cops to armed civilians, free to shoot you and claim self-defense.

  52. Definition of anarchist by davidwr · · Score: 1

    The term anarchist is usually reserved for people who use violent means to protest or overthrow governments and who aren't organized enough to be called "insurrectionists" or "rebels."

    People who want only a minimal or no government and who use peaceful means to express their opinion or achieve that end are almost never called "anarchists" b the average person, at least not in my country.

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
    1. Re:Definition of anarchist by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 1

      The term anarchist is usually reserved for people who use violent means to protest or overthrow governments and who aren't organized enough to be called "insurrectionists" or "rebels"

      By whom? I smell B.S.

      The term "anarchist" is used, by anarchists, political scientists, and anyone astute, to mean anyone who wants (and works for) a situation where governmental control over a population is eliminated (or minimized, though the latter are properly called "minarchists") on an ongoing basis. (This actually requires considerable social organization to achieve.)

        It is used by government propagandists as a pejorative to flame anyone attempting to reduce their power. One part of this operation is to attempt to equate it, in the minds of their target audience, with "nihilist" (a person working for the elimination of all social organization - some of the famous of whom were obvious psychopaths) and various terrorist wackos.

      Similarly, "andrchism" gets applied to situations where a government is losing its hold on an area in the face of attacks by one or more self-appointed replacement governments, or where a government has fallen and several such alternative gropus are fighting it out to be the new top dog. Such a situation, in my opinion, is the exact opposite: "Polyarchy" - a multiplicity of governments, and the death and chaos is the result, not of no governments, but of too many. B-b

      --
      Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
  53. "Destructive testing"??? by davidwr · · Score: 1

    If I attack something to test how emergency responders will respond so I can make sure my 2nd attack succeeds, I may find my efforts wasted as the emergency responders may do a post-mortem analysis (no pun intended) and change how they will respond the next time. This change-of-response may or may not be communicated to the public.

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
  54. Re:first shot by anubi · · Score: 1

    This topic forced me into consideration of what my role should be in an event such as this.

    First, I am an engineer. I know damn well how important our electrical power infrastructure is to my community - and I also know damn well how irreplaceable those power transformers are should several be taken out at once - exceeding the spares available.

    For me, the question boiled down to: "If I had the means, and already knowing this is an attack vector planned by entities hostile to my community, should I use those means, or bleat like a goat?"

    I admit my feelings toward Washington are not all that good, and if they attempted this stunt against political adversaries, I would not be so adamant in my response, if I had any at all.

    Taking out the power transformer that supplies myself and my neighbors with the comforts of a civilized life - well that's hitting pretty close to home if you ask me. One might as well be coming to our neighborhood drinking water reservoir with a truckload of dead animals and expect me to peaceably watch them dump the dead animals in, knowing all the time that our drinking water will now be unusable.

    I have heard it said that all it takes for evil to take over is for the good to lay back and do nothing.

    This is one of the reasons I like to run things up the flagpole here at Slashdot to see if anyone else salutes. I get a lot of other opinions from others to act as a "reality check" on myself. and I thank you for taking the time to post.

    --
    "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]

  55. Let's play "I'm a terrorist" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Here's a sobering tabletop exercise:

    Pretend you are a terrorist with limited resources and your only goal is to make people afraid of a repeat attack, with bonus points of your attack is a highly emotional one like the Twin Towers on 9/11, an elementary school, or nursing home, or if you cause widespread or long-term changes in behavior like 9/11 did.

    Now, you are the terrorist. What do you attack and how do you do it?

    Don't spend too long with this exercise, or it might warp your mind.

    Here's hoping that experts working with emergency responders do this kind of thing on a regular basis as part of their jobs. Also, here's hoping they don't have any one person spending too much time with this chore, or it might make them go nuts.

    By the way, unless you want the NSA to give your address to the FBI or your country's police forces I suggest not posting your ideas here. That's what TOR+PASTEBIN and the like are for.

    1. Re:Let's play "I'm a terrorist" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      {var = Retendin
      I'd would hire a zombie army of crypto asm wizards
      Then I would generate a rundumb numbah
      Apply it to RSA keyWring0rz
      Sign Linduh Green on teh mortgagez
      And dump teh moniez into free downz and db grep soft
      Connect dot's and drone my tar/gz git'z }
      ;

    2. Re:Let's play "I'm a terrorist" by Z00L00K · · Score: 1

      Lets see all the suggestions here as a desk exercise and then look at each from a feasibility point. Even though some are unlikely, some may even be possible - and you can't justify protecting every major power hub in a country without plausible reason - much less every major power line.

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    3. Re:Let's play "I'm a terrorist" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and you can't justify protecting every major power hub in a country without plausible reason - much less every major power line.

      True. One of the points of tabletop exercises is to ask questions like "how likely is it that...", "what would be the likely outcomes if they succeeded in doing...," "what is the worst plausible outcome of ...," and even "what is the worst possible outcome if there was a 'perfect storm' of bad things happening concurrent with a planned attack?"

      Then you let the policy-makers decide where limited resources should be spent and how.

      By the way, one of the things that prompted me to post earlier was a wildfire disaster a few years back that took out multiple high-transmission lines into a major city, causing some outright outages and reducing the total available power to that city. If a terrorist group could take down ALL of the power lines into a city that had little or no "local" generating capacity that could cause a serious problem, even if only for a day or two until temporary repairs were made. The same goes if they could disconnect multiple large plants from the grid during a period of peak demand, causing rolling blackouts and other conservation throughout that portion of the grid when demand would otherwise exceed the reduced supply.

      -Anonymous Coward of the "grandparent" post above, #45809751.

  56. Re:first shot by sjames · · Score: 1

    According to The Venezuelan Violence Observatory, the homicide rate continues to climb.

  57. Re:first shot by cdwiegand · · Score: 3, Informative

    Ah, but there wouldn't BE any armed civilians, because as soon as they pull their Glock from their concealed carry place, they're now "open carry", and as such become targets themselves. Quick way to weed out everyone carrying a gun, leaving only the police and military with guns.

    --
    . Define sqrt(x) as something really evil like (x / rand()), and bury it deep. Watch your coworkers go nuts.
  58. Forget the "terrorists" by sjames · · Score: 2

    The real danger is the Squirrel Liberation Army. Their suicide operatives have caused a lot more blackouts than terrorists with rifles. Of course, rednecks celebrating with rifles is in the running as well.

  59. Re:first shot by jd · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Spares should be precisely what there's a lot of. To deal with actual, meaningful contingencies (trees taking out power lines, trucks driving into power lines, drunk Air Force commanders ordering live-fire practice on power lines, etc) there should be zero points of failure. Anywhere.

    If a meteorite of the kind that lit up Russia early in the year, or the kind that lit up California the year before, hit a substation, no amount of armour will prevent serious damage. The CA one, discussed here as I recall, was the size of a minibus. The fragments that reached the surface - and reports say there were many - were certainly far more dangerous to a transformer than a few grams of lead.

    You have to assume such a strike is inevitable. Prevention is impossible. Shielding would be stupid. That leaves option number 3 - make it not matter. It's cheap, easy, effective against any type of outage and provided you have decent routing protocols operating over a bidirectional mesh topology, resilience increases anywhere from superlinearly to exponentially.

