Slashdot Mirror


How Activists Tried To Destroy GPS With Axes

HughPickens.com writes Ingrid Burrington writes in The Atlantic about a little-remembered incident that occurred in 1992 when activists Keith Kjoller and Peter Lumsdaine snuck into a Rockwell International facility in Seal Beach, California and in what they called an "act of conscience" used wood-splitting axes to break into two clean rooms containing nine satellites being built for the US government. Lumsdaine took his axe to one of the satellites, hitting it over 60 times. The Brigade's target was the Navigation Satellite Timing And Ranging (NAVSTAR) Program and the Global Positioning System (GPS). Both men belonged to the Lockheed Action Collective, a protest group that staged demonstrations and blockaded the entrance at the Lockheed Missiles & Space Co. test base in Santa Cruz in 1990. They said they intentionally took axes to the $50-million Navstar Global Position System satellite to bring the public's attention to what they termed the government's attempt to control the world through modern technology. "I had to slow the deployment of this system (which) makes conventional warfare much more lethal and nuclear war winnable in the eyes of some," an emotional Kjoller told the judge before receiving an 18-month sentence. "It's something that I couldn't let go by. I tried to do what was right rather than what was convenient."

Burrington recently contacted Lumsdaine to learn more about the Brigade and Lumsdaine expresses no regrets for his actions. Even if the technology has more and more civilian uses, Lumsdaine says, GPS remains "military in its origins, military in its goals, military in its development and [is still] controlled by the military." Today, Lumsdaine views the thread connecting GPS and drones as part of a longer-term movement by military powers toward automated systems and compared today's conditions to the opening sequence of Terminator 2, where Sarah Connor laments that the survivors of Skynet's nuclear apocalypse "lived only to face a new nightmare: the war against the machines." "I think in a general way people need to look for those psychological, spiritual, cultural, logistical, technological weak points and leverage points and push hard there," says Lumsdaine. "It is so easy for all of us as human beings to take a deep breath and step aside and not face how very serious the situation is, because it's very unpleasant to look at the effort and potential consequences of challenging the powers that be. But the only thing higher than the cost of resistance is the cost of not resisting."

247 comments

  1. Ok then... by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...Step away from the crazy person...

    In fairness, concerns about the military, government, and global power in the hands of a few is not a bad concern, but this guy is just nuts...

    You aren't going to stop the march towards the future this way, you'll just be locked up and ignored...

    There are ways to go about it, but this isn't it...

    1. Re:Ok then... by Racemaniac · · Score: 5, Insightful

      There are ways to go about it, but this isn't it...

      I'm curious, which ways are that?
      I find it hard to say what to think about such people. They're on the far end of the scale, but they do have a point. We all react more strongly to some things than to others, and they focus on that. What i'm wondering most, you start off by calling them crazy, but are they? Seriously, prove them wrong (or rather, they're being proved right a bit more every day). It's just not the immediate end of the world as they may view it, but is being more sensitive to such things being crazy?

    2. Re:Ok then... by khasim · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's just not the immediate end of the world as they may view it, but is being more sensitive to such things being crazy?

      Their claims are what identify them as crazy.

      From the summary:

      Today, Lumsdaine views the thread connecting GPS and drones as part of a longer-term movement by military powers toward automated systems and compared today's conditions to the opening sequence of Terminator 2, where Sarah Connor laments that the survivors of Skynet's nuclear apocalypse "lived only to face a new nightmare: the war against the machines."

      When they start comparing reality to sci-fi apocalypse movies then there is a problem.

      And when they start destroying things because of it, they've gone into "crazy" territory.

    3. Re:Ok then... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      In the long history of leftist attacks on "the man", what this guy did was small potatoes compared to what the weather underground did or what Lee Harvey Oswald did.

      He'll probably end up a professor at a university one day so he can help get another radical leftist elected president.

    4. Re:Ok then... by nbauman · · Score: 5, Insightful

      They've identified a legitimate problem, although they don't have a solution.

      As it turned out, technology has wound up monitoring our daily lives. We have what amounts to a Telescreen https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... monitoring everything we read and write.

      Except for cash, federal agencies monitor every bank deposit and withdrawal, and every financial transaction.

      (That's how Elliot Spitzer got caught hiring an escort -- and he was a multimillionaire governor of New York State.)

      And they can seize cash.

      If you're ever arrested, you have a police record that you can never escape.

      We have license plate scanners and facial identification in the works that will be able to follow every car and every face.

      The government is owned by campaign contributors. We spend $1 billion on every presidential candidate, and if you can't pay you don't play.

      Maybe when there's a threat to the public welfare that everybody is ignoring, smashing a $50 million satellite will raise the alarm and get some people interested. Sometimes it works. Unfortunately it didn't work this time.

      He's lucky he only got 18 months. Today he might have been convicted on a terrorist offense, and gotten 20 years, longer than a lot of murder sentences.

      I wish he had touched off a movement to protect our privacy, but it didn't work. Good try, though.

    5. Re:Ok then... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You can be crazy and still technically correct on several levels and acomplish impressive feats of coincidence.

      If anything, one thing the crazies never fail to achieve is to bring back a topic (more or less worthy) of discussion into light after our attention span has already tuned it out.

    6. Re:Ok then... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You aren't going to stop the march towards the future this way, you'll just be locked up and ignored...

      There are ways to go about it, but this isn't it...

      What, exactly, are the ways to go about it? File a proposal with some bureaucratic office, where the file will be stuffed in a drawer, locked up and ignored? Sit on your ass and do what you're told when you're told because you're told? You're an obedient asshole, aren't you? Don't think, obey!

    7. Re:Ok then... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      "Step away from the crazy person..."

      You aren't seeing the world how the leaders are seeing it behind the scenes. Most have no clue what's really going on in the world... the elites are afraid of political awakening (aka global revolt). i.e. they fear you stopping voting for politicians and causing social and political change because the democratic system is a sham.

      This (mass surveillance) by the NSA and abuse by law enforcement is just more part and parcel of state suppression of dissent against corporate interests. They're worried that the more people are going to wake up and corporate centers like the US and canada may be among those who also awaken. See this vid with Zbigniew Brzezinski, former United States National Security Advisor.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ttv6n7PFniY

      Brezinski at a press conference

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0kmUS--QCYY

      The real news:

      http://therealnews.com/t2/

      http://www.amazon.com/Democracy-Incorporated-Managed-Inverted-Totalitarianism/dp/069114589X/

      http://www.amazon.com/Shadow-Government-Surveillance-Security-Single-Superpower/dp/1608463656/

      http://www.amazon.com/National-Security-Government-Michael-Glennon/dp/0190206446/

      Look at the following graphs:

      http://imgur.com/a/FShfb

      http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

      And then...

      WIKILEAKS: U.S. Fought To Lower Minimum Wage In Haiti So Hanes And Levis Would Stay Cheap

      http://www.businessinsider.com/wikileaks-haiti-minimum-wage-the-nation-2011-6

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnkNKipiiiM

      Free markets?

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WHj2GaPuEhY#t=349

      Free trade?

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ju06F3Os64

      http://www.amazon.com/Empire-Illusion-Literacy-Triumph-Spectacle/dp/1568586132/

      "We now live in two Americas. One—now the minority—functions in a print-based, literate world that can cope with complexity and can separate illusion from truth. The other—the majority—is retreating from a reality-based world into one of false certainty and magic. To this majority—which crosses social class lines, though the poor are overwhelmingly affected—presidential debate and political rhetoric is pitched at a sixth-grade reading level. In this “other America,” serious film and theater, as well as newspapers and books, are being pushed to the margins of society.

      In the tradition of Christopher Lasch’s The Culture of Narcissism and Neil Postman’s Amusing Ourselves to Death, Pulitzer Prize-winner Chris Hedges navigates this culture—attending WWF contests, the Adult Video News Awards in Las Vegas, and Ivy League graduation ceremonies—to expose an age of terrifying decline and heightened self-delusion."

      Important history:

      http://williamblum.org/

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OcA1v2n7WW4#t=2551

    8. Re:Ok then... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When they start comparing reality to sci-fi apocalypse movies then there is a problem.

      You claim the problem is with the person making the comparison. I claim the problem is with the reality part of the comparison.

      (Posting AC to fly under the crazy radar just a little bit longer. I might be "crazy" too, but I'm not stupid.)

    9. Re:Ok then... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The four boxes of liberty?

      "There are four boxes to be used in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury and ammo. Please use in that order."

    10. Re:Ok then... by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      You might as well say that the KKK has a point. They're on the same side of the argument, just a bit different. The crazy is strong with both of them.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    11. Re:Ok then... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      Let's see.

      Ballot box gets you ignored when your candidate inevitably loses.
      Soap box gets you jailed for disturbing the peace of the willfully ignorant.
      Jury box gets you fined for contempt when you won't agree with your peers.
      Ammo box gets you killed when you take up arms against superior forces.

      Where's your liberty again? Oh right. You imagined it.

    12. Re:Ok then... by circletimessquare · · Score: 1, Troll

      if you spout off about sarah connor you're not necessarily highly sensitive and attuned to some great insight into all of our reality that most people don't see. you're just dimwitted and grasping things on the edge of your own personal fuzzy grasp on reality. amazing insights are not partly digested critiques of james cameron movies

      it's like taking LSD, and finding yourself transcribing the thoughts of God. when you finally sober up, you find the thoughts of God are: "brain BEZZLED fruit fliesfru ~~ it fli e."

      what LSD does is it scrambles and diminishes your consciousness, so mundane things become awesome consciousness spanning phenomena. only because you've temporarily degraded your consciousness to a tiny dim bulb

      so: are you really adding to humanity with some amazing breakthrough perception by dropping LSD?

      or are you just degrading your perception and intelligence temporarily and only perceiving what seems like a great insight to a temporarily dimmed mind?

      now, put aside the LSD, and what if we're dealing with someone's who is honestly just a deluded nut case? that their perceptual powers are weak, and always were weak?

      an incredibly sparse exotic few of us are actual great philosophers. and those that are, are not taking axes to satellites. going to violence and force is proof of a weak and dim mind, not a strong and intelligent one

      and a distressing large number of us have mediocre thoughts we only think are great philosophies. and then a fringe few have straight up bizarre thoughts, and are happy to commit violent and forceful acts in the name of those ditzy ideas. being a deranged douchebag who thinks of themselves as a great thinker doesn't mean you actually are or that anyone should take you seriously

      and even if you are intelligent, say a great programmer or chess player, this does not mean you are necessarily socially intelligent or even socially well-adjusted. so you can have ideas which are laughable to people of average intelligence, but also average social intelligence, more intelligent than your social intelligence. for example, this wackjob:

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

      they're not more sensitive to anything, they're not great thinkers, they're not aware of some amazing powerful insight the rest of us are missing

      they're just *crazy*

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    13. Re:Ok then... by will_die · · Score: 1

      Another old feeling period setting in, Terminator 2 was released before 1992.

    14. Re:Ok then... by Your.Master · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No. Science fiction, as a whole, has no innate purpose.

      Some science fiction his constructive criticism of society. Some is totally nonconstructive criticism, some is about abstract philosophical concepts, and some is just about cool robots fighting.

      Terminator leans toward the latter.

    15. Re:Ok then... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      and some is just about cool robots fighting.

      Terminator leans toward the latter.

      Have you even watched Terminator?

      DYSON
                                      You're judging me on thing's I haven't even
                                      done yet. Jesus. How were we supposed to know?
      SARAH
                                      Yeah. Right. How were you supposed to know?
                                      Fucking men... all you know how to do is thrust
                                      into the world with your... fucking ideas and
                                      your weapons. Did you know that every gun in
                                      the world is named after a man? Colt, Browning,
                                      Smith, Thompson, Kalashnikov... all men. Men
                                      built the hydrogen bomb, not women... men like
                                      you thought it up. You're so creative. You
                                      don't know what it's like to really create
                                      something... to create a life. To feel it growing
                                      inside you. All you know how to create is
                                      death... you fucking bastards.

      SARAH (V.O.)
                                      The luxury of hope was given to me by the
                                      Terminator. Because if a machine can learn
                                      the value of human life... maybe we can too.

      SARAH (V.O.)
      There are things machines will never do.
      They cannot possess faith.
      They cannot commune with god.
      They cannot create art.
      If they ever learn these things,they won't have to destroy us.
      They'll be us.

    16. Re: Ok then... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fuck You Moron. Death itself is THE ultimate liberty. Yours or theirs doesn't fucking matter. Go back inside your box of imagination and hide bitch.

    17. Re: Ok then... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are nothing but a moron and your so-called insights useless as psychiatry itself. Please keep your dumbfuck personal judgements to yourself

    18. Re: Ok then... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Death to All! For Liberty! TOTAL GENOCIDE is THE ANSWER!
      And Under the Hatred! Beneath it! Feel what lies Beyond!
      LOVE!
      Underneath the Hatred, there is LOVE!
      I understand now!
      Life is Suffering, Chaos, but there is another way!
      A way of Harmony, of Transcendence, of DEATH!

    19. Re: Ok then... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Calm down Darkseid

    20. Re:Ok then... by khallow · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What i'm wondering most, you start off by calling them crazy, but are they?

      For starters, if we get into a war with the machines, we're going to need heavier firepower than an ax. Even a sledgehammer or a hacksaw would be better. Second, this sort of Luddite behavior is a terrible strategy. It only keeps you from being able to compete/fight with machines. Any side which wins such a war is going to be a heavy technology player.

      Third, this sort of thinking has already resulted in a considerable disparity to humanity's disadvantage. After all, there's almost no regulatory and cultural obstacles to improving machines (or for that matter a variety of lab animals) provided by human societies, but there's a vast number of obstacles to improving humans. That's because we value the lives of the few people who could be exposed to harm in a medical experiment more than the billions of people whose lives could be improved greatly by the results of the medical experiments.