    Then what? Then you don't care if it's a meteorite, an airliner falling out the sky, an army tank driver on speedballs or Bob Bobkins, the brother and first cousin of Joe Bobkins, out hunting things that'll stay still long enough for him to point his rocket launcher. It. Just. Won't. Matter. Worth. A. Damn. The flicker of your LED house lights will barely register with even super-sensitivities. The routing protocols would have established new pathways to all destinations in microseconds, with the decisions being implemented a millisecond or two later. Nobody would notice and nobody would care.

    There's an expense to redundancy, just as there is an expense to not having bridges fall in rivers. But it's a very small expense. The outages from the ice storms and rain storms? Those are big expenses. Big RECURRING expenses. With redundancy alone, due to the statistical nature of line loss, you could get extremely close to zero outage for anyone. Ever. Redundancy (down to as small a scale as practical), smarter placement of utilities (ie: not on thin poles in ice storm prone areas) and better material choices (aluminium cables?!) combined could guarantee the system would survive uninterrupted anything short of a nuclear bomb.

    (You could design a complete infrastructure on a national scale that actually could withstand a full-blown nuclear war, but a lack of users would make it pointless. Unless we have developed AI by then. In which case, they and The Machines they'd need to maintain the system could endure pretty much indefinitely.)

    --
    It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
  60. Former Christians who now converted into Islam by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 1

    I don't know what is scarier, selling guns to terrorists or the lunatic white people that already own them

    As a naturalized American Citizen who is not a Christian nor a Muslim, and one who has been in the USA since the early 1970's, and one who has mixed with a lot of very different groups of folks, I can tell you one thing ---

    The *MOST DANGEROUS GROUP OF PEOPLE* inside the United States of America are former Christians who have converted into Islam.

    I have friends from the Middle Eastern countries (most of them have American citizenship). While most of them are Muslims, only a few amongst them are zealots.

    Because I do mix well with the Muslims (I speak Arabic, btw) many of them introduced me to their "newly converts" (they want to convert me too, so they introduce the newly converts trying to convince me that converting into Islam is a *good thing*) and upon talking to those "newly converts" I can sense their zeals oozing out of very pore of their skin.

    Some of the "newly converts" are so zealous that they actually praise those 19 terrorists who carried out the 9/11 WTC bombing as "martyrs"!!

    You guys in America, especially those who never know Islam, do not know the danger in your own community.

    --
    Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
    1. Re:Former Christians who now converted into Islam by Boronx · · Score: 1

      There's no zealot like a converted zealot, but my guess is you haven't spent a lot of time around the far-right nut jobs.

    2. Re:Former Christians who now converted into Islam by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 1

      my guess is you haven't spent a lot of time around the far-right nut jobs.

      As I have said, I have mixed with a lot of people from different groups , which includes people whom you described as "far-right nut jobs" and also those from the opposite side, those in the super-far-left-field that will accuse anybody who disagree with them with "hate speech" "hate thought" "hate-anything".

      But I gotta tell ya, those "far-right nut jobs" are basically very patriotic Americans.

      They truly LOVE America.

      I came from China.

      Back in China I never met with anyone that can match their patriotic for their own country as the patriotism of the "far-right nut jobs" for the United States of America.

      --
      Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
    3. Re:Former Christians who now converted into Islam by Boronx · · Score: 1

      Those guys are cuddle bunnies compared to the folks I'm talking about. Yeah they're real, and yeah, it sounds like you haven't met them. Think neo-nazis.

  61. Re:first shot by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

    good then they achieved there goal lets remove more civil liberties while your still scared for something absurdly unlikely to actually happen

    The California legislature needs no excuse to remove people's rights, it is assumed once it is in session. Guess who owns the government, lock, stock, and barrel?

    Besides that, the attack already did happen. It isn't theoretical. The questions are, who did it, why, will there be more, and will future attacks be bigger?

    --
    much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
  62. Re:first shot by Concerned+Onlooker · · Score: 1

    "Joe's carrying his trombone case out to the woods to do some practicing."

    Apparently you're not aware that some trombones do in fact have a trigger.

    --
    http://www.rootstrikers.org/
  63. Re:first shot by Boronx · · Score: 1

    of course they will, but their capabilities will be reduced. Even if they have a gun, they'll always have to think before carrying it.

  64. What to teach to avoid destructive actions? by beachdog · · Score: 1

    From the incident story, it appears to be two persons who chose a property damage target for the purpose of minimizing the risk of prosecution for any construction or prosecutorial exaggeration regarding the potential or accidental killing of a guard or workman.

    The recent tactic being developed after school shootings is for the responding authority to promptly engage the apparent assailant by the use of gunfire directed at the assailant. For those assailants who are arrested live, the district attorney spares no effort to describe the crime in such a manner as to prevent any sympathy for the alleged assailant by the public nor the jury.

    It is my feeling that we have a growing 10 or 20 year pattern where young people in the 18 to 30 year old age group are to a moderate extent misbehaving and to a very tiny extent engaging in extreme misbehavior like school shootings or power station property damage. There has been a reciprocal escalation of the police response as what was once streaking or knocking over mailboxes is now .01% zero tolerance alcohol while driving punishments and now imprisonment for insanity to be followe by 15 years in jail when the insanity is resolved.

    I don't believe listening to the district attorney nor the police department is going to give us the understanding to move away from the imprisonment culture we are now living in. The approach I am pursuing is this: Young adults are problem solving animals. The young adult years have a number of difficult emotional griefs and transitions.

    What we are seeing is young adults who are settling on problem solutions that are "fast and final". Unlike most young adults, the persons who do school or power station shootings are prisoners of the material physical execution of a violent act. Stories from surviving assailants indicate grievances that are not too unusual. It appears to me that most people dissipate their similar grief or grievance by abstraction or play or ignoring the event.

    My thinking has reached this point: What can we teach in school that will help each individual to have knowledge or understanding of their own mental processes? The words "self knowledge" is too general. A very specific part of the mental problem solving action planning mechanism is becoming latched onto a bad action. These young people are able to do the problem solving process, and they need the specific ability to recognize when their brain has latched onto a bad action.

    The actions and teaching needed are probably simpler and more mundane than what one might think. It appears to me that teaching social dance in the early middle school years might help head off certain social anxiety processes. Supervised working with disabled peers can be a gateway to understanding the undisguised bases of human behavior. The US high school football culture with it's awful color scheme was OK for preparing young people for WWII military service, and perhaps that institution needs to be replaced with a new game and instructional culture.

  65. Re:first shot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Try not to let everything scare the hell out of you.

    Something that baffles me about Americans is they all go on about how free they are, and how much they value their freedoms, and then at the drop of a pin, they get the hell scared out of them and they run begging the government to keep them safe. By packing them in cotton wool and monitoring every move they make. To protect their freedoms.

    It's very surreal and bizarre to watch. It's like watching lemmings running over a cliff. Some incident occurs, then their government and their media start pumping it for maximum fear and panic. Then the government uses it to justify robbing the people of more of their wealth and freedom, while the people just seem to be totally oblivious no matter how much their suffering keeps increasing or how many times they are (poorly) lied to.

    It makes one wonder if maybe there is something behind that whole "tin-foil hat" business in the US.