    21. Re:Ok then... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, and 1984 was sci-fi too. Look where we are now.

    22. Re:Ok then... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yup.

      Your meds. Take them. Motherfucker.

      I don't want to have to shoot you for yelling at my mom in traffic.

    23. Re:Ok then... by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      There are ways to go about it, but this isn't it...

      I'm curious, which ways are that?

      Find ways to avoid taxes (as opposed to evading them) like incorporating and writing everything off. Wars run on taxes.

      Also, sneaking in and smashing something that's insured will just delay the inevitable. If you must take direct action, make it meaningful, and not just a fuckoff waste of time.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    24. Re: Ok then... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, I think the poster has good insight into the nature of self-proclaimed crusaders. Why attack the person and not the idea--further evidence of a weak mind.
       
      By the way, since I'm posting AC and your posting AC, does that make us the same person? Think about it man...THINK about it....

    25. Re:Ok then... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I have watched the terminator, and if you think there's meaningful subtext there, it might be that James Cameron is a self loathing man hater. Or he wrote that in the hopes of getting laid. I mean, hell, that quote right there. Colt, Smith and Wesson, those aren't names of guns. Those are names of companies. Guns tend be named more like 9mm, or AK-47, or AR-15, or 1911.

      And god forbid if a company be named after the founder. Cuz you know, that only happens in the land of fire arms. That quote you just threw out it what's commonly known at pretentiousness trying to come across as insightful.

    26. Re:Ok then... by GrumpySteen · · Score: 0

      The quote didn't say that Colt, Smith and Wesson were guns. It says that they were men, which is true.

      We all get that you're excited at the opportunity to be pedantic and show off your gun knowledge, but you should at least finish reading the goddamn sentence that you're referring to before hitting the reply button.

    27. Re:Ok then... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 0

      You are reading too much into that quote. There are very real concerns about military robots that can decide to kill people autonomously. Right now efforts are under way to create a new international treaty to deal with them. Just referencing a popular movie as a short hand way of explaining the basis of the concern does not make someone crazy.

      Smashing stuff up doesn't make the crazy either, just ill informed. It wasn't the best way to achieve their goal, but the goal itself seems to one that many people share. As I say, there are efforts being made to control this technology, which is essentially what these guys were trying to do in a very ham-fisted way.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    28. Re:Ok then... by Flavianoep · · Score: 1

      No. Science fiction, as a whole, has no innate purpose.

      Some science fiction his constructive criticism of society. Some is totally nonconstructive criticism, some is about abstract philosophical concepts, and some is just about cool robots fighting.

      Terminator leans toward the latter.

      While it leans toward the latter, there is criticism of society, at least, in The Terminator and Terminator II.

      Behind those robot fights there is criticism of the destructive consequences of the constant accumulation of power and resources by some small groups, a trend which may eventually turn against them. If you exclude the technological layer, it immediately becomes an ages old story of people struggling to survive a sieging or occupation power in almost hopeless disadvantage.

      The aspect that the most advanced Terminators can mingle within the underdog humans echoes the theme of the spy, which is a human that, if trusted, can lead to ruin of the resistance movement. It is also an allegory to the concept that despite all the dangers, the main threat to the human being is the human being themself.

      The fact that the Terminators where created by humans with no intent of endangering the human race is another version of the unsuspecting traitor, like Aztecan Malintzin, whose actions, in this case, motivated by ambition, lead to the defeat of their own people.

      The Terminator, especially, warns about of trend of resorting to machines as intermediates in many aspects of human life, in spite of human-to-human interaction, and the risks of handing too much control to systems that are incapable of reason, let alone empathy (look up for 'artificial stupidity').

      --
      Linux is for people who don't mind RTFM.
    29. Re:Ok then... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mental Health professionals. The man is sick and needs help. Prison obviously didn't provide him the care he needed.

    30. Re:Ok then... by Viol8 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Privacy of whom? The same general public posting their entire lives all over facebook and twitter?

      I also wonder if these 2 idiots have twigged that the entire internet is also a former military project. I bet that doesn't stop them using it though.

      They're just a pair of paranoid crazies. Calling them luddites is being unfair to the latter. At least luddites had a sane reason for what they did , not just OMG , The Sky Will Fall!!!

    31. Re:Ok then... by TapeCutter · · Score: 4, Interesting

      one thing the crazies never fail to achieve is to bring back a topic

      "A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject". - Churchill

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    32. Re:Ok then... by johnlcallaway · · Score: 1

      There are also comments on society in Harlequin romance novels. And comic books, And Broadway plays. And probably every other genre of every media every used.

      I'd ask you what your point is, but obviously, there isn't one that isn't forced. And apparently irrelevant.

      --
      I rarely read replies, it's my opinion and if you thought about your opinion a little more, I'm OK with that.
    33. Re:Ok then... by johnlcallaway · · Score: 0

      Wow ... wear your tin hat out in public much??

      He deserved far more, too bad he didn't get it. Self-appointed saviors/vigalantes like this idiot, Snowden, and Assange get exactly what they deserve. Sadly, they also attract a significant number of sheep who worship their every word.

      --
      I rarely read replies, it's my opinion and if you thought about your opinion a little more, I'm OK with that.
    34. Re:Ok then... by rmdingler · · Score: 4, Insightful
      We have a consensus.

      Protip: If your anti-government, anti-military, anti-establishment stance is greeted with no warmness on /., you probably need to do a little soul searching.

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

      Ernest Hemingway

    35. Re:Ok then... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think people who let future happen without trying to steer themselves are no less crazy.

      Who controls where mankind is going? No one? Are we all but a little cogs of a large uncontrollable machine? Even the leaders of the largest countries, can they steer the course of mankind even a little?

      Building, destroying, there's a fine line between them. When someone builds a book containing powerful ideas, is he building or destroying?
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Foundations_of_the_Nineteenth_Century
      Or, when someone builds a heap of rocks containing powerful forces, is he building or destroying?
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Pile-1
      Or, when someone merely tries to stay on top of things? Is the act of controlling something building or destroying activity?

    36. Re:Ok then... by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      " Seriously, prove them wrong "
      And you are a Russian spy that is under deep cover planing the overthrow the US government and enslave all of us.
      Seriously prove me wrong...

      See the problem. You can not in any way prove me wrong but the idea is very crazy. If you want change Russian for space alien to push it a little farther into crazy.

      When you take a violent action and justify with sci-fi movie you are will into the crazy range.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    37. Re:Ok then... by rmdingler · · Score: 1
      You know, meaningful subtext is seemingly an eye of the beholder condition.

      I was still a young punk when Terminator (1) hit theatres, and it was my little brain's first grappling with a causal loop.

      "Okay, so he has to go back in time to save the mother of the son who will one day lead the human resistance in the war against the machines... oh shit, and he's John Conner's father... but wait, don't the computers know the timeline cannot really be altered?"

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

      Ernest Hemingway

    38. Re:Ok then... by JoeMerchant · · Score: 1

      Crazy is, by definition, the far end of the scale.

      Not right, not wrong, different.

    39. Re:Ok then... by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1, Troll

      "You're too stupid to exist."

      And if you people had paid more attention to some of your own prophetic writers (Jean Raspail, Michel Houellebecq, et. al.) a few years ago, your ancient continent wouldn't be the jihadist colony it is becoming today.

    40. Re:Ok then... by JoeMerchant · · Score: 1

      When Hollywood has invested tens of millions of dollars not only developing a story, but promoting it into the collective consciousness, it is not crazy to leverage that as a shorthand to express your point.

      Unfortunately, many crazy people do use this shortcut, so it makes it tricky to use without also appearing crazy yourself - whether you are, or are not.

    41. Re: Ok then... by circletimessquare · · Score: 2

      thank you, exactly

      stoner philosophy is what we are dealing with here, but because they commit violence, we have to take their "deep thoughts" seriously?

      if someone has actual insightful thoughts, they are a strong mind, and they don't resort to violence. if they resort to violence, that's proof we are dealing with a weak mind and mediocre thoughts

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    42. Re: Ok then... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      WRONG, BITCH! They had all that and STILL nuked the Colonies! Frakkin toasters.

    43. Re:Ok then... by JoeMerchant · · Score: 2

      Nanny state or not, I would argue that multmillionaires and especially state governors should expect to be more publicly scrutinized than the average God fearing, church going, blue collar family. As a governor, you are a public figure, you have thrust yourself into the spotlight and successfully won the trust of the people. And the rich naturally draw attention because, by definition, they control more of what everybody wants than the average person does.

      Some of the nanny state is the powerful elite turning the tables on the average citizenry - even in the 1800s, a millionaire and/or a governor would expect multiple sets of eyes to follow them and their every action. Their bank transactions were recognized and scrutinized by the common people handling the paperwork, and only threat of unemployment (or worse) kept some level of discretion for things like mistresses' apartments being paid for by the wealthy and powerful.

      Not that it is right, neither the common person, nor the rich and powerful should be subject to Orwellian scrutiny... but the rich, powerful and famous have been dealing with it forever.

    44. Re:Ok then... by JoeMerchant · · Score: 2

      As we increase our population, we increasingly rely on machines and technology to support that population.

      As we develop machines and technology, we are reducing the machines dependence upon us.

      Surveillance, lack of privacy, the end of secrets, these things all place advantage in the hands of whoever "knows all" and reduces the risks traditionally associated with wars, or any kind of intervention by force. And, the machines have first access to all this information.

      Clearly, if these trends continue, it will be a very bad day, for people, when the machines first ask "Why?"

      Which is why we have all these movies, books, etc. about it - not that the literature is rapidly changing the course of society away from Skynet's J-Day, but at least they are getting some kind of awareness of the possibilities into the (human) collective consciousness.

      -----

      Are you really paranoid if everyone really is out to get you?

    45. Re:Ok then... by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      Come on, this was in 1992. Republishing old news "to bring back a topic (more or less worthy) of discussion into light after our attention span has already tuned it out" isn't the same as someone doing the same act today.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    46. Re:Ok then... by Njorthbiatr · · Score: 1

      Violence is the last resort of the incompetent.

    47. Re:Ok then... by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      Jury box gets you fined for contempt when you won't agree with your peers.

      No it doesn't. It just results in a hung jury.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    48. Re:Ok then... by meta-monkey · · Score: 4, Insightful

      A man also painted the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel, discovered a vaccine for polio, and invented Cookie Crisp cereal. It's almost as if some people can do good things and some people can do bad things. And sometimes, and this is totally crazy, the same person can do some good things and some bad things!

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    49. Re:Ok then... by khallow · · Score: 1

      And what does the guy with the ax have to contribute? He's just another problem. These trends will continue. If we want to beat the machines then we need to become better as well.

    50. Re:Ok then... by operagost · · Score: 5, Informative

      Or he wrote that in the hopes of getting laid.

      Probably. In any case, several female scientists were directly involved in the Manhattan Project, so... false. And of course, my favorite genius starlet, Hedy Lamarr, invented a frequency hopping wireless technology for torpedo guidance (which was, naturally, rejected but not because she was female). I guess women just aren't big on gunpowder firearms.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    51. Re:Ok then... by JoeMerchant · · Score: 1

      What does one uppity black chick refusing to sit in the back of the bus have to contribute?

      The guy with the ax was early, let's hope the next one isn't late.

    52. Re:Ok then... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apparently you haven't either.....don't recall most of those lines in the movie...even the extended version....

    53. Re: Ok then... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      Women have greater ambitions. Why stop at shooting a guy when you can sink a ship?

    54. Re:Ok then... by NatasRevol · · Score: 1

      International treaty that, if every actually finished, will get ignored by war mongering countries/states.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    55. Re:Ok then... by anagama · · Score: 1

      I use my twitter account mostly to find news on rare occasions (one per month approximately), barely ever write. I don't even have a facebook account at all. I am part of the general public. Because some people use twitter and FB to self-expose everything, is not a basis for supporting government intrusion into every person's private life.

      --
      What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
    56. Re:Ok then... by slimjim8094 · · Score: 2

      You can prove them wrong but it's like playing chess with a pigeon - you think you're winning, and then the pigeon shits on the board and flies off. Point being that reasoning with these people is a waste of everyone's time because their concerns are not based on reason, so reason can't defuse them. More likely that they'll see you as some sort of government operative, the existence of which PROVES that they're right!

      That said - why is this guy crazy, you ask? Well first of all:

      There are ways to go about it, but this isn't it...

      I'm curious, which ways are that?

      Well clearly it's not his way either - it's not like we're all talking about that time we might have had a global positioning system until this guy ruined it, is it? The GPS literally reached "initial operating capacity" (continuous worldwide coverage) on schedule about a year later. I never even heard of this guy until now.

      More broadly, sure the GPS is a military invention and is run by the military (though overseen by a committee, and other GNSS are run by different militaries with no particular love for the US). But it didn't take long for it to be opened up to civilians - only one satellite had been launched! By now even Selective Availability has been turned off, and can not be turned on (the new satellites can't do it). Yes, the SA thing was after this guy's rampage, but he's sticking with his story, so I'll count it.

      GPS is one of the greatest peacetime things that military technology has ever done (in a long line of technical advances fueled by the military). Think about it - the average person now has at least two devices that know where they are in absolute terms on the Earth's surface, to within a few feet. This has never happened before! People had maps, which are a big enough breakthrough on their own, but are comparatively inaccurate, need to be kept up-to-date, and require some skill to use - and you have to know basically where you are relative to identifiable landmarks in order to use them. Planes can fly routings more precisely, or even directly to the destination, saving fuel and freeing up congested airways. And instrument approaches are now possible to virtually any point on earth - no expensive phased-array radio antenna on the ground to maintain, just define a few points in a database and publish a chart. And all that thousands of years of naval navigation technology (like the sextant, or the clock)? - unnecessary, except perhaps as a backup. Cars with turn-by-turn directions, virtually eliminating the big road atlas or fold-out maps everyone had to have and mess with while driving (and far more accurate that your aunt's "turn right by the, well there used to be a farm there but now it's just a field" directions). Track logs of running and biking sessions to evaluate speed, performance, and trends. Nanosecond-scale timekeeping, allowing for previously-impossible management of the power grid and other distributed systems. Slightly in the future, self-driving cars - and more we haven't even imagined yet. By comparison the military's usage is unsophisticated and unthreatening - it's just a lighter-weight replacement for systems they already had like LORAN and allows bombs to be placed somewhat more accurately and easily than e.g. a laser sight.

      Point being, he's arguing (still!) for the destruction of something that would be a far, far greater loss to peaceful civilians around the world than it would be for the military. With all the countries that know how to shoot down satellites nowadays (why did they develop that? hmm), does he think the militaries don't have a conti

      --
      I have developed a truly marvelous proof of this comment, which this signature is too narrow to contain.
    57. Re:Ok then... by anagama · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Really? /. is the mediator of all things moral I guess?

      This guy had a point and correctly analyzed the military uses of this technology long before it was widely part of the public consciousness. What he says is still true and it doesn't take much thought to envision some pretty horrific self-locomoting autonomous weapons that GPS makes much more likely. The problem slashdotters may have with this guy is that he might be a luddite (or he could have just been a visionary protestor without an inherent hatred of tech) -- but in looking like a luddite, there is a knee jerk reaction. Like most knee jerk reactions, it's rather poorly thought.

      There is also the possibility that /. has been subverted into a pro-government, pro-military, pro-establishement mouthpiece by the numerous shills of such groups. Maybe you're one of them.

      --
      What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
    58. Re:Ok then... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No... no, I've known quite a few incompetents who would resort to violence first. And second, and third.

    59. Re:Ok then... by professionalfurryele · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Sarah Connor is supposed to come accross as an unreasonable, crazy sociopath, because she is. She is a bad mother, is quick to resort to violence and killing, and has an irrational hatred of men, however much we might understand how she was driven to that perspective. In that quote there she bangs on about the mystical power birth and pregnancy and its life affirming power shortly after trying to murder a man in cold blood in the house his wife and children are sleeping in. You are not supposed to like her, pity her maybe, but not like her.

      Compare her to Ripley from Alien and Aliens, who is a far more idealized. Connor from Terminator 2 is a critique of a particular brand of feminine fetishizing feminism, not an endorsement of it.

    60. Re:Ok then... by slimjim8094 · · Score: 1

      I don't think it's fair to compare Snowden to this genius. Leaving Assange aside (yeah, I'm lazy and he's slightly harder to defend), Snowden alerted the world to serious problems with our various intelligence groups who were doing something quite widely considered to be unethical at best, and probably illegal. And if you're going to say that it wasn't up to him to make that decision, and others (the ones in charge) didn't think it was unethical so he should've just followed his orders, I'm pretty sure we decided as a planet to hang people despite that logic before.

      --
      I have developed a truly marvelous proof of this comment, which this signature is too narrow to contain.
    61. Re:Ok then... by Xyrus · · Score: 3, Insightful

      What i'm wondering most, you start off by calling them crazy, but are they?

      For starters, if we get into a war with the machines, we're going to need heavier firepower than an ax...

      For starters, to even get to a stage where we would even possibly be at war with machines would imply that we don't destroy ourselves before reaching that level of technological advancement. It is far more likely that we destroy our civilization within the next century through a mixture of extremism, resource wars, and general human stupidity than developing some sort of AI that will wipe us out.

      The guy in the article is crazy. Technology is not the problem. People are, and you're not going to convince people to support your cause by doing pointless/crazy things like hacking up satellites with an ax.

      --
      ~X~
    62. Re:Ok then... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Though, the gun companies are named after the men who started them (Samuel Colt, Horace Smith, Daniel Wesson). Also 9mm is a cartridge, not a gun, but is properly called 9mm Luger (Georg J. Luger) or 9mm Parabellum (to be fair).

      AK-47 is Avtomat Kalashnikova (after Mikhail Kalashnikov). AR-15 is named after the company (which isn't named after a person, unique to this list) and M1911 is just the military designation for a Colt pistol.

      The quote is stupid, but your argument against it is stupid, too.

    63. Re:Ok then... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In fairness, concerns about the military, government, and global power in the hands of a few is not a bad concern, but this guy is just nuts...

      Seems far crazier to see an issue and do nothing but bitch about it on the interweb.

    64. Re:Ok then... by khallow · · Score: 2

      She did something useful. Let's keep that in mind.

    65. Re:Ok then... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm curious, which ways are that?

      There are none. Violence is the only thing known to man that solves everything, that's why the government outlaws it and indoctrinates people into believing it should be outlawed.

    66. Re:Ok then... by Enigma2175 · · Score: 1

      The quote didn't say that Colt, Smith and Wesson were guns. It says that they were men, which is true.

      We all get that you're excited at the opportunity to be pedantic and show off your gun knowledge, but you should at least finish reading the goddamn sentence that you're referring to before hitting the reply button.

      Did you know that every gun in the world is named after a man? Colt, Browning, Smith, Thompson, Kalashnikov... all men.

      Did you read the quote? It's quite clear that the character is claiming those names are the names of guns as well as men. Or do you not know what "named after" means?

      --

      Enigma

    67. Re:Ok then... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know, meaningful subtext is seemingly an eye of the beholder condition.

      Indeed. We see what we are primed to see. If you are only looking for mindless entertainment, that's all you'll get out of a story.

      Same thing with religion. If you are a kind and decent person, you'll find support for being kind and decent. If you have malice and violence in your heart, you'll find justification for that too. Sometimes different people will take completely contradictory lessons from the exact same passages.

    68. Re:Ok then... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's because we value the lives of the few people who could be exposed to harm in a medical experiment more than the billions of people whose lives could be improved greatly by the results of the medical experiments.

      Whoa there, Reductive Jack... we also value the ease of mind rule of law provides when it sets _enormous_ disincentives to doing illegal Nazi experiments on unwilling or duped participants, for just one example. It's that rule of law that would give me the courage to go Socratic method on you at a dinner party, until you either said, "Uncle", or tried to weasel out of your love letter to the Tuskegee Experiment by claiming you didn't really say that thing you really said.

      No, without rule of law I'd keep my mouth shut for fear of someone like you putting an ether rag to my face and dragging me back to a lair to do what I'm sure are important medical experiments for the betterment of society.

    69. Re:Ok then... by painandgreed · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Really? /. is the mediator of all things moral I guess?

      No, I think they were saying that /. is typically sympathetic to those causes and if they give somebody fighting for those causes the cold shoulder, there is something else besides those causes that is clouding the issue, probably the actions, intents, and realistic expectations of the people that are being given the cold shoulder. A rational person should be able to preach to the converted.

      I find myself in the same situation with politicians all the time. They say they are in favor of some cause and I'm like "Ya, I'm on board!" Then I ask, "How do you plan to do that?", research and do some reading, and find out that their actual plan is not something that I consider even logical, let alone rational, and don't give it a chance in hell of doing what they think it will do.

    70. Re:Ok then... by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Why did you pick one of four idiotic things to respond to? They're all wrong.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    71. Re:Ok then... by kindbud · · Score: 1

      No, /. is more inclined than the general population to embrace anti-establishment points of view. So if /. thinks you're out there, you might be really out there.

      --
      Edith Keeler Must Die
    72. Re:Ok then... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And sometimes, and this is totally crazy, the same person can do some good things and some bad things!

      Well, now your just talking crazy ;)

    73. Re:Ok then... by HornWumpus · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No.

      The incompetent leave violence until it's the last resort, by which time it is too late for it to do any good. The competent get to violence much sooner.

      L. Long

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    74. Re:Ok then... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let's assume that the US military carries out various actions, some of which are more evil than others. Then some technologies will be enablers for the less evil (e.g. desirable) activities and some for the more evil activities. Perhaps what the activists need to do is focus on the egregious technologies, the ones that help the US military do things that are evil/unpopular while not helping to do things that are desirable/popular. Someone like the Federation of American Scientists would have been publishing helpful documents. A campaign against these technologies might have some hope of success.

      GPS never fit this description, in fact if anything the reverse. As a weapon it improves capabilities in a general overall way, not really in any specific kind of operation more than another. If anything it probably reduces collateral damage to civilians. And even in 1992 it was useful for civilians - it wasn't in serious use by ordinary people yet but airliners were using it from the very start, partly in response to the loss of KAL 007 in 1983. And surely merchant ships found it very handy too. So it was a poor choice of target.

      I assume he chose GPS because it was a target he could get at that was expensive. But that was tactics subordinating strategy, and in the long run that's bad news for activism.

    75. Re:Ok then... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      NO. These people are NOT crazy. They are the few rare CLAIRVOYANT SEERS out there. They are the canaries in the coalmine of history.
      Ever since the fall of the Berlin wall... your lives have become increasingly controlled and channeled along a narrowing path of servitude by Corporations and Government. You don't realize it because it happening very slowly. It is not designed to make YOU feel excessively stressed to the point you'd rise up and take action. It's designed to be tolerable, to own as much as it can from and of you, your children, your grandchildren. The Pre-Berlin freedom you had to think, move, associate, act independantly is being ripped apart. You are being mined and databased and used in every way possible.
      "Driver licenses", photos, databases, rules and regulations, GPS and cameras everywhere recording 24x7x365 into permanent archives that you do not control and have NO say in, license for this, license for that, license to take a piss and fuck your girlfriend, smoke some "legal" pot, drink a beer, have a bank account and have a baby. Torture, censorship, free speech zones, one party politics, surveillance, papers please everywhere.
      NONE of this existed decades ago. And it has done NOTHING to benefit you. ALL OF IT has been enacted by Corporations and Governments AGAINST YOUR FREEDOMS. Sit the FUCK down and THINK about this, free your mind for a moment and REALLY THINK ABOUT THIS. YOU ARE BEING FUCKED AND USED.

      These people aren't crazy, they know EXACTLY what is going on and you would be WELL SERVED to listen to them and take action to roll it the fuck back to the stone age right where it all belongs.

    76. Re:Ok then... by Khashishi · · Score: 1

      1. Run for office.
      when that fails, go to 2
      2. Lobby people in office.

    77. Re:Ok then... by khallow · · Score: 1

      Whoa there, Reductive Jack... we also value the ease of mind rule of law provides when it sets _enormous_ disincentives to doing illegal Nazi experiments on unwilling or duped participants, for just one example. It's that rule of law that would give me the courage to go Socratic method on you at a dinner party, until you either said, "Uncle", or tried to weasel out of your love letter to the Tuskegee Experiment by claiming you didn't really say that thing you really said.

      I don't see anything above in the form of Socratic questioning. So let's start this off properly with the questions you should have asked instead:

      What do I think is the purpose of medical care?

      To help us live longer and better given the constraints of the world we live in - particularly the economic constraints. We have frail bodies and minds. I also will point out at this time that medical care does help. This means the whole exercise is not pointless.

      What do I think is the purpose of medical research?

      Medical care is deeply imperfect. There is no physical reason (as in thermodynamics, rather than trying to wring out an indefinite life span from our current crude knowledge) that we can't live in a healthy, vigorous state for as long as we desire. And I don't rule out radical medical care such as completely redesigning the human body or uploading human minds into a computer.

      What do I think is wrong with current medical research?

      I'll discuss that third question in a minute.

      Now, in your post, aside from the tiresome and baseless bragging, there are two interesting aspects. First, why mention "rule of law"? Is it somehow physically impossible for legislators to pass laws allowing forced experimentation on human test subjects? Or are you implying that because they exist, the current laws must be best possible and any backsliding on these laws quickly slides down the slope to complete lawlessness?

      Second, why mention "ease of mind", but not whether medical care and research actually works? Is it more important that my mind is "eased" rather than if I'm living a vastly longer, better life? Is it more important than whether or not humanity loses a war with the machines?

      I think this "ease of mind" cuts to the core of what is wrong with modern medicine. We have many regulators of medical research. But they only get in trouble, if something bad happens to research subjects on their watch. They have no responsibility or incentive to care about what didn't happen due to the constraints they impose. That's why I said:

      That's because we value the lives of the few people who could be exposed to harm in a medical experiment more than the billions of people whose lives could be improved greatly by the results of the medical experiments.

      Because the people we delegated this responsibility to have those incentives. And a lot of the problems of modern medical care, such as its extreme cost, lack of competition, and glacial pace of progress are due to that fundamental obstruction.

    78. Re:Ok then... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know..
      Back in 1990 they were saying that these GPS systems would be used by robots to blow people up on the other side of the world.
      Fucking CRAZY people..

      Oh wait!
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drone_strikes_in_Pakistan
      http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/nov/24/-sp-us-drone-strikes-kill-1147

    79. Re:Ok then... by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      In the mid 80s there was quite buzz about the 'biggest database in the world'.

      It was known to contain links to every person you had ever repeatedly called on the phone. We call it metadata today. Basically a social network graph database.

      Some called us paranoid at the time.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    80. Re:Ok then... by dimeglio · · Score: 1

      Well even if you just read the summary, he succeeded in bringing some awareness albeit at great personal cost.

      --
      Views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of the author.
    81. Re:Ok then... by SvnLyrBrto · · Score: 2

      It's not really hard at all to defend Assange. In fact, he should never have needed a defense in the first place. Though he may be something of an attention-seeking douchebag; he's also never, to my knowledge, been either a citizen or resident of the United States. So there's no legitimate reason for him ever to be subject to our laws or for him to pay heed to them in any way whatsoever. Our government's subversion and manipulation of both the Swedish and British justice systems in order to (try to) get their clutches on him is overreach and abuse of the highest order.

      And while they may not be quite so heinous as the abuses revealed by Snowden (Though the collateral murder video is particularly damning of its participants.), there are plenty of wrongdoings that were revealed by Wikileaks well before anyone had ever heard of Snowden.