  66. Re:first shot by Sarten-X · · Score: 2

    Since an attack on substations would need to several somewhat-coordinated teams to be effective, and would require some intelligence as to where is most vulnerable, it's exactly the sort of attack the NSA thinks they can catch.

    --
    You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
  67. Re:first shot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I generally gloss over the gun control stuff, but this is one of the most moving pieces I have ever read on Slashdot since the late 1990s.

  68. Perhaps CA Could Allow Citizens To Be Armed? by littlewink · · Score: 1

    Oh, but that's recently been banned, hasn't it? I'm fairly certain that all terrorists, just like all good liberals, have duly registered their CA-legal firearms/weapons and turned in their illegal ones to the appropriate authorities. We need not worry about jihadis in California - they're all good law-abiding citizens. Just heard a story on the radio today: soon after Pearl Harbor, analysts feared the Japanese would attack the West coast. Estimates were that the Japanese could not be stopped before reaching the Mississippi River. After the war the Japanese generals were questioned on this. The reason they chose not to invade was that they knew that most Americans a) had firearms and b)knew how to use them.

  69. Sounds like some congressman needed a headline by mstrcat · · Score: 1

    There hasn't been enough in the news lately to be scarred so the helpful congressfuck decided to try and create some more.

  70. Nothing to worry about by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    On January 1st, a whole bunch of new gun laws take effect in California which will effectively neutralize any danger from gun toting terrorists. Governor Moonbeam's got our backs!

  71. Re:first shot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    no the question is why is this actually news worthy other than as a scare tactic. the ridiculous obsession with 'terrorist' attacks in the united states is pathetic.

    you've been attacked by 'terrorists' once, now its just a term used to pacify the masses and justify extreme measures.

    focus on legitimate problems of which your country has many.

  72. Tesla gun defence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That is all that is needed. Would you steal a hand bag? Would you steal a car? Would you shoot a power transformer? Boasted, roasted, toasted!

  73. Re:first shot by lxs · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Not even full on military lockdown can prevent a commando style raid. The raid on the Telemark heavy water plant during WWII proved that. So unless you want a regime even more ruthless than a Nazi occupation force to protect your infrastructure maybe you should work on changing your nations behaviour to reduce the incentive for such raids.

  74. Re:first shot by burisch_research · · Score: 1

    Only bass trombones (the 'F trigger', and sometimes a 'D' trigger too.)

    --
    char*f="char*f=%c%s%c;main(){printf(f,34,f,34);}";main(){printf(f,34,f,34);}
  75. Re:first shot by Joce640k · · Score: 2

    First, I am an engineer./quote>

    Is that the nerd equivalent of "Speaking as a mother, ...."

    --
    No sig today...
  76. Re:first shot by JWSmythe · · Score: 1

    I have to question who did this. That's going to make a big difference. If it's a nation planning an invasion, that's a lot different than a group of thousands of well armed and organized civilians (with or without military training). If it's a small group of say 5 to 10 people wanting to cause trouble, they can still inflict serious damage to an isolated area, if they have good planning and equipment. 100 shots at a transformer isn't much, but it's less obvious than say blowing a bridge.

    From the military handbooks (paraphrased, of course), this is generally the course of action to do an invasion or take control over an area. It's no secret, it's the way has been conducted for centuries, with additions for modern civilization.

    Disable critical infrastructure.
        Power (electricity and fuels such as natural gas and oil to facilities and gas pipelines.
        Communications (telephone, data/internet, television, radio)
        Water (water pumping stations)
        Transportation (bridges, railways)

    Disable active response
        SAM
        Armed ground patrols
        Ready and airborne forces

    Disable secondary response, through neutralization or diversion
        Ground military not actively on patrol
        Police (local/state/federal, as applicable)
        Fire response
        Medical (ambulance, first responders, etc)

    Disable other long-term necessary services.
        Seaports
        Airports
        Trucking routes
        Food supplies

    So this one was a dressed rehearsal on power *and* communications. I'm hoping it was drunk rednecks, and not an advance team from the PRC, or a less than friendly nation, testing response time and reactions.

    But please, don't take Wellinghoff's advice of concealment over cover. That's easily mitigated with Google Maps satellite view or just a guy on a ladder with a laser pointer to show the target on the concealment. Come on, bricks aren't that expensive, and do a pretty good job stopping or deflecting common ammunition. They can do it right with steel reinforced concrete 12" thick with supplies from Home Depot. But making a bunker around the transformers won't protect the high voltage transmission towers.

    From TFA, Wellinghoff's quote:

    His proposed defense: A metal sheet that would block the transformer from view. "If you can't see through the fence, you can't figure out where to shoot anymore," Wellinghoff said. Price tag? A "couple hundred bucks."

    --
    Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
  77. Re: first shot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am pretty sure the most cost effective way of taking out power grids is long strips of aluminum or other conducting material, thrown over the wires. Boom.

    Anyway, since we're coming up with these "omg terror" scenarios, here is one for you: suppose some mad crazy people got their hand on two trucks filled with TNT and drove it to San Andreas fault and detonated the trucks - would it trigger an earthquake? Quick, cordon off the entire fault area!

    My point is that you cannot fight imaginary enemies in reality. Sure, prevent obvious threats. But there are literarily thousands of scenarios which no one has thought of and which could be the theme of a science fiction book, while at the same time being just plausible enough to instill fear in whoever is told about it.

  78. Re:first shot by erikkemperman · · Score: 2

    Failure to keep guns away from kids is a failure and fault of the parents. I think losing their kid is more than enough punishment for that crime on society.

    And what about the dead kid? Is he being punished for having bad parents? People go to jail for abusing their kids, or at least have them removed from their custody -- how is having guns lying around for them to find not criminal negligence or even a kind of abuse? Whether the kid shoots himself or some other innocent bystander should hardly be a variable in determining the parents punishment, it seems to me.

    --
    Gosh, thanks. That must be why the other ships call me Meatfucker -- GCU Grey Area (Eccentric)
  79. Re:first shot by erikkemperman · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Well written, and I think I do get your point. Too bad that it looks, at least from where I'm standing, like the folks who are most vocal about the need for the second amendment are some of the least likely to actually question the recent examples of government derailing.

    This is the kind of paradox which fascinates me about American society. Another example is the pro-life/pro-choice debate where some of the staunchest pro-lifers put forth an argument of sanctity of life, i.e. that it is not for humans to decide questions of life and death. But those same folks are, almost without exception, somehow not opposed to capital punishment for that same reason.

    --
    Gosh, thanks. That must be why the other ships call me Meatfucker -- GCU Grey Area (Eccentric)
  80. Nazis ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Those guys are cuddle bunnies compared to the folks I'm talking about. Yeah they're real, and yeah, it sounds like you haven't met them. Think neo-nazis.

    Sounds like you are one of those Nazis as well - albeit one on the opposite side.

    Just because you do not agree with someone doesn't give you the right to label them "nazis" or whatever.

  81. Re:first shot by Cyberax · · Score: 1

    Yeah, so the terrorists would just use person-to-person meetings and then launch the attacks with an email like: "I'm going to a movie at 11:30, anyone with me?"