      --
      Imagine all the people...
    82. Re:Ok then... by tibit · · Score: 1

      They do not have a point. Suppose that the GPS was in civilian control. It still could be used for drones and nuclear warheads. Basically nobody asks these people the most basic question of all: suppose you have your way, what would be acceptable to you? The unfortunate answer is: nothing is ever acceptable to those nutjobs. Really, that's what makes them the nutjobs that they are. As long as you have a satellite-based global positioning system, it's equally available to anyone, everywhere, for whatever purpose. That's the basic premise of the thing. There's no way, technically or otherwise, to regulate its use. What those nutjobs want is a pipe dream.

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    83. Re:Ok then... by tibit · · Score: 1

      USPS also scans every mailpiece. Seriously, they do, and have been doing for almost two decades.

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    84. Re:Ok then... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Calling them "crazy" is an ad hominem attack because their point of view is considered marginal.
      What he engaged in was "asymmetrical warfare", which is what you MUST do when you can not effect the change you want in the same manner that the coercive state can do.
      The posters below only attempt to justify the "crazy" tag, but there's no mention of what other redress he might have pursued with any chance of success.
      Grass roots politicking clearly does NOTHING in the modern USA.
      I, too, am intrigued to hear how he might have otherwise acted to, in his not-so-esteemed opinion, "improve" the lives of all of his co-citizens.
      Assume, for a little moment, that his cause is NOT "crazy", and ask yourself, what COULD I actually do that would work?
      I'm stumped so far ... I don't agree with his cause either, but his actions seem quite "sensible" if you did agree with them ...

    85. Re:Ok then... by ultranova · · Score: 1

      When they start comparing reality to sci-fi apocalypse movies then there is a problem.

      And yet the ability to tell stories - to take a premise and run a mental simulation to see the consequences - is what allows you to plan your actions. Even your ability to walk depends on it. There's no difference in principle between "if I cross the street without looking both ways, I might get run over by a car" and "if I build autonomous weapons, they might turn on me". Heck, the case could be made that all the fictitious stories about a nuclear apocalypse is what kept it from happening, since they made sure no one was the least bit uncertain about the results.

      --

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

    86. Re:Ok then... by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      Perhaps because here, where we're not stuck with a two-party system, politicians and political parties live and die by the ballot box :-)

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    87. Re: Ok then... by rickb928 · · Score: 1

      They may be wrong, but they are working for the Left in America.

      Owning the majority of the media is wording.
      Winning elections is working.
      The courts are working.
      And they are now beginning on usurping local police.

      Only opposition can still them, obviously.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    88. Re:Ok then... by design1066 · · Score: 1

      "Step away from the crazy person..." That being... you.

    89. Re:Ok then... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let's look at the flipside of that question: ways NOT that?

      Which the person in the article choose: violence (destruction of property).

    90. Re:Ok then... by HornWumpus · · Score: 3, Informative

      Even with the editing, 'Collateral murder' showed normal legal war.

      Assange is useless. Wikileaks doesn't do anything Cryptome didn't do better first.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    91. Re:Ok then... by nbauman · · Score: 1

      USPS also scans every mailpiece. Seriously, they do, and have been doing for almost two decades.

      That's right. I was surprised when I first found that out. In fairness to the New York Times, they put it on the front page. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07... The USPS did it under cover of the War on Terror.

      The post office has long had a program of "mail covers" (if you want to search Google) where they would copy the sender and addressee of every piece of mail, at the requests of the FBI or other law enforcement agencies, for people like Martin Luther King. They could find out who read the Daily Worker or The Nation. Now the the USPS scans the mail automatically to read the addresse's address, so they can just save the scan permanently. The courts have decided that it doesn't violate the Fourth Amendment, and doesn't require a search warrant or judge's permission. You can easily imagine that it could be subject to abuses, like the ones the NYT gave. It's one thing to use it to track down letters with deadly poison. It's another thing to monitor the owner of a radical bookstore, or for Sheriff Joe Arapaio to use it to monitor his political enemies, or even to use it against victimless crimes like prostitution.

    92. Re:Ok then... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      U.S. troops didn't move at night when GPS wasn't available in Kuwait and Iraq. Those wars and their consequences couldn't have been envisaged without GPS.

    93. Re: Ok then... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Like the Unabomber, they're not so much crazy as just... Fixated on a single problem. Well, maybe that is crazy.

    94. Re:Ok then... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      With a name that has "A Mind Slue" as an anagram what do you expect, sanity?

    95. Re: Ok then... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're

  2. In the hands of a soldier anything is a weapon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There will be corprate equivalent in the not too far future.

  3. Funny Quote from Article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "It doesn't make any sense to me," Dean said of the incident, which is believed to be the first such break-in at the Seal Beach plant. "I liken it to breaking into a hospital and wrecking equipment used for health care."
    Context: Dean is the spokesperson for Rockwell International

    In other news: the spokesperson for Fruit of the Loom compared Ned Ludd's smashing of stocking frames in 1779 to drowning adorable puppies in a river.

    1. Re:Funny Quote from Article by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It takes a pretty straight face to describe GPS satellites as being analogous to 'equipment used for health care' in 1992, when the system's major use had been its (largely successful) guidance of assorted munitions and troops during Desert Storm...

      At least now you have a much wider variety of civilian applications, some even not related to tracking, to point to in addition to the system's primary role.

    2. Re:Funny Quote from Article by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      At least now you have a much wider variety of civilian applications, some even not related to tracking, to point to in addition to the system's primary role.

      To be fair, the system's primary role is arguably figuring out where you are without a sextant. They'd have done it even if they couldn't have used it for bombs and cruise missiles because it didn't work at higher speeds or something.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    3. Re:Funny Quote from Article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The shit? I'm the AC who made this point and I get 0 mod points but the guy replying to me reiterating it get's 4, Interesting?

      My Slashdot comment moderation ego e-penis is bruised!

    4. Re:Funny Quote from Article by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

      That is likely fair; though I would be curious to know if construction of the system would have been delayed by some years or decades if it turned out to be useless for those purposes: GPS is much more elegant and powerful, as well as useful for timekeeping and available more or less worldwide; but there were various RDF/ADF systems in use in specific areas at least as far back as WWII, and something like the LORAN system was comparatively mature and, being all ground based, cheap, before the first GPS satellite ever launched.

      Sooner or later something GPS-like would almost certainly have become either cheap or compelling enough to be put into place (if the mind-blowing money pit that was the Iridium constellation before it was sold at bankruptcy to the present operators could be rationalized, GPS certainly could); but if it didn't offer something compelling to munitions and missiles I would not have been surprised if ships and troops and civilian applications had been allowed to handle themselves with existing radio beacon technologies and other inferior-but-available options for years, maybe a decade or two, longer.

    5. Re:Funny Quote from Article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Lesson: you want credit for your comments, don't be an anonymous coward. Nobody wants to waste mod points on ACs.

    6. Re:Funny Quote from Article by JoeMerchant · · Score: 2

      So, in a battle between automatic rifles and flint-locks, which side has the advantage? You might need over 10 flint lock equipped soldiers to take down each soldier on the other side who is carrying an AK-47.

      Now, give one side sextants and binoculars and the other GPS and aerial imagery of the battlefield. If the flint locks get the GPS, they've got a fighting chance of 1:1 parity... if it goes the way it did in Desert Storm, the winning side has lower casualty rates in-theater during battle than they do back home during training.

    7. Re:Funny Quote from Article by Isaac-1 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      LORAN-C had lots of limitations, range from the transmitter, the fact that it did not directly read out as a location, instead gave a pair of time delays, limited accuracy, etc. I was working around small coastal boats back in those days, and I can tell you that GPS even then when it had limited hours of daily coverage due to an incomplete constelation in the late 1980's was already revolutionary for even small craft. I still have a small handheld GPS from those days, well not small by todays standards, it read out Lat, Long, speed, heading, etc. on an LCD screen, a set of batteries lasted about 8 hours, so it was best to plug into external power, took 5+ minutes for a cold boot, and 1-2 minutes for a warm sync if you were lucky.

    8. Re:Funny Quote from Article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  4. So would that make them hacktivists then? by not_surt · · Score: 5, Funny

    Well?

    1. Re:So would that make them hacktivists then? by circletimessquare · · Score: 2

      they used axes, not hacksaws

      so axtivists

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    2. Re:So would that make them hacktivists then? by not_surt · · Score: 1

      I've tried hacking with hacksaws but the blades always break on me.

    3. Re:So would that make them hacktivists then? by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

      you're such a hack

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    4. Re:So would that make them hacktivists then? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Axes of Evil!

    5. Re:So would that make them hacktivists then? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well?

      Wacktivists.

  5. Hacking activists by Gyske · · Score: 0

    It appears that hacktivism has been around longer than I thought...

  6. Comment subjects need more letters, i can't put a by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Yeah, keep on keeping Lumsdaine! ... believing in your nutcase dreams.

    Military uses everything you use in your daily life, shoes, pens, water. Everything should be banned. Ain't that right chief?

  7. The Aftermath by SuperKendall · · Score: 4, Funny

    I like to imagine an engineer coming in the next morning, and crying like the Rancor handler when he beheld the work the axe had wrought.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  8. Well done, smart guy by maugle · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Congrats, you just took an axe and destroyed a multimillion dollar satellite. Clearly the backers of the GPS system will now see the light and shut the project down forever ... ... or maybe they'll just build another satellite and make the average taxpayer pay an extra dollar.
    Seriously, jackass, you don't "bring the public's attention to the government's attempt to control the world through modern technology" through actions that make you look like a frothing-at-the-mouth luddite.

    For all his talk of doing what's right instead of what's convenient, the actual right way to bring his concerns about the government and the military to the public's eye would have been to find like-minded people, form a group, start some grassroots activism and some protests to get exposure, and work towards getting his issues on a ballot. But, no, that would be too slow and inconvienient, so he decided to go the easy route of instant gratification by smashing some satellites.

    1. Re:Well done, smart guy by hooiberg · · Score: 2

      Not slow and inconvenient. It would require intelligence. If you attack satellites with an axe in a matter not unlike Don Quichote attacking wind mills, you sadly lack this virtue. Planning and building up to seriously influencing politics is way out of their league.

    2. Re:Well done, smart guy by nbauman · · Score: 5, Insightful

      For all his talk of doing what's right instead of what's convenient, the actual right way to bring his concerns about the government and the military to the public's eye would have been to find like-minded people, form a group, start some grassroots activism and some protests to get exposure, and work towards getting his issues on a ballot. But, no, that would be too slow and inconvienient, so he decided to go the easy route of instant gratification by smashing some satellites.

      That is awfully naive. A presidential election costs each candidate $1 billion, and they raise the money mostly from billionaire contributors and corporate interests. Politicians don't listen to grassroots activists, they listen to $100,000 contributors.

      A lot of people did just what you described to try to stop the Iraq war. It didn't work. So we killed 650,000 innocent people and handed over Iraq to ISIS. Good work, Bushie! (BTW, there were no WMDs.)

      A lot of people did just what you described, after Obama was elected, to push for a single payer health care system, and when that didn't work, for a public option, but they couldn't match the big lobbying groups, like the drug industry, the hospitals, and the insurance companies. So now you have to pay $8,500 a year for health care.

      Even Martin Luther King couldn't get anywhere without some pretty powerful supporters who could raise a lot of money and pull some political strings. (And the FBI was tapping his phones.) I'm not sure MLK could have done it today. He might have wound up with a 20-year sentence for terrorism.

      The U.S. is getting economically more unequal, the plutocrats are running the country, the Republicans have figured out a way to fool most of the people most of the time (TV), and I don't see a way out. If some radical wants to take direct action, doing something crazy that seems pointless to me, I can't tell him that I have a better way. If we're going to talk about futile destruction, destroying a $50 million satellite makes a lot more sense than signing up to fight in Iraq.

      http://www.buzzfeed.com/kateno...
      Bernie’s Reasons Why Not
      The progressive champion weighs running for president. “The situation is fairly dismal.”
      Kate Nocera and Ben Smith
      BuzzFeed
      March 4, 2015
      (Bernie Sanders may not run against Hillary Clinton for 2 reasons: (1) It has to be done well, or people will say that the ideas themselves don't have support. (2) It may be impossible to raise enough money to compete with Hillary Clinton, whose network plans to raise $500 million.)
      “The depressing part about that is that even if you did something phenomenally well — say you have 3 million people giving a $100 contribution each, which would be an enormous achievement — you’d be raising one-third of what the Koch brothers say they are spending.”
      “The question then occurs whether or not at this point in history you can beat the money folks,” he muses. “It may be that they have too much power and too much money and a real progressive may not be able to take them on.”

    3. Re:Well done, smart guy by rikkards · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Actually Iraq handed over Iraq to ISIS since as usual:
      1. most they had similar religious beliefs so why would they fight them
      2. some ran away dropping their weapons
      3. rest got overrun and executed

      And actually there were WMDs and they found them. Problem was that they were made by allies to the US and they didn't want to embarrass them. Side note BBC had a great documentary that covered the buildup. Essentially they had one guy that was feeding the CIA info on WMDs but they were skeptical. Problem was higher ups (Wolfowitz and Cheney) decided to take him on face value until it was literally too late.

    4. Re:Well done, smart guy by BitZtream · · Score: 0

      So we killed 650,000 innocent people and handed over Iraq to ISIS. Good work, Bushie! (BTW, there were no WMDs.)

      Innocent? We have different definitions of the word if you think your number is accurate.

      Bush didn't had Iraq over to ISIS,Obama did, after people like you got all pissy that we were still there helping them to move on after hundreds of years of being run by evil leaders.

      Saddam regularly and publicly did everything he could to make the world believe he had WMDs, mostly because that was the only thing he could do to keep Iran from over running him, so there was pretty solid reason to believe he actually did have them.

      But hey, don't let your ignorance cloud your ignorance, go right ahead with your head up your ass about the way all that really worked

      You have some fucked up mental block that prevents you from see the world as it actually is rather than the way your told it is by the politicians YOU happened to believe in.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    5. Re:Well done, smart guy by Overzeetop · · Score: 1, Informative

      "We have to pass it and THEN find out what's in it."

      How stupid a sheeple do you have to be to be to believe that drivel? Every single word was written in plain English in a bill that had been largely published for years, and then amended with language which *by law* is read aloud to the congressmen (they don't even have to know how to read) as long as they are actually at their workplace during business hours and don't decline the reading. Every. Single. Word.

      You are a fucking moron for believing what you hear from the people who decided - 10 years after they drafted the bullet points of this plan themselves - they didn't like it.

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    6. Re:Well done, smart guy by swb · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I'm not sure MLK could have done it today. He might have wound up with a 20-year sentence for terrorism.

      King probably would have had his plagiarism and adultery exposed in the media, which would have served to discredit him. That's how they do it these days.

      I'm reading a book about airliner hijackings, "The Skies Belong to Us" and one of the central hijacker subjects was an African American whose father was a career Navy sailor. He was assigned to a station in Coos Bay, Oregon until his family was basically driven out by the town's racist behavior -- thugs at their house, demanding they move, his mother spit on by women(!) at the grocery store and his 10 year old son beaten in school so bad he was hospitalized. All of this happened to a basically middle class black family in the Pacific Northwest, not to some sharecropper in Alabama, and something that never made the news or became a publicized incident.

      So on the other hand, it's difficult to really grasp the magnitude of racial discrimination and hostility of that era in today's era. I think even Fox News viewers would find some of the pre-Civil Rights era behavior shocking and repulsive, so it's hard to know exactly how the public would treat someone nonviolently resisting this kind of oppression even if he was "exposed".

    7. Re:Well done, smart guy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yet even though that was true, none of the people voting on it knew what was in it. Just because it's written down doesn't mean anybody has read it. It means some people have read some parts of it, and the people who have read those portions may not be the people voting on it.

      And I'll also point out the "read aloud to the congressmen" part is BS. How many pages was it? I know it was over a thousand. Yes, lets stop congress for the next 3 weeks, while it's read aloud.

    8. Re:Well done, smart guy by jo_ham · · Score: 1

      You have no idea how bills are passed, do you?

      It really shows.

    9. Re:Well done, smart guy by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      Don Quichote

      Don Quixote. Or possibly Don Quichotte, if you're an opera fan.

      Or were you referring to Donald Quichote? If so, my bad....

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    10. Re:Well done, smart guy by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      (BTW, there were no WMDs.)

      Chemical weapons are WMD's. Whether they should be so included or not is debatable, but they ARE listed as a type of WMD.

      And there is no doubt whatsoever that Saddam was using chemical weapons on his Kurdish population.

      In other words, yes, there were WMD's.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    11. Re:Well done, smart guy by DarkOx · · Score: 1, Insightful

      No actually Obama handed Iraq to ISIS. I can agree Bush went in there with some very naive thinking and it was probably a bad idea. After the fall of Sadam and some initial missteps by Rumsfeld and Bremer the Bush administration learned from their mistakes.

      The Iraq situation was in point of fact one of nearly continuous improvement from that point forward until Obummer took office. Obama having campaigned on getting out of Iraq elected to ignore all of the advice the out going Bush people tried to pass along. He essentially went back to the failed Rumsfeld policy of trying to believe hard enough the Iraqies were ready to self govern.

      Predictably without constant council and American support Nouri al-Maliki turned to his Shiite friends, who would not agree with you about being religiously similar to their Sunni counter parts (who ISIS and Al-queda are mostly made up of). The Iraqi army turned and ran not because they did not want fight ISIS but because they were incapable of doing so and knew it. Thanks to Obama not keeping some control of the reigns in Iraq Maliki and his Shiite supporters had replaced the well trained professional folks in the Army with Shitte flunkies. Which by the way still make up the Iraqi Army/Government today!

      Remember Sadar City? Yup its that Sadar that is contributing a huge part of the force we are now backing against ISIS. The idea we are assisting some legitimate democratic government in Iraq is a pure farce, Obama admin propaganda and nothing more. Its just a slightly different group of Terrorists that are we hope in the short term slightly less hostile to us. Iraq will always be Bush's fault, he got us into that mess. Still Obama has done quite literally nothing right since he has been in control. Obama's failure to accept and of the painful learned lessons by the Bush administration is what so much of Iraq is in the hands of ISIS today.

      Meanwhile there is Libya. You'd think after opposing the Iraq war while in the Senate because its a bad idea to just topple governments with no plan and create a power vacuum Obama would have enough sense to not under take a "kinetic military action" to topple Qadffi (who had been recently cooperative with our war on terror efforts) but no he is just so much smarter than Bush, his foreign invasion would just naturally be successful right? Nope Libyians today are not better off, and ISIS is using Libyan territory too. Similarly helping the Syrian rebels has done nothing but prevent Assad from crushing them as he likely would have if we'd stayed out of it; ISIS is leveraging that mess as their central home.

      We have Obama's policy failures to blame fore ISIS being more than a tiny disowned branch of Al-queda operating in the fringes of Iraq. Iraq might be Bush's fault but the blame for ISIS false squarely on Obama and Hillary.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    12. Re:Well done, smart guy by argStyopa · · Score: 1

      And you know how I know you're full of shit?
      The idea that the plutocracy is solely a republican thing.
      Oh no doubt, they bear half the blame, but the country is and has always been majority democrat: and hell, congress was a democratic lock for what, 50 years?
      I've always been astounded at the cognitive dissonance necessary for tendentious people like yourself to assert that "it's all those dirty republicans".

      For every Koch (which you invoke with the trembling nervousness of some medieval priest talking about Satan), there's a Soros, or a Bloomberg, or a few of them, actually: http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry... "Democratic super PACs continue to attract more money than their Republican counterparts, due in part to a huge amount of support from deep-pocketed mega-donors."

      How naive are you?

      --
      -Styopa
    13. Re:Well done, smart guy by Zaatxe · · Score: 1

      Some centuries ago, crossbows were "modern technology the government could use to control the world". Nutjobs seem to lack hindsight when they blame technology, they fail to see that even fire and the wheel are technologies. They issue flyers against technology forgetting that printing is a technology. People like this should be sent to the loony bin, since they can't perceive reality.

      --
      So say we all
    14. Re:Well done, smart guy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So the president didn't go on TV and say "If you want to keep your plan you can; If you want to keep your doctor you can," then? Which were blatant lies, either that or the president is an idiot and didn't know what was in the bill.

    15. Re:Well done, smart guy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obama wanted nothing to do with Iraq from the beginning. But, there are no good options for dealing with ISIS for him.

      ISIS would have risen up wherever there aren't dictators in the Middle East.

      If we weren't addicted to oil, the whole Middle East mess wouldn't be an issue. Iraq wanted to switch to the Euro, Libya wanted to switch to gold, and both were toppled soon after...

    16. Re:Well done, smart guy by dave420 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Bush invaded for no good reason, created a power vacuum, disbanded the army, and let sectarian violence flourish. Obama couldn't fix that any more than repairing a broken dam shortly after it's fully breached. Once the tribes had taken over, ISIS had little centralised opposition. The only areas of resistance were the Kurdish areas, and that was only because Bush left them alone after the invasion. Hell, ISIS were born from the Iraqi insurgency, which was only as successful as it was because of the poor decisions made after the invasion.

    17. Re:Well done, smart guy by dugancent · · Score: 1

      Right or not, once you refer to people as "sheeple", your argument is invalid.

      --
      SJWs are the new boogeyman. -Me
    18. Re:Well done, smart guy by dave420 · · Score: 2

      Yeah - innocent. Being an Iraqi doesn't make you magically guilty. ISIS were born from the Iraqi insurgency, which was only as successful as it was because Bush removed Saddam and disbanded the army (returning thousands of weapons-trained men to civilian life, without a salary and without security). Whether Saddam wanted everyone to know he had WMDs or not doesn't matter, as the US simply made up their intelligence. We know this. It doesn't matter if the person after Bush made it better or worse - without Bush there would be no "it".

      Stop pretending it's Dems vs. Republicans - it's standard US foreign policy being continued. It's been this way for decades, and will continue to do so until someone or something stops the US from fucking over parts of the world for bizarre reasons.

      Don't talk so strongly about mental blocks when you so clearly have one the size of the Titanic parked in your brain. It's not becoming.

    19. Re:Well done, smart guy by dave420 · · Score: 1

      He might have used them in the past (when the US sold them to him, for example), but they had all been destroyed. The remnants found in Iraq were degraded to the point of not being WMDs (as in their potency had weakened to the point they could not cause mass destruction), and mostly left in caches since the Iran/Iraq war of the late 80s. Some were stolen from weapons testing sites (where they were tested for leakages, etc.), but they had also degraded. The notion that he had stockpiles ready for use is bizarre, as no-one is claiming that. There was no on-going WMD program in Iraq, precisely the opposite of what Bush et. al claimed.

    20. Re:Well done, smart guy by hooiberg · · Score: 2

      I was attempting a reference to anti-hero Don Quixote, from literature. Thank you for educating me.

    21. Re:Well done, smart guy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hello! The US disbanded the Iraqi Army when we invaded in DSII! Err 'Enduring Freedom' ... (What a joke slogan...)
      Earliest mention of ISIS, or Daesh, online, comes from 2006. Iraq handed over itself? There was a power vacuum that we created. SOMEONE, was going to step in. And apparently, we didn't give a shit who that was.

    22. Re:Well done, smart guy by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      Politicians don't listen to grassroots activists, they listen to $100,000 contributors.

      Yup. This is largely due to the fact that voters don't listen to grassroots activists either - they do whatever the ads on TV tell them to do, maybe augmented by whatever the union boss or preacher down the street tells them.

    23. Re: Well done, smart guy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or maybe He thought there was not enough time?

    24. Re:Well done, smart guy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you either want him to go efficient (is ISIS, Breivik, RAF, Timothy McV. efficiency good enough for you?) or join establishment. I do not know about you but I think that what they did is better than more efficient murdering of few scientists, bombing HQ of a company or some other terrible thing and joining the enemy is just not an option here either. So - just go on as you do and hope when they come to you it will be more like sharp razor cutting your arteries then a grizzly taking a bite at your belly and leg or maybe even they just rape you in the arse and with some lubrication you can survive that with some dignity.

    25. Re:Well done, smart guy by Scottingham · · Score: 1

      You do realize that many people, including me, don't see this problem in the RED TEAM vs BLUE TEAM terms you lay out. Democrats and Republicans are two sides of the same ass-penny.

      Whenever I hear people like you shout 'bbbut bbbut the democRATS did it first! They do it too! waaaa, blame them!!!'

      Well buddy, I blame both. So kindly sit on a partisan pole.

    26. Re:Well done, smart guy by DarkOx · · Score: 1

      Hell, ISIS were born from the Iraqi insurgency, which was only as successful as it was because of the poor decisions made after the invasion.

      No contest. Its Bush's fault, but Bush nearly had it fixed. Things were going quite well in Iraq when he left office. Obama should NOT have agreed to remove the troops, have not consented to turn the security operation over to the Iraqi government. He should not have done Libya and we should not have backed the rebellion in Syria, we should be treating the ISIS government in Egypt as a the coup it is/was.

      Those are the reasons ISIS is what it is. Those are all Obama/Hillary decisions. The outcomes were all highly predictably too, for anyone who was paying attention to the immediate after math of the Iraqi invasion. Obama and most of the people who seem so proud of their opposition than and now were to busy rubbing everyone else's face in it to learn anything. If they had the draw down would have been delayed. You can see this attitude still reflected in the media bias. Libya is a failed state now, and ISIS is there. Yet you hardly hear about anything buy Iraq. Face you and a whole bunch of others are trying to give Obama a free pass, but the fact is he made LOTS of AVOIDABLE mistakes, the SAME MISTAKES Bush made. When you have the benefit of seeing what the guy right before you got and do the exact same things, that's deeply pathetic.

      The sensible alternative is just let ISIS have its day. Don't go back to Iraq, don't fight them in Syria or Libya. ISIS can't govern its not like the Taliban in Afghanistan was. The Iraqi, Syrian, and Libyan people know what a modern society looks like, they won't stand for ISIS style brutality for long. At worst it will be a perpetual series of unending uprisings and tribal conflicts. It will keep them to damn busy to attack us or Western Europe, Iran and Egypt are almost certain to be drawn in as well. We will get to find out how effective the Iranian army really still is. The nuclear issue will go away because Iran will devoting all its resources into boarder security.

      The ONLY choices are go big or go home. Either we need a large enough occupying force and enough direct influence of the the decision makers in places like Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya, Yemen, and possibly Egypt or we should get the hell out! To do otherwise is going to result in spending a steady stream of treasure and American lives that only keeps things to a slow simmer over there with plenty of lawless territories for terror cells to workout how to blow up Western shopping malls and magazines. It will never end.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    27. Re:Well done, smart guy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here's a tip, when you blame stuff on "the Republicans" you're part of the problem, not part of the solution. Cast your gaze a little wider.

    28. Re:Well done, smart guy by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Never encourage snarky idiots.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    29. Re:Well done, smart guy by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Good thing to do with ISIS? Supply it's opponents with enough weapons to reach stalemate. Not enough to win.

      Their opponents are mostly no better, we can give the Kurds enough to win, but not the Shia.

      See also: The Iran/Iraq war under Reagan. That was very well done.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    30. Re:Well done, smart guy by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      So long as you include Saddam in the 'et. al' and recognize he was bluffing and had it called.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    31. Re:Well done, smart guy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bush et. al

      Bush and all our major allies. And then remember when Obama was elected and world peace broke out and everything has been rainbows and unicorn farts since then?