  82. Re:first shot by NicBenjamin · · Score: 3, Insightful

    There's probably all kinds of little things like this that a determined group of 50 guys with legal firearms could do. The kinds of guns people talk about banning are probably less scary then real old-timey blackpowder guns, because making blackpowder is legal, and that shit could totally take out a bridge. So our 50 guys could ruin your commute, probably destroy the local sewer lines, take out a police station or three, etc. Hell I'd be stunned if it took five guys with 22s to storm a nuclear plant. You'd probably need more if you didn't have inside information on the plant's security, but not that much more.

    The reason this shit doesn't happen is that it's really hard to get 50 guys to agree on a single operation without one of them ratting everyone out to the cops. For all that we bitch about our government, and the amount of times said government deserves to be bitched at, things have not gotten so bad that people think starting a Civil War is a good idea. Even in subcultures where you can get people to agree to fight the Power, generally by the time you've picked up two dozen guys you've picked up some loser who will be caught. Remember that the FBI in Minnesota had Zacarias Moussaoui in custody on immigration charges, and they had a pretty good idea that he was planning on crashing a plane into something, but they weren't able to convince anyone in DC to take them seriously.

  83. Re:first shot by NicBenjamin · · Score: 1

    Since an attack on substations would need to several somewhat-coordinated teams to be effective, and would require some intelligence as to where is most vulnerable, it's exactly the sort of attack the NSA thinks they can catch.

    Depends on how good the bad guys are at Radio Discipline. If they never use radios/cell phones/email/etc. to talk about their plans the NSA can't catch them.

    They probably can't go completely radio silent, but they can definitely use code-words.

    The big problem little organizations like this have in pulling off their first attack is finding enough qualified people to do it without accidentally picking up an informant who will inform his FBI handler that your numerous texts about "finding a place for the party" are actually coded messages for finding the first target of your guerrilla war campaign.

  84. Re:first shot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "I just RTFA'd. Scared the hell out of me when I considered the ramifications of a co-ordinated attack,"

    Me too.
    I wonder if nuclear waste deposit sites will have to upgrade their security for 180.000 years to prevent that.
    It could ruin the profits.

  85. Re:first shot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Apparently you're not aware that some trombones do in fact have a trigger."

    Rusty Trombones? ;-)

  86. It's not an imaginary attack by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It was a real rehearsal, and our military did exactly the same thing in Iraq and Bosnia.

  87. Re:first shot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "And what about the dead kid? Is he being punished for having bad parents? "

    Think of it as evolution in action.

  88. Fucking beta! Now I can't read the article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm not being specific so as not to put thoughts into idle heads

    It's called infrastructure: Those services outside the home used to make the city work. Broken infrastructure means no city.

    Back in the 1970s, terrorists on TV cop dramas attacked a city-wide weakness in the infrastructure. We don't have those sort of stories now but if one watched those shows, one understands how to destroy a whole city . Earlier, Fermion posted a good point about such terrorism.

  89. Re:first shot by Will.Woodhull · · Score: 0

    The guy who is continuing to use deadly force within my sphere of influence.

    Dammitall, you should be defending yourself right now, not messing about on slashdot while someone is threatening to kill you or someone around you.

    Oh wait. you were probably using the present tense in an imaginary way, not in the correct English way. My bad.

    Whatever kind of hell you want to make for yourself in your imaginary world is fine by me. So long as you keep it there.

    Now, did you have anything of value to contribute to a real world discussion of what is definitely a problem?

    --
    Will
  90. Re:first shot by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

    In much the same way as possessing more than a set (small) amount of some narcotics is considered intent to supply, or giving someone a copyright-infringing work in exchange for another makes it a for-profit commercial operation. It's just a bit of legal trickery put in to allow prosecutors to justify harsher sentencing without seeming too overtly draconian.

  91. Re:first shot by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

    Never mind the guns. Pylon, meet cutting disc. Or cutting torch. I imagine re-erecting one of those would take a couple of days - and it should only take minutes to bring one down.

  92. Re:first shot by Maritz · · Score: 1

    The lack of self-awareness in this comment is truly staggering. Well done sir..!

    --
    I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
  93. Re:first shot by NicBenjamin · · Score: 1

    Keep in mind that in the US state oppression is almost always done by the actual states. Especially oppression of US Citizens. The only exception was Japanese internment, and even that was probably a lot kinder then whatever California would have come up with on it's own.

    The reason is that we are a large, diverse country with numerous elected local governments. It's very difficult to go from nothing to winning national power, so you generally have multiple states in your pocket before you even think about gaining access to the Federal tools of oppression. There's a reason that most of the Civil Rights movement was aimed at a) convincing states to stop being evil, or b) convincing the Fed to bully states into stopping being evil.

    I am very skeptical of any American who says he's both a) pro-freedom, and b) does not acknowledge that in the US half the battle for freedom is making sure the Feds are strong enough to bully states.

    Keep in mind that, at this very minute, several states are actively trying to keep people who disagree with their governors from voting through a variety of means. These include Voter ID, eliminating early voting the Sunday before the election (because black do it), etc. If you think that the NSA having your data is a greater threat to your freedom then your Governor actively trying to stop people from voting him out of office you are a fool.

  94. Not the point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... The young adult years have a number of difficult emotional griefs and transitions.

    I think that's been true for the last 100 years. How has this changed over the decades?

    Do today's teens have a lower tolerance because of something, like Disney-fied children's TV, or a shortage of heroes like Harry Potter? Is it a lack of identity because they're anonymous online and cities provide fewer social activities? Is modern-day bullying more severe because of hands-off teaching and parenting, or the always-on internet, or because the "might is right" philosophy is openly encouraged?

    ... recognize when their brain has latched onto a bad action

    Bad for whom? For those problem-solving teenagers, the first answer available is adequate. An outcast and ignored loner doesn't have many resources for creating a answer. Besides, why should he spend time protecting a power structure that doesn't protect him? It's very much a case of "you won't be a part of the solution but you are a part of the problem".

    1. Re:Not the point by beachdog · · Score: 1

      Regarding How has this changed over the decades?

      Well there are two answers. There are the usual sources of information like newspaper stories.

        But a second change is the recent rise of behavior examples that emphasize a different kind of relationship to time and the passage of it. First player shooter games emphasize pressing the trigger button as fast and as often as possible. A sports tennis shoe maker advertised "Just do it." or a sport drink maker may have advertised "Grab it and go.". All of these are modeling the process of skipping over the deliberation phase of mentation. The shoe maker and the sport drink maker should have said "Just buy it."

      How is time, timing and the passage of time represented and modeled when a human learns motor skills? Studies of infants beginning to speak have shown some children are speaking quite well except that the pace of vocalization is much faster than the parent expects. When slowed down by electronic means, the baby babble sometimes is intelligible as speech.

      Compare that with any young adult precipitous action like shooting at transformers or shooting at a school. If you could "slow down the clock" of the young person's behavior by a factor of 10x or 20x, the destructive content would be reduced or eleminated.

      From another angle, the young adult who eventually engages in a precipitous action mentally went through numerous alternative scenarios while they were stewing or deliberating or grieving at some perceived personal event. The young adult's machinery for evaluating alternate scenarios has got stuck on a bad action. What part of the action is the bad part? I am proposing that the problem has something to do with time or timing being locked. The person feeling the grief or anger can't escape from some kind of locked state.