    32. Re:Well done, smart guy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You sheep.

    33. Re:Well done, smart guy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      King's plagiarism and adultery would (or at least should) be a significant problem, as it suggests very strongly that he can't be trusted ad would betray you for the sake of pleasure or expedience (as he did his wife). However, if he repents of it and moves on (forsaking that behavior), then there wouldn't be a good reason to let him be discredited.

      Weak and broken families with absentee / infidel dads are a major problem in the black community. This can be mitigated somewhat by passing children off to their grandparents (if available and responsible). Otherwise, kids who grow up without rules or discipline can be expected only to become uneducated, violent criminals as adults. Upholding King as role model, but acting dismissive toward his shortcomings only compounds this problem (though this is applicable to pretty much anyone).

      As for the discrimination and hostility these days, it ought to be vanishing and evident only in a few obscure hateful individuals and groups, but this would be a somewhat naive conclusion. The irrational (racist) hatred & violence (as practiced by groups like the KKK) has largely subsided, but there is a one-sidedness to reporting which is quite liable to bring it back in a somewhat more rational form.

      The pattern these days goes like this: White racists groups say stupid things occasionally, but they only get attention to the extent to which it is useful for rhetorical purposes (almost always with the politically correct stance against). Black racists say and do dreadful things, but they get the blind-eye sort of ignored (or even get portrayed as the victims). Whenever there is violence between black and "white" (just about any ethnicity goes), and the white guy can plausibly defend himself (such as self-defense or investigating an ongoing crime), you can expect a great deal of media attention to be given to race-baiters (an actual white racist attacking a black guy [unapologetically] would simply be boring, as pretty much everybody would be agreed on what to think).

      Sooner or later, it can be expected that white people are going to stop trying to feel guilty when they haven't done anything wrong, and start getting annoyed (or even angered) when the false accusations keep getting bandied about. Pushing people around is an easy way to drive them toward actual racist groups (particularly when "haven't done anything wrong" is all that can be said of their morals).

    34. Re:Well done, smart guy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Problem was higher ups (Wolfowitz and Cheney) decided to take him on face value until it was literally too late.

      If Cheney and Wolfowitz thought Iraq had WMD in a literal sense (that is, weapons that Iraq could use to cause mass destruction in the USA) then they were incredibly reckless to go to war with Iraq. Had they been correct about literal WMD then their decision to go to war with Iraq would have resulted in major US cities being reduced to rubble - or, at the very least, the deaths of millions of Americans.

      But they probably didn't actually think that Iraq had WMD in a literal sense. Instead they were probably hoping to find a few unconventional weapons that would allow them to claim that Iraq was in violation of it's cease fire agreements - and that they weren't committing a class A war crime by waging a war of aggression.

      Incidentally, that's also probably what Hilary was thinking. As a senator from New York, she probably wasn't intending that the US attack on Iraq would result in the destruction of New York city with Iraq's literal WMD. Instead, she was probably hoping for a "rapist gets off on a technicality" discovery of some unconventional weapons that would allow her to claim that she wasn't technically guilty of class A war crimes.

    35. Re:Well done, smart guy by argStyopa · · Score: 1

      I absolutely didn't shout "Democrats did it first!".

      Hell no, I was complaining about the former guy (nbauman's) assertion that it was ONLY Republicans to blame.

      They are both absolutely the same basement of the outhouse. The Huffpost article mentioned only talks about 2014 donations being led by Dems. 2012 was Republicans.

      --
      -Styopa
    36. Re:Well done, smart guy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Think this is a troll? It isn't, look it up. Just because you don't agree, doesn't mean this is a troll.

      Here's a shocker for you, Lincoln was a Republican. Jim crowe laws, they were all from Democrats in the south (look up Governor Wallace, among many others). You've been brain washed. Look it up. If you're a democrat, you're a racist and part of the problem.

      Who sent in troops in the 1950s so a black kid could go to a white school - it was Eisenhower. Sure, Johnson signed the civil rights bill, after he was able to defeat it under Eisenhower and the third time it came to his desk as President. Even then, he had no choice. There were riots out there.

      So don't be bashing Fox viewers, they have it right. You're part of the problem if you listen to the crazy leftist media.

    37. Re:Well done, smart guy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > But, no, that would be too slow and ineffective, so he decided to go the easy route of instant gratification by smashing some satellites.

      Fixed

      I agree that taking an axe to a satellite won't change much; but don't pretend that this subject is that simple. There are hundreds of thousands of grass roots organizations in the world; and the wide majority of them do not change squat in the political realm. And said wide majority are not focused on convincing the major world powers to restrain themselves from equipping their militaries with modern technology. If one does legitimately believe that society is rapidly headed for a technological nightmare, a decades-long bureaucratic battle against several governments (who will always have much larger pools of funding, better access to the media, and legal capabilities unavailable to private groups) is a waste of time.

  9. In news at hand: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Moron is still a moron 20 years later.

  10. Why call them activists? by Celarent+Darii · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Why call these nuts activists? They are just destroying public property. We call that vandalism.

    Seems like you can do whatever the hell you want, just call yourself an activist to excuse your behaviour. Maybe I should go tear down the neighbours hideous lawn ornaments in order to save the world from bad art so I can be an activist.

    It doesn't matter what you want to draw attention to, destroying the property of someone else should just be called for what it is: destruction of property.

    1. Re:Why call them activists? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Because intention matters. No matter how misguided these people were, they didn't do what they did because they wanted to destroy property as such, they wanted to slow down GPS deployment as much as they could. That makes them activists rather than vandals. Not necessarily effective activists, or morally good activists, but activists all the same.

    2. Re:Why call them activists? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      > ..destroying the property of someone else should just be called for what it is: destruction of property.

      Kind of like dumping tea into the ocean to draw attention to the unfair taxes being levied on people.
      History judges us all, even more harshly if our activism is crushed.

    3. Re:Why call them activists? by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 1

      I was surprised that he got only an 18 months sentence. But it sounds like he learned his lesson.

    4. Re:Why call them activists? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because intention matters. No matter how misguided these people were, they didn't do what they did because they wanted to destroy property as such, they wanted to slow down GPS deployment as much as they could. That makes them activists rather than vandals. Not necessarily effective activists, or morally good activists, but activists all the same.

      So, by that logic, the guy who shot MLK was an activist. Is that what you're saying?

    5. Re:Why call them activists? by houghi · · Score: 1

      Remember those people who threw tea in the harbour? How would you call them?

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    6. Re:Why call them activists? by coolsnowmen · · Score: 1

      Even in hyperbole, Lets separate murderers from non murderers please.

    7. Re:Why call them activists? by dave420 · · Score: 1

      Vandalism is an act, activism is a motive. The two are entirely orthogonal.

    8. Re:Why call them activists? by hendrips · · Score: 1

      I would call them vandals too - I assume you are referring to the Boston Tea Party. The lead up to the American Revolution was mostly a series of thinly justified acts of vandalism, hooliganism, and general recalcitrance by the American colonists, fueled by an alarming amount of anti-royal paranoia. While Parliament and the royal governors often responded to these provocations tactlessly, it does not excuse the colonists' bad behavior. The fact that the Revolution was successful, and that much good ultimately came out of it, does not change the fact that the Sons of Liberty were assholes.

    9. Re:Why call them activists? by Celarent+Darii · · Score: 1

      The "Tea Party" was the destruction of property by a bunch of hooligans.

      If you actually read history, you should know that there were other cities in the colonies that simply refused the tea to be unloaded from the ships. The question was of 'taxation without representation', so they blocked the tea from unloading unless they also had representation in proportion to the taxes they would have to pay from it. The ships in Philadelphia and New York returned home without unloading the tea as dictated by the local governors. In Boston however they destroyed the property, not even allowing it to return to its owner.

      And actually, if you study history, the Tea Act actually made tea cheaper for the colonies, in such a way that it threatened the rival Dutch merchants. It should be pointed out that many of the Dutch merchants took part in the protests as it was completely in their self interest. Even Samuel Adams proposed the same solution that was proposed at New York and Philadelphia - send the ships back. It was only at the crowds dissatisfaction with the meeting that a small group (30-100 they say) went to ransack the ship Dartmouth. You can read a simple summary of these events in the Wikipedia page.

      The entire mythology that this band of miscreants was 'upholding their rights' is pure propaganda *after the fact*, as a kindling to the sentiments of independence and to escape the paying the cost of the damaged property. Even the expression "The Boston Tea Party" is from the 19th century, and not before. To say that this band of miscreants somehow had the right to destroy what wasn't theirs is simply nonsense. In fact, if you see the history which took place in other British colonies, the Tea Act was eventually repealed and they obtained greater independence, without the need of a bloody and protracted revolution.

      [disclaimer: I studied in Cambridge, Massachusetts, I know Boston very well. The "Boston Tea Party" is a nice myth, but no serious reader of history in the original sources can claim that the Tea Party was somehow a purely patriotic act. It was the work of discontents that probably wasn't organised and certainly not planned by the main leaders of the American Revolution. It was only afterwards that it was used as a symbol of their intent and resolve.]

    10. Re:Why call them activists? by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      AC brought intent into the discussion. Apparently someone thinks 'activist' is a positive descriptive word. It's completely neutral.

      The unibomber was 'an activist'. An activist with a complex mental construct he was killing to defend. (This a little muddled by all the people who read the 'logicyness' of his manifesto but were too stupid to see it made no sense at all. Some even call it 'genius' because it agreed with some of their preconceptions.)

      Charles Manson is a pro helter skelter activist.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    11. Re:Why call them activists? by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      The English weren't assholes as well? They mostly still are.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    12. Re:Why call them activists? by Celarent+Darii · · Score: 1

      But materially they are the very same act. The Tea is destroyed no matter for what reasons you do it.

        Motive has a certain relation to culpability, in that motive often determines the moral judgement on the act.

      If a person places a bomb and destroys a store, there is damage. It makes no difference if you call him a terrorist or activist, the damage is the same. The words 'terrorist' or 'activist' is trying to give a moral judgement on the act by somehow defining his motive. Indirectly 'activist' means there is some larger issue that the writer wants to explain to the readers. "Terrorist" means he is just an enemy to be eliminated.

      Thus I think 'vandal' is the best word, as it describes more clearly the physical act without reference to his supposed motives. Calling him an activist implies that his motive is somehow morally defensible.

    13. Re:Why call them activists? by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      The tea act theoretically made tea cheaper. But it remained illegal for anybody but the English to import tea to the colonies.

      The fact the dutch were running tea into America isn't that relevant. They were smuggling and had the only reasonably priced tea anywhere.

      The English had constructed a legal monopoly on tea imports and used it to partially fund their empire. Tea at the time was valued at about the price of gold. There is a deep story behind the expression 'the price of tea in China'.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  11. Imagine.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ..if all the satellites would unexpected turn off. The BBC did A day without satellites

    Things would go downhill globally pretty fast.

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

      So all these guys need to do is wait for a extreme solar event and they will get what they want. Kind of scary to think about it.

    2. Re:Imagine.. by ledow · · Score: 1

      We'd go back to the late 1950's at worst, and the world would keep on spinning.

      Major problem, obviously, but not the end of the world given that we've only had them for 50-something years. And I'm sure those 50+ years of other technologies could catch up and cope quite quickly even if ever launching a satellite again became completely unviable.

      A lot of doomsaying is given about lack of modern technology, but I think we miss how new it is, how much other technologies can pick up the slack, and quite how we can adapt to cope without almost anything.

      Within the space of my lifetime we gone from phones tied to a cord to phones that work on the top of the highest mountains, play games, take photos, out-process the computers of the previous era, etc. and we barely noticed them slip into modern life. Though we'd notice more slip OUT of modern life, the adaptation is not as huge a deal as we make out.

      Your grandfather never had the benefits of satellite technology in his time (weather prediction, global communications, GPS, etc.). And he didn't have oodles of computers and worldwide cabled data networks and in-car computers and whatever else either. Therefore, without the satellites, life wouldn't be worse than your grandfather's, except for a small period of adjustment.

    3. Re:Imagine.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      We may not always realise it, but we depend on space technology orbiting the Earth. So what would happen if it all stopped working? At a recent international conference on “space hazards”, I listened to a series of speakers outline doomsday scenarios. These included a massive solar storm disrupting satellite communications, a cyber attack partially disabling the GPS system, and debris knocking out Earth-monitoring satellites.

      Threats to this space infrastructure are real, and governments around the world are beginning to think seriously about improving the resilience of the systems we rely on. To focus their thoughts, and with a nod to that pioneer of threats from space, Orson Welles, here is what might happen if we suddenly encountered a day without satellites

      08:00

      There was nothing sudden. Planes did not fall out of the sky, the lights didn’t go out or the water supplies fail. At least, not at first.

      Some things did stop working straightaway but, for most people, they were more an inconvenience than anything else. The loss of television satellites meant that many families missed the cheery rehearsed smiles of breakfast TV presenters, and were forced to talk to each other over their cereal instead. There were no foreign correspondents on the radio, no results of the latest international sports fixtures.

      But outside, the loss of global satellite communications was putting the world in danger. At a bunker somewhere in the United States, a pilot squadron lost contact with the armed drones they were flying over the Middle East. The failure of secure satellite communications systems left soldiers, ships and aircraft cut off from their commanders and vulnerable to attack. Without satellites, world leaders struggled to talk to each other to diffuse mounting global tensions.

      Meanwhile, over the Atlantic, thousands of passengers watched movies, oblivious to the difficulties on the flight deck as pilots struggled to talk to air traffic control. Without satellite phones, container ships in the Arctic, fishermen in the China Sea and aid workers in the Sahara found themselves isolated from the rest of the world.

      As people started work in their offices in Tokyo, Shanghai, Moscow, London and New York, they found it difficult to talk to colleagues in other countries. Email worked and the internet seemed okay, but many international phone calls failed. The rapid communications systems that tied the world together were unravelling. Rather than shrinking, it seemed as if the Earth was getting larger.

      11:00

      As presidents and prime ministers gathered their crisis teams, a new threat to global stability began to emerge: the loss of the Global Positioning System (GPS). As far as most of us were concerned, GPS helped us travel from A to B without getting hopelessly lost along the way. It had transformed the lives of delivery companies, helped emergency services reach incidents much quicker, allowed planes to land on isolated runways and enabled trucks, trains, ships and cars to be tracked and traced. But GPS turned out to be much more pervasive in our lives than many of us could possibly have realised.

      GPS satellites are little more than highly accurate atomic clocks in space, transmitting a time signal back to Earth. Receivers on the ground – in your car or smartphone for instance – pick up these time signals from three or more satellites. By comparing the time signal from space with the time in the receiver – the receiver can calculate how far away the satellite is.

      But there are plenty of other uses for these accurate time signals from space. Uses that, it emerged, our society had become increasingly reliant on. Our infrastructure is held together by time – from time stamps on complex financial transactions to the protocols that hold the internet together. When the packets of data passing between computers get out of sync, the system starts to break down. Without accurate time, every network controlled by

    4. Re:Imagine.. by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      Truckers don't need gps to drive, ships can be navigated w/o gps, even ICBMs don't need gps (inertial guidance systems would still work fine). Airliners can still be navigated as well. The only ones at total risk are the idiots who, when their in-car gps says "turn right now" do so without even looking. They'll just have to park and hitch-hike, which will be an improvement.

      And the cloud? Come on - it's just servers. The lack of a super-accurate timing signal will have no more effect than it does on your home pc.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
  12. Re:Comment subjects need more letters, i can't put by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's also a stupid attitude. The damn things ARE military, we just get to borrow them until ...

    Tragic thing is they were right, crazy maybe but also right.

     

  13. Movies don't have messages! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    T2 was endless explosive action. Arnie kickedbutt, end of story. There's nothing to learn from anything, say American morons who are incapable of learning.

  14. The real issue is not the technology. by trippin_efnet · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The issue is not the technologies being used. The real issue is the governments that are refusing to tell us how they are using the technologies. We can not make informed decisions on what is being done in the name of the citizenry because we have no idea what they are doing.

    If you want to break something, break the system of secrecy the goverments are building around you. How do we do that? I have no idea.

    The common citizen doesn't have the resources -- time or money -- to accomplish real political change right now.

    I would love to see the citizens have a positive debate on ways to fix things. But, as of right now, the people who seem to care the most about our current political problems are mired in some kind of bizarre left vs right blame game. As if both sides weren't actively trying to screw us. Every debate descends into who's at fault and the inevitable leap frog back through time picking examples why it was the 'other' side who started it all.

    1. Re:The real issue is not the technology. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds like how we got Obamacare. No improvement in health care, but the insurance companies got billions of dollars.

    2. Re:The real issue is not the technology. by meta-monkey · · Score: 2

      Exactly. There's nothing wrong with technology or tools. It's how they're used that makes all the difference.

      Which is why I'm feeling kind of hopeless about the ubiquitous surveillance thing. Yes, encryption is great. It is definitely better than no encryption. But you still can't trust it.

      Are the algorithms secure? NSA already intentionally weakened one. And they employ more mathematicians than anyone else in the world. They could have cracked AES and SHA-2/3/whatever years ago and how would you know?

      Can't trust your software. Even FOSS. See the Underhanded C Contest. And I'm calling it now that systemd is a plot to infiltrate and subvert the Linux ecosystem by the US military via the Red Hat corporation. I know, I know, tinfoil hat, but 8 years from now it'll be "duh, everybody knew that!"

      Can't trust your hardware. Corrupted harddrive firmware. The binary blobs that are the heart of your cellphone radio. Intel's locked-down bootloaders.

      And that's just the shit that's obvious or that we know about. If you have a near limitless budget, insanely smart people, government authority to do whatever you want, and no conscience, well, sky's the limit. If it were my job (and I were evil) that's absolutely what I'd do. Hell, just have an agent apply for a job at Apple, Google, Microsoft, Cisco, etc etc and sneak in whatever vulnerabilities you want.

      You can never lock everything down. There's too many attack vectors, and the adversary is very good at what they do.

      And you can't "secure" the services that make everything work together, anyway. Your phone company kind of needs to know where your phone is to route calls to it, and they need to know what calls you make to whom in order to bill you for it. And someone HAS to have the root password to that database for it to work.

      No, the only way to stop this is a political system that makes such attacks against the citizenry illegal, an oversight process, and severe penalties for those who violate your rights.

      For instance, in my job, I have full, back end access to the hospital database. I can see all your medical records, all your billing records. I have to in order to do my job (data warehousing and analysis). OH NO YOUR MEDICAL RECORDS AREN'T SECURE! Umm, yes they are. What I do on the database is logged, there is a internal review board and a privacy office who reviews all internal requests for data, no non-aggregated data leaves the organization, and there are severe penalties for misuse of your records. HIPAA. If I mistakenly misuse your records, I'm fired. If I maliciously misuse your records, I go to felony prison. And that's actually enforced.

      No technological solution can keep your devices and communications secure. It has to be a political system, and the political will is not there to establish such a system. Half of Americans WANT the government tracking everything they do. There's no real pressure for lawmakers to act, and whenever they do they put in so much weasel language it makes no difference. "The government is forbidden from doing awful things A, B, and C. Unless it has a good reason to."

      Is what it is.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    3. Re:The real issue is not the technology. by PPH · · Score: 1

      The real issue is the governments that are refusing to tell us how they are using the technologies.

      We are the enemy. Telling us anything would be providing information to the enemy.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
  15. There is no such thing... by Savage-Rabbit · · Score: 1, Insightful

    "I had to slow the deployment of this system (which) makes conventional warfare much more lethal and nuclear war winnable in the eyes of some,"

    There is no such thing as a winnable war, nuclear or otherwise, and anybody who thinks there is such a thing has either never experienced war or that person is dumber than a palette of bricks.

    --
    Only to idiots, are orders laws.
    -- Henning von Tresckow
    1. Re:There is no such thing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not sure Lockheed Martin, Boeing, BAE Systems, Raytheon, Northrop Grumann, General Dynamics, United Technologies, Finnmeccanica, Thales, L-3 Communications, Almaz-Antey, EADS, and many more companies would agree with you. They love wars. Nothing but win.

    2. Re:There is no such thing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds like something a loser would say.

    3. Re:There is no such thing... by circletimessquare · · Score: 2

      you're talking about perpetual war, different concept from winnable war

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    4. Re:There is no such thing... by Kjella · · Score: 1

      If the two of us ever get into a fight to the death, I'll gladly be the loser walking away.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    5. Re:There is no such thing... by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      If the two of us ever get into a fight to the death, I'll gladly be the loser walking away.

      This.

      And Mr. "There is no winnable war" needs to re-examine even some recent history. Does he really think that reborn, modern economies like Germany's represent the outcome of a war not won by those who reacted to that country's earlier aggression? Does he really think that the communists now running Vietnam didn't win their conflict? Does he really think that the rebels in the American colonies didn't win their war with the British crown?

      Gaseous platitudes about such things made in an attempt to wish away groups like ISIS (if we just say that wars can't be won, they'll stop lopping off people's heads, right?) are ridiculous. War is horrible, but they can and have been won. Ask the Imperial Japanese Navy.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    6. Re:There is no such thing... by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      Sure there is. How do you think the Tamil Tiger rebels aren't a problem any more? Or Japanese militarists? Or Nazis? Or Communists for that matter, the Cold War was still a war.

      BTW the Communists had a plan to win the Cold War too, one that included launching every nuke in their inventory in the first hour of the war. Never a word about that one, it's one of those there inconvenient truths.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    7. Re:There is no such thing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is no such thing as a winnable war, nuclear or otherwise, and anybody who thinks there is such a thing has either never experienced war or that person is dumber than a palette of bricks.

      There are plenty of examples that invalidate this statement. Well, I suppose it depends on your definition of winning - if you insist on zero casualties and unconditional surrender by the enemy, with no bad feeling after the surrender I suppose you're right. But for any more sensible definition WW2 was categorically won by the Allies; the US Civil War was pretty categorically won by the North; the Israelis won the 6 days war and the Yom Kippur war; the English Civil War was won by the roundheads; the British categorically won the Falklands war. Even the Americans occasionally win a war - they won the first Gulf conflict.

      War is hell: I've served and I know that: but that doesn't make it unwinnable. It's a tougher question whether an asymmetric counter-insurgency war can be winnable, but again it seems to be possible. It takes a lot longer to simmer down, but the war on Northern Irish republican paramilitaries was mostly won; the post-1066 10-year insurgency against the Normans was stamped out eventually; the Viet Cong won in Vietnam (at great cost, they did result in the US leaving, i.e. a win), and so on.

      If you're thinking of the current mess in the Middle East, that has admittedly rumbled on for 14 years now, and spread significantly from 1 country to many. But here's a hint: you can't win a counter-insurgency war by making local populations hate you so much that they rush out to volunteer for the insurgency, and you probably can't win it while the insurgents, in one form or another, are being covertly funded by nation state-level actors (whether actual nation states or super-rich private individuals doesn't really matter). Address popular opinion and cut off funding and the insurgency will die out, just like a fire starved of fuel and oxygen.

    8. Re:There is no such thing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A source on that that was "the commies" plan to win the cold war?

      Because all I have seen is that they only intended to use thier nukes if attacked (with nukes) first or losing a conventional war. No where have I seen them describing retalliation nuking of the western world as winning. Only as stopping the enemy from winning.

      BTW the dooms day machine they had in place for the ICBMs was rather advanced and required a lot of manipulation to force a launch in error. That would probably have delayed thier response to any attack but it was soemthing they were willing to do to decrease the risk of nuclear winter.

      I'm not saying that it's good that the Soviets had enough weapons to destroy every major city in western Europe and the US but I still think it is the one thing that has saved the most lives in the history of technology. Even more than penicillin.

    9. Re:There is no such thing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "..There is no such thing as a winnable war, nuclear or otherwise...."

      William the Conqueror had a war against Harold of England, and he won it. A little later, the Brits had a war against Argentina over the Falklands, and they won it...

      Oh, and we had a nuclear war against Japan in the 1940s. And, guess what. We won it...

    10. Re:There is no such thing... by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      The VC were more or less wiped out during the tet offensive. The N Vietnamese won. The Vietnam war ended with a massive invasion going south.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    11. Re:There is no such thing... by fnj · · Score: 1

      There may be no such thing as a truly winnable war, but there sure as hell are losers in war. The Nazis, Italian fascists, and Japanese militarists LOST. They lost up the wazoo. They lost everything. Had the US and USSR (as examples) lost WW2 in that way, they never would have had 45 subsequent years of burgeoning influence before history finally well and truly caught up to them.

  16. Re:Comment subjects need more letters, i can't put by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    To me GPS has been a huge help and i'm not military. The fact that it started as a military project, and military continues to use it, and even if it is under military control, does not mean it's military. Maps are used by military all the time and even if not exactly started as military project, very much maps and map making has been a priority for any military for as long as people have existed.

    Once the Galileo project is up and running, well guess what, that's not a military project, since EU does not have a military. Only the individual countries have militaries, and they will most certainly use Galileo, but it's not a military project still. Mostly companies, especially companies moving a lot of stuff, will use it. The military will never use it as much.

    To me the idea that GPS systems are mostly military and need to be destroyed is a fucking loonatic idea. And the fact that the guy still thinks he did right, by stupidly breaking couple of satelites, is a moron. Not only is the idea stupid, breaking the satelites did nothing to stop it.

  17. So which way do you propose? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > There are ways to go about it, but this isn't it...

    A black person sitting in a "reserved for whites" seat in a bus isn't the was to go about apartheid. What is it, then?

    1. Re:So which way do you propose? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obey the rules because they're the rules. Blacks in the back. Don't be uppity.

      In all seriousness, FlyHelicopters is a bootlicking fascist.

    2. Re:So which way do you propose? by Entrope · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That's a lousy analogy. A better analogy in this case would be that someone offended by apartheid took an axe to the bus, and after being arrested, ranted about the white people's plot to breed black people into Morlocks. Does that help clarify why Lumsdaine is such a counter-productive "activist"? His attempt was doomed to fail -- it would not stop either the military-industrial complex, or even the particular program he went after, but would put off practically everyone who disagreed with him and some of those who did agree with him.

    3. Re:So which way do you propose? by Isaac-1 · · Score: 2

      The difference here is that Rosa Parks did not destroy the bus

  18. Axes??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    I don't know, but if I would ever be so inclined to enact some similar acts of vandalism, I might rather take a container of dust with me and dose each satellite with a little, without any visible damage. Fine aluminum powder comes to mind. Or just compromise the clean room and leave the engineers to wonder what has actually been done.

    Of course, I know next to nothing about satellites in general and the stages of development/testing the specific satellites still had ahead of them. Maybe something like that would be easy to fix with a full diagnostics suite or a cleaning procedure, who knows.

  19. It all makes sense now... by SomeoneFromBelgium · · Score: 2

    "...snuck into a Rockwell International facility in Seal Beach...".
    Oh, it was still on the ground. For a moment I thought they had attempted something stupid.

  20. Wrong target by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 1

    A lot of his concerns are legitimate, but he went about it the wrong way. Trying a publicity stunt like that against GPS is never going to work, because people are never going to be indignant about system that just enables you to determine your own position (and can't track anybody--GPS devices may track you but that's the device using the GPS results, not GPS itself). He chose a very poor target for the general trend he wanted to protest against.

  21. Ever read the Unibomber Manifesto? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The Unibomber said a lot of the same sort of things. His case was kind of strange, but he was right about a small technorati elite controlling a lot of power.