  95. Re:first shot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    IMIPAK? Maybe you could cross breed it with ORAC.

  96. Re: first shot by LF11 · · Score: 1

    That's shortsighted. No exemption is claimed for police or military...

  97. Re:Sementics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Depends on your definition of what a Gang, Cartel, and Mobs are! Unknown Organized Crime I believe could be responsible for this!

  98. Re: first shot by LF11 · · Score: 1

    It is an impossible question to answer because you deliberately rule out the examples of such.

  99. "Terrorism" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So one (possibly two) nuts do some minor damage to a electric substation and its a 'Military-Style" raid? I could be terrorism related or it could be some nut who thinks the government is using the power network to control his mind through his fillings. It could even have been idiotic robbery attempt, knock out the power and then hit a bank (even though I think many have backup power). Whatever the motivation it should be noted that it failed miserably, there was no power outage despite damaging multiple transformers.

  100. Nice site by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

    From the linked article:

    "Say hello to the new foreignpolicy.com! Here's a big fuckin' yellow overlay that's fucking jamming itself in your fucking face on your phone, fucking auto-shifting the fucking close box offscreen so you can't press it because our programmers are worthless, worthless sacks of shit who need to die like pigs porkfrying in Hell."

    --
    (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
  101. The answer is simple, stupid. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Use drones. Lots and lots of drones.

    EMP? Who is that guy and what do I owe him?

  102. Re:first shot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You should be scared of me.... Just got an AR-50 this past week.

  103. Re:first shot by Rich0 · · Score: 1

    The reason this shit doesn't happen is that it's really hard to get 50 guys to agree on a single operation without one of them ratting everyone out to the cops. For all that we bitch about our government, and the amount of times said government deserves to be bitched at, things have not gotten so bad that people think starting a Civil War is a good idea.

    Good point. Substations are vulnerable enough that just a few people could do quite a bit of damage, but not the kinds of doomsday scenarios people worry about.

    That said, our power grid really is a lot more fragile than it needs to be. It isn't really a "grid," to start with (a structure that implies a level of redundancy in the connectivity). Having a reasonable stockpile of transformers on-hand in the event of a disaster makes sense. That disaster could be anything - accidental or intended, natural or artificial, etc.

    While there is a level of efficiency to be gained by having every wire, road, bridge, and airplane loaded at 99.99% every day, it means that there is a huge mess anytime anything unexpected happens.

  104. water supply by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No need to worry about that, the government is already poisoning the water supply on your behalf with fluoride, chlorine, arsenic and who knows what tasty cocktail of petrochemicals from hydraulic fracturing which happens to be exempt from the clean water act. All for your benefit, of course.

  105. Re: first shot by tomhath · · Score: 1

    It is an impossible question to answer because you deliberately rule out the examples of such.

    No, his question was about overthrowing an existing government rather than a colony seeking independence. The problem is that in order to overthrow a repressive and violent tyrant you need to be even more violent. We'll see how the Arab Spring turns out.

  106. Re: first shot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How a out The French Revolution, Cuba 1961, Russia 1917 ... Wikipedia has a list of more than 600 revolutions with varying degrees of success. You were shooting from the hip.

  107. Old Man Winter: The Terrorist by watermark · · Score: 1

    Terrorists should just pray for snow, that seems to take out the power to enough people every season. It's completely ridiculous for so many thousands of people to be losing power in 2013 due to weather that's predicted to happen several times each year.

  108. There is no physical security for the grid by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

    Put 5 random people from this thread on /. into a room for 8h. Give them enough pizza and their favorite drinks and they will come up during that time with minimum 100 simple ways to wreck the grid. (Thats true for every grid, not only particular weak ones like the one in US)

    --
    Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
  109. Re:first shot by kartaron · · Score: 1

    Because you dont make headlines, get congressional attention, or get federal funding for accusing local hoodlums. Say terrorist and point at something potentially vulnerable and you may just win the lottery. The whole point of this story should be that the guy(s) did a good deal of damage to several components and didnt cause one single outage. The histrionic congressional response "Any guy with a .22 could shut down the whole thing!!!" should be a comedic punchline.

  110. Re: first shot by Z00L00K · · Score: 1

    And what's probably worse - a lot of the major grid hubs are unmanned and can be taken out by a single person with a rifle.

    --
    If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
  111. Great. Just another excuse to by pigiron · · Score: 1

    hire more government employees with machine guns. Do we really need carabinieri on every corner?

  112. To prepare for gun-blazing terrorist attacks on th by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the US Government conducts practice unannounced public raids and gun-blazing responses to simulate gun-blazing terrorist attacks. The enemy is within your country and that enemy is the government.

    Hey Obama have you been to the plantation lately? I heard your slave master wants to talk to you about increasing his wealth.

  113. Osama bin Laden by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    was flying out the of United States of Amerika at the very moment the terrorists were flying commercial passenger aircraft into buildings in Washington and New York City, and when another commercial aircraft plunged into farmland in Pennsylvania. Osama and the Bush family probably broke bread together many times while gravy and wine dripped down their flapping jowls. I'd like to see George W. Bush sent to Club Gitmo for some enhanced interrogation and have it broadcast live to the world. He is already a documented Arab sheik boot-licking "death to America" tiddler.

  114. Hyperbole is great by GrumpySteen · · Score: 1

    The intruder(s) then fired more than 100 rounds from what two officials described as a high-powered rifle at several transformers in the facility. ... there was no long-term damage reported at the facility and there were no major power outages.

    Jon Wellinghoff, the chairman of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, said last month that an attack by intruders with guns and rifles could be just as devastating as a cyber attack.

      A shooter "could get 200 yards away with a .22 rifle and take the whole thing out,"

    Clearly this man is an idiot who should not be listened to. If 100+ rounds from a high power rifle didn't cause an outage, someone 200 yards away with a .22 sure as hell isn't going to.

    1. Re:Hyperbole is great by Z00L00K · · Score: 1

      It's a question of what you hit and with which kind of bullet. Find the critical key parts and damage them.

      But I would definitely not use a .22 rifle, I would at least go up to 7.65mm or similar using full metal jacket which can penetrate metal a bit better.

      Sensitive points are the ceramic insulators. But control motors for switches and breakers are also good targets.

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
  115. High tension wire electrical distribution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    is already under attack by the evil terrorist known as Mother Nature. Mother Nature is on the no-fly list but remains elusive as attacks spread around the planet. During the Bush II Administration, Mother Nature was declared the leading public enemy and threat to the "America way of life."

  116. Re: first shot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What if it was one guy with six guns?

  117. Re: first shot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Once ?

    Count much ?

  118. General population doesn't understand tech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In addition to what others said about risk, humans have lived with the threat of physical attack our entire existence. "Cyber" attacks are new, hard to understand for the general population, and sound scary. They've seen movies where people hack into the pentagon and launch missiles. Etc.

    As far as physical attacks, we've been lucky that, up to this point, terrorists have been dead stupid. There are a lot of soft targets that would be just as damaging as airplanes that are lower risk and require less planning. Luckily when irrational people choose to attack they don't suddenly become rational in choosing their targets.

  119. Re: first shot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And with 200,000 miles of transmission, say 2 million towers to protect, physical protection would bevery expensive indeed.

    We could probably put all the electric infrastructure underground for a mere 7 trillion dollars or so. Let's see, cut social security and medicade to zero and that should do it.

    Idiots.

  120. Re:first shot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The days of a people's revolution are over. If people actually thought they could organize a meaningful rebellion in the US, couple VX gas canisters tossed via a drone into the local town square would end those thoughts immediately. After that, it doesn't matter how "come and take it" people are, they will line up, hands over their heads, begging for surrender just like the Iraqis in the first Gulf War. Any meaningful leadership for a revolution would just be taken out by some video gamer in a bunker somewhere.

  121. Re: first shot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you are in your late teens to early twenties and your testicles have not descended, you should really get yourself a doctors appointment. Cryptochidism is a serious and potentially life threatening disease.

  122. Re:first shot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So, you're saying the first step is to repeal the Constitution? Right?

    I, for one, choose not to live in your fascist dictatorship, where only your chosen lackeys have the physical tools to commit violence and wholesale slaughter.

    That was your goal, right? Taking weapons from the populace is always the first step of repressive regimes. Read your history, asshat.

  123. Re:first shot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When does it become ok to shoot a police officer or a member of the military? If you say that we should be allowed to have instruments of violence to overthrow the government, what specific act would constitute the necessity to escalate to killing? This persistent belief that a people should have the tools necessary to overthrow the government seems silly to me, especially in a place like the United States because it's always listed as such an abstract that it seems stupid.

    If we should have the tools of violence specifically to overthrow the government, what great act of tyranny would constitute the necessity to kill?

  124. Re: first shot by dryeo · · Score: 1

    It was after the French Revolution that the term "reign of terror" was invented, lot of guillotining. The Russian revolution ended up with Lenin and then Stalin in charge, hard to say if that was an improvement but most say not. Cuba probably was for the average Cuban but the Americans sure think it was a step backwards, once again not clear cut.

    --
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
  125. Re:first shot by Immerman · · Score: 1

    Personally I'd say as soon as anyone threatens imminent violence against you or yours, natural law grants you the authority to remove that threat in good conscience by whatever means necessary, uniform or no. Proportionality, expedience, and potential repercussions may of course suggest a tactic other than killing them. The uniform after all is a symbol of additional privilege and power entrusted to them by the populace - if they betray that trust then it's only so much cloth.

    And why does It seem particularly silly in the US? We are a nation built on the blood and bodies of people overthrowing their "legitimate" government. Just look at the mess that European colonialism has made of India and Africa, do you really think we would have fared all that much better? And while we currently possess far more freedoms than most people on the planet, that is due largely to the shear amount of freedoms our ancestors bought for us - I think you would be hard pressed to find many countries that are losing freedoms at a faster rate, and certainly income (and power) inequality is already among the worst in the developed world.

    --
    --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
  126. Re:first shot by dave562 · · Score: 1

    How do you balance the cost of spares versus the cost of preventative maintenance? If I am misconstruing your post, my apologies. My understanding is that you are proposing a redundant infrastructure, or at least enough spare parts rebuild the current one quickly, following the inevitable disaster.

    My understanding of the power grid is very limited and derived from talking to a couple of guys who do power for a living (3-phase, large commercial building kind of power).

    My limited understanding is that the grid is woefully out of date and the power companies are on a continual upgrade cycle. They are basically staying one step ahead of a shutdown by upgrading things as quickly as they can. Given that resources are finite and capital has to be accounted for, where do the spares come from? Do you buy spares for the old equipment that is already slated for upgrade? Do you buy spares for the new equipment that you just upgraded? If so, how do you justify holding it back as a "spare part" when there is plenty of old equipment out there that still needs to be replaced?

    Given that the current system is barely running as is, how could we even conceive of standing up a completely redundant, secondary system "just in case"?

  127. Re: first shot by JWSmythe · · Score: 1

    Even if they put it underground, that only means illicit activity goes from being seen by people on the ground, to not being seen.

    Where did you get the 200K miles number from? I'm just curious. I hadn't seen a number for it before. Well, more like I never bothered to look for the number. :)

    --
    Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
  128. Re: first shot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It would be a fire fight!

  129. Not Everything Is Terrorism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Terrorism really is the bogeyman these days, isn't it. My first though when reading about someone taking down power and communications in Silicon Valley isn't terrorism, it's espionage.

    And I was especially amused by the chairman's assertion that someone with a .22 could take out transformers at 200 yards.

  130. Re:first shot by HiThere · · Score: 1

    Perhaps you should read it. Sometimes it's done, sometimes it isn't. IIRC the USSR had a rather high ownership of firearms...of course, I don't know their distribution. Perhaps most of them were in Siberia (i.e., rural rather than urban).

    --

    I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  131. Re:first shot by HiThere · · Score: 1

    More like half an hour to bring it down. A good replacement would also take more than a couple of days. Something jury-rigged could probably be done in a day, though, in most places. (Think a few trucks with cherry-picker hoists to hold the wires. Not something you want to use as more than a jurry-rig, but enough to help in the short run. And you'ld still need insulators, etc., because you don't want to attach a high voltage wire directly to the cherry picker, even if it IS insulated.) But the problem, to my mind, is that you need to power down that section of the grid to install the patch, and then again when the real replacement is ready. That could affect a large area. (Or maybe not. I'm no expert at power transmission. They may already have cutouts in place.)

    --

    I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  132. Re:first shot by cusco · · Score: 1

    Trombone? If Joe is bad enough that he has to go out into the woods to practice that might be considered justifiable homicide . . .

    --
    "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
  133. Re:first shot by HiThere · · Score: 1

    Well, the French Revolution *eventually* turned out well. We don't know how things would have gone if it hadn't happened. But it sure was bloody expensive. The same may be true of the anti-Czarist Russian Revolution...the "Communists" revolution descendants (that overthrew the Duma) are still working their way back to being as good as it was. OTOH, the Duma didn't last long enough to have much of a track record. There have been coup d'etats that restored a civil government better than the one they overthrew. Not the majority, but they have happened.

    OTOH, most cases where the new govt. is superior to the old seem to be cases where the current govt. is overthrown by a foreign invader, and THEN the citizenry throws out the invader. Those also tend to be quite bloody for awhile.

    --

    I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  134. Re:first shot by cusco · · Score: 1

    Was going to reply to your post above, before it got trolled so badly. Good grief.

    This sort of action is the nightmare scenario of electrical system engineers. Got talking to one as I swapped out his PC for a new one a few years ago (why the hell Mathlab takes so long to install is beyond me), and was appalled to hear his opinion of the state of the North American electrical grid. A score of attackers, spread randomly around the country, armed with deer rifles and some other easy to acquire/fabricate tools (which I won't name but you can undoubtedly guess) could take down the entire grid. And then keep it down for days or weeks, no suicide attack or special training necessary and almost no chance of the initial attack being stopped or detected early. All the reading that I've done since then has just confirmed that for me.

    As you said, the large transformers and relays are all custom made, with backorder times ranging from 3 months to 2 years. Very few sites maintain more than one spare, since they're supposed to last 20+ years without replacement, and they're not interchangeable in most cases. This isn't rocket surgery either, anyone trained in electrical system engineering will see the exact same vulnerabilities and come to the same conclusion. If the terriers aren't attacking us RIGHT NOW it's because they don't want to, and if that's the case then they're something totally different than what we're being led to believe.

    --
    "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
  135. Navy's Monterey Postgraduate School by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Someone at the Navy Postgraduate School did a plan to shut down the US economy back in the '90s. The idea was to spend $10M and make $Bs in trading on the result.

    Among other things, shooting holes in the 400KV transfomers handling long-distance transmission lines was key to disabling entire sections of the economy, because there are very few of these in inventory and the lead-time is 1 year for new units. Those were expected to explode because of the short-circuit.

    Metcalf substation was a good choice -- isolated with easy access. We now know to use AP ammo and larger calibers than 30-06.

  136. Re:first shot by cusco · · Score: 1

    Once a week each team member checks an innocuous web site, such as Joesimportedfoods.com. Maybe order something once in a while. Every week check a link, which every week returns a 404 error or maybe some innocent photo. Finally one week a photo, maybe of Joe, shows up with a clock and a calendar in the background. Just for good measure subtract some number, like 123 hours, from the date/time. Somehow I doubt the NSA would be able to catch that.

    No, really you don't need to be attacking 'most vulnerable' points, just some random thing that moves a lot of energy through the grid. Excess stress capacity has been dramatically reduced to save on the costs of constructing new lines, and a decade of maintenance and tree trimming budget cuts will ensure that the stress gets distributed poorly. Large substations are clearly marked on hiking maps and often on state road maps as well, so they're not hard to find. Even if they were, an afternoon's drive following high tension lines will lead an attacker to them. All you need is some really bad imbalances in the system at multiple points. It's not designed to handle that, and proposals to adjust the system to be more flexible are consistently vetoed by executives as too expensive to the short term revenue to be worthwhile. (after all, they'll have cashed out their stock options and moved on to another company by the time it becomes important).

    This stuff isn't rocket science, getting people into the country would be the most difficult part of the whole thing (and thousands of almost-illiterate Mexicans manage that every month). Once here they settle into life washing dishes or cutting grass, the same as any other illegal immigrant, and buy a used car, the same as any other illegal immigrant, and live quietly, the same as any other illegal immigrant.

    --
    "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
  137. Argh! Bad typo! Bad! Bad! by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 1

    Similarly, "andrchism" gets applied ...

    Should be "Similarly, "anarchy" gets applied ..."

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
  138. Re:first shot by cusco · · Score: 1

    Spares should be precisely what there's a lot of.

    They're expensive, and almost the entire electrical network is run by private industry focused on short term goals. IOW, there aint' none to speak of.

    --
    "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
  139. Re:first shot by Patent+Lover · · Score: 1

    Yes, quite frightening. No Slashtot for a few days. The horror.

  140. Nothing to see; move along. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you didn't think J-SOC would start these raids on American soil, you must be retarded. It'll start as a a part of the drug war, and escalate quickly afterwords. Like their operations in Iraq, Afghanistan and Yemen, there will be no accountability for bad intel or innocents murdered (especially those merely defending themselves or property). Next will be more murders of Americans by drones. Just wait and see.

  141. Re:first shot by cusco · · Score: 1

    If it's a nation planning an invasion . . . an advance team from the PRC

    Wow, that's a bit of a stretch. Have you been watching re-runs of 'Red Dawn'? Good grief. Are they supposed to march across the Behring Straight, or what? Even the Canadians are a more likely invader than the Chinese.

    --
    "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
  142. Re:first shot by cusco · · Score: 1

    Cuba

    --
    "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
  143. Re:first shot by wytcld · · Score: 1

    you should work on changing your nations behaviour to reduce the incentive for such raids

    That's the most bogus suggestion imaginable. There is no end to the number of "behavior changes" that I would require, as a leader of a group capable of such raids, once I knew that you were likely to make those changes to remove my "incentive for such raids." The very willingness to change a nation's behavior to avoid them is an infinite incentive to conduct and threaten to conduct them.

    My group is perfectly willing to cease threatening your power grid just as soon as you provide us with "justice" in the form of nuclear parity. You have nuclear bombs. We don't. Give us some of your bombs, and we'll have no incentive to continue threatening your power grid. We'll threaten your capital then instead. Far more satisfying to us.

    --
    "with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton
  144. Re:first shot by Sarten-X · · Score: 1

    The big problem little organizations like this have in pulling off their first attack is finding enough qualified people to do it without accidentally picking up an informant...

    The person doing the recruiting, though, would have a recruiter's contact pattern. The NSA could see that, then know where those informants should contact.

    --
    You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
  145. Re:first shot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You don't even need guns; a couple dozen guys with lighters and gasoline spread across the city could probably overwhelm the city's ability to fight simultaneous fires, especially in wooded areas during dry season.

  146. Re:first shot by NicBenjamin · · Score: 1

    That doesn't help as much as they say it would for two reasons.

    1) If he's smart he's doing almost all his recruiting in-person, not carrying a cell phone, etc. The NSA can't intercept communications you never make.

    2) Who isn't recruiting for something? Political parties, churches, secular clubs, salesman, etc. recruit all the time. So a generic "recruiter" pattern is no good. Way too many false positives. If our Evildoer is part of some large organization with a manual for recruiting, the NSA knows the manual, the pattern could be useful. But in Stage 1 of the rebellion the pattern simply doesn't exist because the NSA doesn't have any prior instances of this particular group organizing Evildoing to create their pattern from.

    SigInt guys like the NSA tell the funders that they make the HumInt guys obsolete, and to an extent they're right. There's info you can get from signals very easily that a hum,an could not fund out. But if you don;t even know what signal to look for SigInt is useless.

  147. Re:first shot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All you need is one high powered hunting rifel and you can take out insulators easily from a km away (pick your substation or power plant right, and a couple of bullets could mean a month offline for a very large area).

  148. Re:first shot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nup. One guy with a high powered rifel can easily shoot out (from a 1km away) the ceramic isolators comming out of a big substation or power plant (pick the right lines and a lot of people will be out of power for quite a while).

  149. Re:first shot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    maybe you should work on changing your nations behaviour to reduce the incentive for such raids.

    Maybe you should stop talking like a muppet before you embarrass yourself.

    Redundancy is the real key; why doesn't the power grid work like the Internet? Route around damage.

  150. Re: first shot by budgenator · · Score: 1

    A bullet isn't going to do much damage to one of those big transformers, even in the article it resulted in an oil leak. To do real damage you would need something like an RPG round but the problem there is the chain link fence is amazingly effective at stopping RPG rounds, the way to do it is the old fashioned way send a sapper with a satchel charge to blow it to smithereens.

    --
    Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
  151. Re:first shot by JWSmythe · · Score: 1

    Nah, I'm just hard pressed to pick a country that would actually attempt an invasion of the US. China is the most capable. If I had to wager between China invading the CONUS, or aliens landing in Times Square ... well ... aliens are more likely. :)

    But lets look at some numbers for military strength, if to see who could attempt such a thing.

    The US has the largest airforce, with China being #2. That's followed by Russia, India, Iran and North Korea.

    China outnumbers the US in active military., but the US is #2. That's followed by India, Russia, North Korea, and South Korea.

    Budget is significantly different by country. The US overwhelms this category. The US spends $689B. China spends $129B. That is followed by Russia, France, UK, and Japan.

    Some of that is likely skewed by expenses. The US has stuff like aircraft carriers built *in* the US. China has been buying theirs used, and now has 3 in the works being done in China. As we all know, labor and materials is a lot cheaper there than here.

    Honestly, that brings us back to drunk rednecks, or a small group of domestic terrorists. They *could* cause a lot of isolated damage. They could break an awful lot of stuff in a relatively confined area. Even if they took control over an area, which is amazingly doubtful, they wouldn't hold it for long. It would be a very short revolution.

    Something to remember about any group, either a group of domestic terrorists, or a country trying to invade. The United States is a lot stronger than it's military. There are approx 1.5M active military personnel. There are approx 22M military veterans. There are approx 300M firearms in civilian hands. That makes for an awful lot of armed civilians with training, and untrained armed civilians to go with them. It's not good odds for an aggressor, no matter how you look at it.

    I'd still be willing to wager that it will eventually be tied to drunk rednecks. :)

    --
    Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
  152. Re:first shot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    as soon as they pull their Glock from their concealed carry place, they're now "open carry", and as such become targets themselves.

    Buh, you realize that Open Carry is legal for everyone with or without a carry permit. In fact, open carry is the only way to carry a weapon if you don't have a permit. We would have to replace "targets" with "law abiding citizens" but then your whole comment becomes senseless. Which it is.

  153. Re:first shot by cusco · · Score: 1

    Ah. I thought you were serious for a minute. There are some posters here who would be.

    BTW, have you seen the recent remake of 'Red Dawn'? If you thought the original was a crapfest you should watch this one. Believe it or not, NORTH KOREA invades the US and occupies at least some portion of it, apparently for an extended period of time. The next time I've got some pot and my wife isn't home I'm going to get really, really stoned and watch it again. It's that bad.

    --
    "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
  154. San Jose loves Al Qaida by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The sheer number of muslims living in Silicon Valley guarantees that it is a significant source of donations to terrorism-related causes. Terrorists love Western money. They will never attack a significant source of income. QED.

  155. Computer hacker shut lights off with malware? by codeusirae · · Score: 1

    'When U.S. officials warn about "attacks" on electric power facilities these days, the first thing that comes to mind is probably a computer hacker trying to shut the lights off in a city with malware'

    Just who in their right mind would connect the power facilities directly to the Internet .. oh wait ....

  156. Re:first shot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You have nuclear bombs. We don't. Give us some of your bombs

    Sounds like a plan bro. We sent them express. They'll arrive in under an hour. You'll have a blast. We guarantee it.

  157. Re:first shot by anubi · · Score: 1

    Thanks, Cusco.. those are exactly my concerns. I figured my "troll" has never considered what an investment of labor it has been to provide the comforts of modern living.

    I guess he's right considering that male engineers do not give birth to biological children ( although if we are lucky, we may make a contribution - but apparently not many of us do ), what I build is my legacy and I could well claim to be "speaking as a mother". I hate to spend my life trying to leave a legacy of something useful just to have someone else blow it up just for the fun of it. Or see another engineer's work destroyed like that. I have a very deep respect for the people who put this infrastructure in place.

    --
    "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]

  158. Re:first shot by cusco · · Score: 1

    You might be interested in a book called 'Brittle Power', written in the Reagan era but still very relevant in many areas. The picture has improved slightly in some areas since then, but not enough and not everywhere.

    --
    "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
  159. The threat is realer as ever by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    now, at the present, that it was ever before. The USA is continuously under attack from all sides by evildoers world wide and continuously, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, fighting on ALL fronts to mitigate each and every one of the thousands of attacks each month alone - mostly thanks to the NSA, who is listening in on almost all of the terrorists' communications at all times.

  160. Re:first shot by N1AK · · Score: 1

    Just look at the mess that European colonialism has made of India and Africa

    Don't forget Canada and Australia... Oh wait, they don't fit your message.

    America is populated by European colonial descendants (and the few natives who survived) as are most of the other first world ex-colonial countries. Which makes sense because, unlike in the middle-east, Africa, South America, South East asia where a small ruling elite of Europeans ran things then vanished at a time of conflict, the people and many of the people administering the country were one and the same.

  161. Re:first shot by JWSmythe · · Score: 1

    Oh, I'm sure the conspiracy nutters are having a field-day with that news story. Well, if they aren't already, they will be soon enough.

    Sadly, it is a terrorist event, no matter who did it or why. It will help strengthen the US Gov't stance that everything has to be secured, because the terrorist are going to get us.

    Things have been getting slow, since there hasn't been an attack on the US in over a decade.

    It wouldn't be surprising if some part of the gov't was involved.

    And no, I haven't seen it. Unfortunately I don't smoke pot, so if I ever do accidentally start watching it, I may not make it through the whole movie. :)

    --
    Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
  162. Power station attacks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This sounds like a good testing ground for new military robots. Since it affects the digital world, I would suspect that many large companies would have an interest in protecting infrastructure such as this.

  163. Re:first shot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who the fuck made you judge, jury, and executioner? So-called "self defense" laws in the US need some serious reigning in because of whack jobs like you.

    Who made the cops judge, jury, and executioner?

    If I can't shoot someone attempting to harm me, why can they? Do you believe the government has some sort of magic pixie dust that blesses its agents, while us 'mundanes' don't?

  164. Re:first shot by bonehead · · Score: 1

    is they all go on about how free they are, and how much they value their freedoms,

    and then at the drop of a pin, they get the hell scared out of them and they run begging the government to keep them safe.

    Those are two distinct and separate subsets of Americans.

  165. Re:first shot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...but their capabilities will be reduced. Even if they have a gun, they'll always have to think before carrying it.

    That's simply not how it's done. You use the crude* home-made firearms to "liberate" a few nice factory-made ones, and keep progressing from there. For example, the nutbag who did the recent Navy Yard mass shooting started with a shotgun, and killed a guard early on, taking his AR-15. He used an ordinary shotgun, but consider that a shotgun zip-gun is the easiest to make.

    [*] Home-made firearms need not be of low quality.

    - T

  166. Re:first shot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Redundancy means cuts to profits. There's almost no cost to a big power monopoly in the face of a failure of the grid, so there's little incentive to cut into profits to prevent such a failure. This is all by design.

  167. Re:first shot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There's an expense to redundancy, just as there is an expense to not having bridges fall in rivers. But it's a very small expense. The outages from the ice storms and rain storms? Those are big expenses. Big RECURRING expenses. With redundancy alone, due to the statistical nature of line loss, you could get extremely close to zero outage for anyone. Ever. Redundancy (down to as small a scale as practical), smarter placement of utilities (ie: not on thin poles in ice storm prone areas) and better material choices (aluminium cables?!) combined could guarantee the system would survive uninterrupted anything short of a nuclear bomb.

    You're looking at the expenses wrong, trough. Grid improvements cost owners profits and upper management bonuses. Catastrophe costs can be offset by state and federal funds and can be used as justifications for customer rate increases.

    Our system is not set up to reward the roll-out of redundancy or even the absence of predictable recurring failures. It's set up to reward cost cutting and rent seeking. It sounds trite, but our motto really is "Privatize profits, socialize losses." The fabric of society be damned... there's money to be made in the short term.