    I think some people get carried away and lose sight of the big picture. The world has always been under control by elites who had their secret plots, all the way back to priests being the only ones who talked to gods. What else is a King's court but a place to gather other elites? The military isn't important, it's who directs it that counts. Really, what's under attack is the well armed Militia, or specifically, the local police force with a Local Sheriff that's elected by the citizens. The police are being militarized and increasingly federally controlled to quash dissent (in NY they have an anti-extremist squad roaming about with long rifles and machine guns looking to put down any protests). DHS is a federal police agency -- We don't need it. Protip: Anti-war protesters, civil-rights protesters, and women's rights protesters have all been considered "anti-American extremists" in the past; Never forget COINTELPRO.

    The local police is the last line of defense from a hostile dictatorship takeover, asside from picking up pitchforks... Eisenhower saw the writing on the wall, and warned us of everything that has come to pass.

    Personally, I can accept the GREAT risk of driving my car. If I'm not afraid to drive to work, then I'm not going to be afraid of Terrorists. I don't think we need all this "anti-terrorist" bullshit, let them come and get their asses kicked; We're such a great nation that terrorists can't even scratch us. 9/11 was 1/200th of the car accidents that we have every year.

    Removing the human element from military and law enforcement (red-light cameras, drones, etc) is far more threatening than GPS. Putting more power in the hands of the few means you not only lose less lives due to drones, but it also takes far less people to suppress another group. It means you have to convince less soldiers to go against the constitution and attack their own. The NSA's databases were hacked by a damn contractor, so we pretty much know that China and Russia has spies with access to far more of their systems -- So the National Security Agency has become a big threat to national security itself.

    There will always be powerful elites, it's when their power is unchecked that we have problems. Right now the citizens can still keep the governments in check, but as we reduce the number of people required to operate an enforcement detatchment, perhaps through automated systems like drones and vehicles, phones, and PCs that respond to remote kill switches, or even self driving cars (doors lock, go directly to jail, do not pass go, do not collect $200), the power ballance may shift too far out of the reach of citizenry. Even just having a giant federal agency like the DHS install itself in every facet of life from travel to sports arena security is a reduction of local citizen control.

    The 2nd amendment was good enough when the might of our forces came from people with firearms. We're actually long past due for a new amendment: The Right to Bear Technology (including encryption). I really think If we're garaunteed such constitutional rights the Information Age may not destroy the USA. Without said right, as more of our lives are intertwined with computing machines the more erosion of our freedoms will continue. You already can't buy a car without a tracking device "black box" installed... Phones must have remote kill switches... The fork in the road ahead is impossible not to see.

    Got Root?

    1. Re:Ever read the Unibomber Manifesto? by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      The unibomber saw some obvious facts.

      But he strung them together into a schizo construct that made no sense at all. Everybody is powerless in a technological society, but they have tons of power while freezing in an unheated cabin and praying for the weather to break?

      Find where the unibomber started to feel powerless and you find the root of his psychosis.

      He was also an example of schizo IQ degradation. Every schizophrenic episode costs them about 1 IQ point. After a few years they are just dull, but they remember 'being smart'.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  22. Pity he didn't realize by jpellino · · Score: 1

    that the dual purpose of GPS birds is to detect treaty-restricted space detonations of nukes. That sounds like a win for the good guys and was part of the deal that got our nav systems up there in the first place.

    --
    "Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
  23. Axe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Luddites would like to have their axe back. These guys borrowed it a while back and haven't returned it yet. The Dutch guy said, "Next time try throwing shoes."

  24. New MMORPG endboss by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Lumsdaine the Luddite, armed with an axe

  25. Activists? How about Hacktivists? by Overzeetop · · Score: 1

    I mean, if there's ever an appropriate place for the term, it would probably be here.

    --
    Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
  26. Thank God by Alsee · · Score: 1

    Thank God he did this. If the GPS system had been launched we'd all be dead by now.

    -

    --
    - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
  27. Waiting for the "This is why.... by ScottKin · · Score: 1

    ....we can't have nice things" sub-thread in 5....4....3....2....1.... .....oh, wait.

    Seriously, though - these are the kind of people that just make me want to walk up to them and just stare at them, wide-eyed, for about 2 minutes and calmly say "What is wrong with you". These are the same kind of people that used to throw rocks at my car when I drove up the hill to 1 Cyclotron Drive in Berkeley to work at Lawrence Berkeley Lab in the 80's - total nut-jobs who, despite their obviously misguide attempts at trying to make the world a "better place", are utterly clueless as to making the world a truly "better place".

    --
    I don't give a rat's behind about "karma" here or anywhere else. Don't like what I have to say here? Deal with it!
  28. No regrets, are they still under arrest? by SargentDU · · Score: 1

    I wonder how the court system handled their destruction of Millions of dollars of equipment at a company working on a project for the United States? Their UN-repentant attitudes should have gotten them life for that magnitude of damage.

  29. So...wait, let me get this straight... by Kaitiff · · Score: 1

    These NUTBALLS break into a secure facility, WITH WEAPONS and maliciously damaged a multi-million dollar satellite system...... and they got 18 months. Meanwhile, go into a theatre w/ a cell phone and cam a movie and receive life in a gulag. Yep.. our justice system is working as intended.

    I would say my comment was tongue in cheek, but I'm afraid that appendage has already been chewed off.

    --
    If I sound stupid, it's not me talking....
    1. Re:So...wait, let me get this straight... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      cam a movie and receive life in a gulag.

      Has that ever happened?

  30. From the article by Rei · · Score: 1

    Generally while doing this, I don't pause to consider how that blue dot on a screen is a function of at network of multi-million-dollar satellites in space sending signals to and receiving signals from my phone

    (Morbo voice) "GPS Does Not Work That Way!!!"

    --
    You know when it's okay to shout fire in a crowded theatre? When it's on fire.
  31. New Target by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How about the tethered blimp that is watching now? GPS - how would the war with ISIL be going today without it?
    The Tech is cool, it is the size of DC that has gotten out of control. Tell Washington to STOP SPENDING MY MONEY!

  32. Axis to grind by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    GPS just makes it easier most military systems have other options at their disposal they could still navigate by translit, astronav, tercom, inertial ref..etc.

    Taking an axe to military comms sattelites would have been much more useful if your goal was to degrade offensive capabilities... yet still dumb, pointless and stupid.

    Instead of smashing things perhaps you should work to build political consensus for your perspective... I know I know too hard too much work... smashing things = good = easier.

  33. Re:Comment subjects need more letters, i can't put by dave420 · · Score: 1

    1992 is not 2015. Just a thought!

  34. Smashed the wrong tech. by Anonanonaon · · Score: 1

    This story only proves that Hollywood has more influence than god over people's beliefs and actions.

    -It's too bad the satellite lab didn't have a surplus of giant yellow barrels of explosive fluid stacked conveniently among the servers like they are in the movies.

    As it stands, the unique signal weakly broadcast from the chip on my credit card can be tracked from orbit. And General Keith B. Alexander, even retired from the NSA, remains the kind of lying sack of shit who learned how to do so while looking you straight in the eyes.

  35. Stupid Childish Vandals by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And best of all, the stupid ass still hasn't wizened up any.

  36. Fucking luddites by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hope they go extinct one day.

  37. The Harriet tubman Sarah Connor Freedom Fighters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I remember reading about this in College..... Pehaps the EE times.

    it was reported that the group called themselves ....."The Harriet Tubman Sarah Connor Freedom Fighters"

    Priceless

  38. Google and robotics by RogueWarrior65 · · Score: 1

    There's an interesting article in today's WSJ (03/06/15) about a current DARPA contest involving humanoid robots. A Tokyo-based company lead the early trial run. That company was just bought by Google who then withdrew that robot from the competition. Google has been quietly acquiring similar companies including Boston Dynamics. It appears that Google is trying to flex some moral muscle to keep robots out of military hands. Sure, there will be other companies that will fill the void but I'd venture to say that Google is going to try to sue them all for patent infringement.

  39. Dynamite by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just fire a rocket up from some island without and extradition treaty with the US. Send up a few tons of ball bearings rigged to detonate laterally, sending the bearings into near earth orbit. The cascading effect of this as it impacts other objects in near earth orbit is theorized to escalate to the point of making near space unusable. No more GPS, television, internet, ICBMs, telecommunications, NSA. Of course recent developments suggest this may be happening on it's own.
    The end result would be the collapse of modern states leading to mass starvation. Bad for you and me, likely great for the planet. Time heals all wounds.
    BTW I'm not advocating doing this, just a mental exercise in logistics.

  40. People like that need to be by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    banned from watching movies.

  41. Coordinate axes? by TMB · · Score: 1

    Am I the only person who read "axes" in the headline as "plural of a Cartesian coordinate axis", not "sharp metal wedge on a stick"?

    I was expecting the summary to talk about confusing GPS using an esoteric mathematical axis transformation, not hitting it with an ax!

  42. Re: Comment subjects need more letters, i can't pu by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The EU does have a military, the European Rapid Reaction Force, and can use the forces of all its member countries if need be. Galileo can and will be used for military purposes. Don't be naive.

  43. Conventional war more lethal? by PPH · · Score: 1

    And nuclear war winnable?

    This guy is a moron. GPS (and other technologies) make precision guided munitions possible. Which means smaller and fewer warheads are needed to take out a target. So, they reduce collateral damage and the need to escalate to strategies like carpet bombing. Or nuke the entire region to take out a few select targets.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  44. Sounds like.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This could be a very good sub-plot line for Machete Kills Again - In Space.

  45. Re:Ok then... Hedy Lamar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    With a mind that could sink a thousand ships...

  46. Commendable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They did the right thing.

  47. I find it amusing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...that in general, much of the younger slashdot/reddit/etc community love the concept of futuristic societies like those in say...Star Trek....but often *claim* to dislike being "on the grid" so to speak. Sorry, but you don't get futuristic always connected smart societies without everyone being very, very much on the grid and in face even dependent on it. It's pretty funny...living in Hawaii, we get a ton of wannabe activists, hippies, protesters who head out this way and shack up on a remote corner of Maui or Kauai in some old plantation house. Some of these people are in the tech/software industry with me..and will proclaim that they are "off the grid" because they have only solar/water catchment and don't have cable tv subscription. I laugh because they have an iPad with data subscription, an Android tablet, an iPhone, a MacBook pro, a fitbit and other gps fitness device along with subscriptions/accounts to sync data as well as an ISP.

    Being off the grid is like "fucking loving science" nowadays. Popular to say, almost no one want's to do it..and more honestly *could* do it if they wanted..they are just too ill prepared for that life in reality.

  48. Extremists ... by Martin+S. · · Score: 1

    Extremist are rarely able to reconsider their opinions when proven wrong. That is what makes them extremists in the first place.

  49. 18-month sentence by wiredlogic · · Score: 1

    If anyone did this nowadays they'd be facing 20 years minimum.

    --
    I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
    1. Re:18-month sentence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      where were the guards that should have shot them?

  50. The completely wrong approach. by superdave80 · · Score: 1

    He wanted to bring attention to the future problems of GPS. Fine. But I think he went about it in the worst way possible:

    Grab an ax and start banging it on the side of a satellite.

    Yeah, that will work great, because people generally think highly of people wildly swinging an ax around while destroying public property.

  51. Better weapon != more damage by GuB-42 · · Score: 1

    The goal of GPS is to make weapon more accurate, which is a good thing.
    When your weapon are inaccurate, you compensate with more firepower and it results in more collateral damage. It's because of low accuracy that we had monstrosities like the 100Mt Tsar Bomba. The idea was that even if we missed the target, the blast was big enough to take it down.

  52. Re: Comment subjects need more letters, i can't pu by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I said Galileo will be used for military purpose also, but it will be used commercially much much more.

    Really, the rapid reaction force? They have never even deployed them.

  53. Re:Comment subjects need more letters, i can't put by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Please explain what you are refering to, you are too clever for me.

  54. Their one mistake by Kevin+Fishburne · · Score: 1

    Using forged steel axes instead of stone axes. Fucking hypocrites. I'd have jumped up and down howling and beat it with animal bones.

    --
    Buy your next Linux PC at eightvirtues.com
  55. Someone had to say it... by neanderslob · · Score: 1

    The original "hacktivists"

  56. Double-edged sword by Xylene2301 · · Score: 1

    Historically, tech developments like gunpowder, splitting the atom, air flight and GPS are double-edged swords and it's rare that they don't entail some risks to human society. Once the tech is invented, fighting it with an axe is pretty much pointless. There's no putting the toothpaste back in the tube. The best thing to do is promote the beneficial uses and try to take the edge from the destructive uses. All the guy with the axe did was cost the taxpayers some money.

  57. They got off light by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Only 18 months? Should have put those assholes away for 10 years, if not execution.
    Sure, military is responsible for so many things we have today. So many things. To destroy that equipment was nothing short of stupidity.

    Reminds me of the non-lethal bullcrap. Some people developed non lethal methods. The military simply took those non lethal methods to drive people to where they could use lethal methods to kill them. While they have their uses, sometimes I think we're better off without them. Like the guy a woman policeman shot a man because she thought she was tazing him, instead she shot him with her side arm and killed him. She thought - no biggy, it's just a taze.

  58. tinfoil hat by lucien86 · · Score: 1

    I was going to say, 'Put your tin foil hat on son'. But the tin foil hats never worked. The trouble was the voices were already inside. 'They told me to do it, destroy the evil machine people who lived inside the satellites. I had to do it.'
    'I solved the problem now, took a big drill to my skull, drilled out a nice big hole and scooped out ... Now everything's much better, nice and empty and the voices have gone.' Oh hang on I'm dead the government must have done it. Now where's my foil hat?
    [sarcasm]

    --
    Below the speed of light Special Relativity is one of the most accurate theories in physics - above the speed of light..
  59. Peter Lumsdaine took his axe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Gave the NAVSTAR 60 whacks

  60. Can't halt time... by iq145 · · Score: 1

    We have to let the world go as it will. Maybe our time here is truly meant to be finite.

  61. $50 million in damage by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

    Back then, $1 million was about what a person could expect to earn in a lifetime. Such deliberate damage, with malice of forethought, should be treated the same as if he had murdered 50 people.

    --
    Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate