They're not allowed to stop everyone they are curious about.
You are incorrect. On a public roadway a police officer can pull you over based on reasonable suspicion. Of course the cops really have better things to do than harrass you all day.
Many, many people have been pulled over for routine violations (missing taillight, seatbelts, etc) and are subsequently arrested for DUI or drug possetion.
Well, we can't have people being arrested for crimes they're actually commiting now can we?
Assume you have a worldwide audience, and each listener listens for an average of 4 hour a day (that's a lot by radio standards) Each listener only costs one dollar a month.
You'll be paying the minimum fee until you hit 42 of these 4 hour/day 365 day/year listeners. For non-commercial stations that number would be 147 listeners. I don't think most hobby stations which usually don't broadcast 24/7 anyway can claim anything close to that.
You're off by several orders of magnitude. It isn't $.07/song, it's $.0007/song. That makes your figure $6 a month. If that's all you owe you'll wind up paying the minimun which is $500/year. I have hobbies that cost a lot more than that and I'm sure most Slashdoters do too.
So either cough up 10s of thousands of dollars to pay for your theft of copyrights for the last 4 years
If you are a commercial station playing 10 songs an hour you would owe $60 per listener/day/year. $20,000 would mean you had 80 listeners at a time 24 hours a day for the last 4 years. Most of these webcasters haven't even been around that long.
Doesn't matter that you only had, say, 10 listeners at a time
See above. The rates are based on simultaneous listeners.
the stuff you play doesn't belong to RIAA labels
You are entitled to make any arrangement you chose with the copyright holder. If you have permission to play the music for free, you don't have to pay royalties.
or that you had 0 income related to your webcasting.
Non-commercial brodcasters pa significantly lower fees. The RIAA origianlly suggested a scale based on gross receipts, this proposal was rejected by the webcasters.
You still owe.
Of course you do. And everyone in this business has known this was coming for quite some time now. They have also known that the fees would be retoractive when they were determined. Most of these broadcasters will wind up paying the minimum fees.
Lots of broadcasters have been crying and tearing garments, but so far none have come up wiht any figures to back up the claims that they will be bankrupted by this.
You must have stopped after the first paragraph. The article goes on to point out the the original Wescams were useful to film makers who only used them for weeks at a time, but the maintanence requirement s made them useless for law enforcement and military. The newest generation totaly elimites the mechanical gyros and is mostly solid state making it much more useful. The author also points out the different needs of Hollywood and law enforcement. Next time, please read the whole article. Thank you.
Not usually one to feed trolls, but "Melanin" is the skin pigment. "Melatonin" is a hormone. But WTF does warning people not to go out in the sun and get skin cancer have to do with global warming?
Interesting fact: i have seen "ethernet switches" sold which have collision lights. It makes me wonder how dumb the network cards are by that comapany that they can't get their own carrier detection right.:) Either that or they are selling to the masses something which doesn't do actual switching, or has such a pitiful buffer that it still needs a collision light.
You missed the third option, which is that they know more about Ethernet than you do.
There is nothing wrong with putting a collision light on a switch. Ethernet and Fast Ethernet switch ports can certainly have collisions.
In older networks switches are frequently used to agregate hubs. Even though the switchport represents a single collision domain, if you plug a hub in there may be many hosts. It is very likely you will see collisons on the switch in this case. It is also likely that you will see collisions on Half-Duplex segments with a single host if it is very busy. In this case however you should see very few.
In Full-Duplex mode collisions cannot occur, and in fact collision detection is turned off. Do not make the mistake of assuming that because a single device is plugged into a switchport that its operating in Full-Duplex or that you won't see collisions.
The most common way to misconfigure a switch is to have all the ports set to auto, and the hosts hardcoded full duplex.
Disclaimer: I am a CCNA, however i saw my classmates for who they were. A trained monkey could pass those classes.
Since the amount of overhead really varies with the transmition medium it makes a lot more sense to use Byte=8 Bits and then add a fudge factor for overhead. It's easy to say it takes 10 bits to send a byte on a serial link, but in networks you have to take into account things like MTU, different protocol headers, CRCs and congestion limitations.
Please put down the CCNA study guide and back away slowly. Ever since the invention of switches most people haven't had to worry about collisions. We're talking about full duplex, 2 hosts on a collision domain. In other words no collisions. If you are getting collisions on GigE or switched FastE you are doing something very wrong.
I don't know much about making CG, but I do know about making movies, and I can tell you the studios really don't care about TCO. Do you think Lucas cares whether it cost $80 million to make EPIII on Linux or $85 Million to make it on SGI? He doesn't.
They are gravitating towards open source, because it allows them to do what they want to do, faster and in house not because it is cheaper. The only people in Hollywood who care how much a movie costs are the ones making them on their own dime who had to get a second mortgage on their house to do it. Folks like Lucas care about making the movie exactly the way they want it, and they LOVE when they have to create the tools to do it. How many times have you seen director on press junkets saying something like, "No one had ever done this before so we had to invent the technology ourselves . You really have to see it." You'll never hear, "We used off the shelf hardware and stock footage to make this scene, and saved a few dollars."
This is not a good example of Linux and open source lowering TCO. This is an example of people who have unlimited money, need extreme flexibility, and insist on controlling all of the smallest details finding a tool that meets their needs.
If Hollywood really wanted to save money they'd stop supplying craft services to the extras.
Agreed. But my point is that there WERE procedures in place before 9/11 that called for intercepts, the situations in which they were called for were just apparently lacking.
The ADIZ (and DEWIZ in Alsaka) is simply a buffer zone to allow NORAD to identify all tracks entering US airspace. In the link you copied, you'll notice that identification of unknown tracks is initiated by NORAD, not ATC, but idntification is performed by ATC not fighter jets. NORAD is not Customs or Boarder Patrol. Once they establish that you aren't a cruise missle they aren't going to care what you are. It will be up to the FAA/Customs/Boarder Patrol if you get busted or not.
This is what the FAA has to say about ADIZ intercepts:
"Identification intercepts during peacetime operations are vastly different than those conducted under increased states of readiness. Unless otherwise directed by the control agency, intercepted aircraft will be identified by type only. When specific information is required (i.e. markings, serial numbers, etc.) the interceptor aircrew will respond only if the request can be conducted in a safe manner. During hours of darkness or Instrument Meteorological Conditions (IMC), identification of unknown aircraft will be by type only. The interception pattern described below is the typical peacetime method used by air interceptor aircrews. In all situations, the interceptor aircrew will use caution to avoid startling the intercepted aircrew and/or passengers."
In other words, they don't care who you are and what you are doing. They just want to know what TYPE of aircraft you are flying. You could be "intercepted" in your Cessna flying across the boarder and you wouldn't even know it.
This isn't using the military to enforce the law against U.S. citizens. It is using the military to protect U.S. airspace, something I consider much more important than protecting some of the countries we choose to protect.
The terrorists on 9/11 would not have responded to an intercept. Besides, that requires time and distance, a luxury that you don't have over that part of the US. The only option would be a shoot down, but when do you make that dicision? Police officers aren't allowed to shoot fleeing suspects in the back (something about due process) but you would advocate shooting down US commercial aircraft without time to make an informed dicision? That's assinine.
It doesn't cost any more to pay a fighter pilot (already employed by the military) to be ready to fly in 5 minutes, and it doesn't cost significantly more to park a pair of interceptors near the end of the runway rather than in the hanger with no weapons on board.
If you can have fighters in the air in 5 minutes, within 5 minutes of any airspace in the US, you must keep all civil aircraft at least 15 minutes from any major population areas. How do propose to do this? Most major airports are IN cities. Once a plane is 10 minutes off it's ground track it could be in the White House, the Pentagon, Sear's tower, Downtown LA, the Statue of Liberty, etc. F16's wouldn't have done any good on 9/11.
I agree, I don't want MPs on every street corner like in Israel.
They aren't MP's they are soldiers, and unlike most of the NG at airports in this country they have real bullets, and they are quite well trained. They still can't prevent suicide bombers. What makes you think we can with less invasive steps?
I agree that the diversion of domestic planes was unexpected (notwithstanding recent news regarding the info the FBI had), but what if (hypothetical) Cuba decided to send a few "commercial jets" our way?
If they were tracked from Cuba they would probably be forced down at a field in Florida and met by Border Patrol/Customs/USCG most likely NOT military.
What if a foreign air force "came in low" over the Atlantic?
I know of no foreign airforce that could accompish this, but if they did quite simply we would be screwed, yesterday today and tommorow. If a foreign airforce can fly across the Atlantic with enough force to do damage and get here undetected, does it matter what we do when they get here? Should we set up SAM sites on the Eastern Seaboard?
If you try to fly from Mexico into the U.S. without talking to ATC, you'll get an escort.
Prior to 9/11 you wouldn't get a fighter escort. Most likely you'll just be shadowed by Customs or the Coast Guard to your point of landing. But this has nothing to do with obeying ATC or fear of terrorists. It has everything to do with unlawfully entering US airspace. Of course this is a completely different problem than US planes diverting from their filght plans.
If you violate restricted airspace, you'll get an escort.
Depending on the reason for the restricted airspace, this might happen today, but not a year ago. There is restricted airspace everywhere, and it is violated all the time. Usually you'll just get a stern warning from controllers, sometimes nothing. If it's a big deal the FAA may be waiting for you when you land.
We don't need fighters in the air 24/7, but we should have fighters on strip alert around the country. Always.
Aside from the great expense this would generate for very little benefit (what would the fighters do exactly) there are legal issues as well. Federal law prohibts the use of the military to enforce the law against US citizens, this is why the Coast Guard and ot the Navy conducts interdiction against suspected smugglers. If the planes aren't aready in the air they'll never do any good anyway. The controllers at Dulles recognized the threat and notified the White House when the plane that hit the Pentagon was 14 miles away, this was after both Trade Towers were hit, and most everyone had an idea of what was going on. That would give fighters less than a minute and a half just to be there and watch the plane crash into it's intended target.
Did they change the airspace rules again? Last time I checked most airlines fly above FL180, in Class A airspace. Of course they also have to fly in Class B (at the largest airports) or Class C (large airports) airspace if they want to land, and they'll have to fly through Class E airspace to get there.
The lesson is: fly every ATC instruction as though he's trying to kill you. Sure, it's his responsibility, but it's your life.
No it isn't, and that attitude has killed hundreds of pilots. I suggest you reread the FAR's. As PIC it is always your responsibility to fly the plane safely no matter what the guy on the gournd tells you.
The airplanes I like to fly (tube-and-fabric taildraggers, sailplanes, aerobatics) cost $20,000. TCAD-like [collision avoidance] devices are around $20,000 installed. See the problem?
I don't see the problem. The FAA already mandates aircraft carry certain equipment in controlled airspace. If they mandate TCAD for certain airspace, you'll either have to comply or stay out.
Planes deviate ALL THE TIME, even in the Class A. Airplanes have radio failures, even in the Class A. Pilots get busy and don't respond to ATC. They might even have an emergency that causes tehm to lose contact and deviate from their assigned course. This actually happens quite frequently, even in the Class A. I don't know where you got this image you have that above FL180 everyone is just trotting along within feet of their assigned path talking to ATC every 30-45 seconds.
If you don't have radio comm with ATC or if you ignore ATC instructions for any significant period of time, you WILL get an F16 escort. That's why that golfer that bought the farm in SD after flying without comm from FL had an F16 escort long before the plane went down.
You might today, but most likely not. A year ago your certainly wouldn't have. The first thing a controller will do if you are NORDO is communicate with other aircraft in the vicinty to keep them out of your way and try to establish visual contact. The only place you would likely see jets scrambled prior to 9/11 would be in the defense zones. Payne Stewart's plane had an escort, because it was clear that it was on autopilot, and no one on board was in control. However, F16's were not scrambled to intercept, controllers requested assistance from several F15 fighters on training maneuvers in the area. The plane was also not deviating from it's course, it just never stopped climbing after departure.
It's also why it's kind of weird we couldn't scramble any planes to help out on 9/11. Not suggesting any conspiracies, but one has to admit we responded faster to the lone golfer flying over the country off flight plan than we did to 4 commercial jets doing so.
Pure FUD. It isn't weird at all. NO PLANES WERE SCRAMBLED IN THE PAYNE STEWART CASE! Once it was clear that the plane was going to just keep on flying it was escorted by fighters to make sure airspace was clear and track it's progress. Prior to 9/11 there was no protocol in place to scramble fighters for anything. This would require alert fighters on the runways at bases all across the country and CAP 24 hours a day. We had that for a couple of weeks after 9/11, but it stopped some time ago.
There was no indication of hijacking on any of the planes on 9/11. None of the controllers talking to either of the planes had any idea about the others, or what was really going on. When the first plane crashed into the WTC, almost everybody thought it was an accident. Even in DC where there has been restricted airspace over the White House for years, there are hundreds of incursions every year. Prior to 9/11 most of these simply resulted in stern warnings. Even post 9/11 jets aren't scrambled everytime some pilot forgets his "immediate turn" when departing National.
You're citing something you saw over a decade ago as current events? I have been in several towers and TRACON facilities since then, and I have never heard of such a thing.
What type of facility does the FAA operate in Jefferson City, MO? It must have been TRACON or ARTCC since tower controllers are usually just looking out the window anyway. Maybe someone was pulling you leg.
Could you please cite a refrence for your fanciful story of controllers with flipping screens and numbered flags? Or did you hear that "from a friend who knows a guy who works in a tower somewhere?"
What you propose has been available on Cisco routers for about 2 years. It's called TCP Intercept:
"When used in intercept mode (the default setting) it checks for incoming TCP connection requests and will proxy-answer on behalf of the destination server to ensure that the request is valid before then connecting to the server. Once TCP Intercept has established a genuine connection with the client and the server, it then merges these two connections into a single source-destination session. It offers a zero window to the client to prevent it from sending data until the server sends a window offer back. In the case of bogus requests, its use of aggressive time-outs on half-open connections and support of threshold levels for both the number of outstanding and incoming rate of TCP connection requests, protect servers while still allowing valid requests through."
You post makes little sense. You say that you were inticed by payola based not on money, but on promotional materials from bands you didn't like?
You ignored the bands you did like because they can't afford to compete? Even an unsigned band must have CDs they could give away. It would be even easier to get interviews, autographs, personal apperances etc. These types of things are very expensive for major artists, but cost next to nothing for smaller labels. This seems like a playing field where they could compete.
Might that be because they're too busy working on current death penalty cases, which have a "deadline", so to speak? Most death penalty opponents seem to focus on a particular case with the aim of saving that person, and once he's been executed, there is little urgency to continue.
I doubt this is the case. If it is then these groups are bigger fools than I gave them credit for. Convincing demonstrating that an actually innocent person had been executed would probably result in calls for a moritorium.
I read the two ACLU articles you quoted, and I must say that I'm shocked the ACLU is against the death penalty. Since I can't seem to track down any of their sources I am dubious of their biased interpretation.
Okay, simple question: how does killing these people make society safer, if they're already convicted and sitting in jail?
Nobody ever escapes from prison do they? Have you ever heard of parole? Do you think that having a bunch of prisoners, who have already been given the worst sentence they can get, have no chance for parole, and will be in prison for the rest of their lives no matter what they do makes prisons a safer place to be? No matter what you sentence a person to they may be released from prisio in the future. You cannot control what future legislatures or judges will do. This is a fact. Hundreds of people who were in jail for "life without the possibility of parole" have been released. You cannot claim that a life sentence is equivalent to the death penalty.
It seems to me that taking a "life means life" approach, where a life sentence means you spend the rest of your life in jail unless your conviction is overturned, is the most reasonable approach to murder and violent crime.
People sentenced to life in prison are usually released. Even if you could change that, why should we support the most henious criminals for the rest of their lives? Prisioners are expensive; the morst violent ones even more so. A prisoner in jail for life with no possibility for parole is bullet proof. You can't control him with promises of rewards for good behavior, because he'll never get out. You can't punish him for bad behavior, because the ACLU won't let you. No, you just have to build more prisons, hire more guards, and suppport these bastards for the rest of their lives. No thanks.
How many [innocent people] have been put to death by the state for being "the right people"?
None. Zero. Zip. Zilch. Not a single one. You can be confident of this because all those orgs counting the innocents being released have been desperatly trying to find an innocent person who had been executed for the last hundred years and they haven't been able to come up with a single case. The innocent people being released is simply further proof that the system works. After all, they were released.
Bear in mind that is is only a teensy tiny fraction of those being released who are actually found innocent of the crime for which they are convicted; in most cases these people's sentences are commuted, or they are released because of some legal technical or procedural problem.
If soilders deliver food, is that aid? If the Army sets up mobile hostpitals and administers vaccines to children is that a "humanitarian programme"?
If the combined allied forces release millions of Jews, Poles, and Blacks from concentration camps where they were patiently waiting to be executed is that a military action?
The problem with using you terminology is that all of these things are in fact military actions, and yes, it upsets a great many people all over the world when the "meddling superpowers" engage in these actions. It doesn't change the fact that it is the right thing to do. If you are claiming that 9/11 is the price we pay for being the good guys then all I can say is, bring it on. Because we sure as hell aren't going to back down from what we know is right to avoid upsetting you delicate constitution.
I hope you are very happy in whatever world it is that you live in. You are welcome in the real world anytime you chose to join the rest of us.
I may be wrong but I don't think it is the humanitarian programmes overseas that make the USA unpopular.
You are indeed wrong. Most of the atrocities in the world are created by people when you help the people who are disadvantage in these situations you piss off the people who put them in the situation in the first place.
Help the Kuwaitis, piss of the Iraqis. Help the Iraqi people piss off the Iraqi government. Help the Somalis, piss off the warloads.
I think the interferring in local politics and dropping bombs and stuff tend to make more enemies.
That's why we only (deliberately) drop bombs on our enemies.
I do actually "help the starving people in Ethiopia" by working (for free) to raise funds for an aid programme there.
And do you get that it takes soldiers fighing the bad guys to make sure that aid gets to the intended recipients?
OBL hates the US because of the US presence in Saudi Arabia. The government of Saudi Arabia apprechiates the US as an ally, and a force for stability in the region. OBL is an extremeist that does not represent the views of the people or government of Saudi Arabia. Would you have us pull out of Saudi Arabia to avoid antagonising OBL? That just doesn't make any sense.
Should we cease all aid to Israel because it annoys Saddam? What if the money you are sending to Ethiopa does upset someone, who will someday become a terrorist and attack your country, will you cease sending aid?
I think it is clear that if the USA wasn't so quick to take sides in conflicts overseas, then we wouldn't have the current terrorism problem.
That may in fact be true. We can't go back and rewrite history so we'll never know. While were speculating though, it is very likely that without any US involvement in Europe, Africa, and Russia in the last century, the Eastern Hemisphere would not be a very plesant place to live. If you are and Isolationist fine, but that means you can't help the starving people in Ethiopia, or stop the slaughter of innocents in Somalia, or liberate the concentration camps.
It's pretty simple. We are the good guys. The bad guys always hate the good guys. As long as we keep being the good guys the bad guys will hate us. Should we stop being the good guys just so we can be friends with the bad guys?
you can't be very intelligent if you are willing to risk your own life in conflicts that...have political and/or economic motivations rather than moral or humanitarian ones
So politicitans and capatalists are dunb and whiney hippies are smart. You know the US gets involved in lots of humanitarian programs overseas. This pisses a lot of people off and makes us enemies. Should we stop all foriegn aid programs?
I know you just ripped this off, but you do realized that the second Death Star was, "Fully operational" and the Emperor only tricked the Rebel Alliance into believing it was still under construction don't you? It was a trap you see.
Slashdot Mirror
They're not allowed to stop everyone they are curious about.
You are incorrect. On a public roadway a police officer can pull you over based on reasonable suspicion. Of course the cops really have better things to do than harrass you all day.
Many, many people have been pulled over for routine violations (missing taillight, seatbelts, etc) and are subsequently arrested for DUI or drug possetion.
Well, we can't have people being arrested for crimes they're actually commiting now can we?
No, it covers you for one listener/month.
Assume you have a worldwide audience, and each listener listens for an average of 4 hour a day (that's a lot by radio standards) Each listener only costs one dollar a month.
You'll be paying the minimum fee until you hit 42 of these 4 hour/day 365 day/year listeners. For non-commercial stations that number would be 147 listeners. I don't think most hobby stations which usually don't broadcast 24/7 anyway can claim anything close to that.
You're off by several orders of magnitude. It isn't $.07/song, it's $.0007/song. That makes your figure $6 a month. If that's all you owe you'll wind up paying the minimun which is $500/year. I have hobbies that cost a lot more than that and I'm sure most Slashdoters do too.
Bullshit.
So either cough up 10s of thousands of dollars to pay for your theft of copyrights for the last 4 years
If you are a commercial station playing 10 songs an hour you would owe $60 per listener/day/year. $20,000 would mean you had 80 listeners at a time 24 hours a day for the last 4 years. Most of these webcasters haven't even been around that long.
Doesn't matter that you only had, say, 10 listeners at a time
See above. The rates are based on simultaneous listeners.
the stuff you play doesn't belong to RIAA labels
You are entitled to make any arrangement you chose with the copyright holder. If you have permission to play the music for free, you don't have to pay royalties.
or that you had 0 income related to your webcasting.
Non-commercial brodcasters pa significantly lower fees. The RIAA origianlly suggested a scale based on gross receipts, this proposal was rejected by the webcasters.
You still owe.
Of course you do. And everyone in this business has known this was coming for quite some time now. They have also known that the fees would be retoractive when they were determined. Most of these broadcasters will wind up paying the minimum fees.
Lots of broadcasters have been crying and tearing garments, but so far none have come up wiht any figures to back up the claims that they will be bankrupted by this.
You must have stopped after the first paragraph. The article goes on to point out the the original Wescams were useful to film makers who only used them for weeks at a time, but the maintanence requirement s made them useless for law enforcement and military. The newest generation totaly elimites the mechanical gyros and is mostly solid state making it much more useful. The author also points out the different needs of Hollywood and law enforcement. Next time, please read the whole article. Thank you.
Not usually one to feed trolls, but "Melanin" is the skin pigment. "Melatonin" is a hormone. But WTF does warning people not to go out in the sun and get skin cancer have to do with global warming?
Interesting fact: i have seen "ethernet switches" sold which have collision lights. It makes me wonder how dumb the network cards are by that comapany that they can't get their own carrier detection right. :) Either that or they are selling to the masses something which doesn't do actual switching, or has such a pitiful buffer that it still needs a collision light.
You missed the third option, which is that they know more about Ethernet than you do.
There is nothing wrong with putting a collision light on a switch. Ethernet and Fast Ethernet switch ports can certainly have collisions.
In older networks switches are frequently used to agregate hubs. Even though the switchport represents a single collision domain, if you plug a hub in there may be many hosts. It is very likely you will see collisons on the switch in this case. It is also likely that you will see collisions on Half-Duplex segments with a single host if it is very busy. In this case however you should see very few.
In Full-Duplex mode collisions cannot occur, and in fact collision detection is turned off. Do not make the mistake of assuming that because a single device is plugged into a switchport that its operating in Full-Duplex or that you won't see collisions.
The most common way to misconfigure a switch is to have all the ports set to auto, and the hosts hardcoded full duplex.
Disclaimer: I am a CCNA, however i saw my classmates for who they were. A trained monkey could pass those classes.
No comment.
Since the amount of overhead really varies with the transmition medium it makes a lot more sense to use Byte=8 Bits and then add a fudge factor for overhead. It's easy to say it takes 10 bits to send a byte on a serial link, but in networks you have to take into account things like MTU, different protocol headers, CRCs and congestion limitations.
Please put down the CCNA study guide and back away slowly. Ever since the invention of switches most people haven't had to worry about collisions. We're talking about full duplex, 2 hosts on a collision domain. In other words no collisions. If you are getting collisions on GigE or switched FastE you are doing something very wrong.
I don't know much about making CG, but I do know about making movies, and I can tell you the studios really don't care about TCO. Do you think Lucas cares whether it cost $80 million to make EPIII on Linux or $85 Million to make it on SGI? He doesn't.
They are gravitating towards open source, because it allows them to do what they want to do, faster and in house not because it is cheaper. The only people in Hollywood who care how much a movie costs are the ones making them on their own dime who had to get a second mortgage on their house to do it. Folks like Lucas care about making the movie exactly the way they want it, and they LOVE when they have to create the tools to do it. How many times have you seen director on press junkets saying something like, "No one had ever done this before so we had to invent the technology ourselves . You really have to see it." You'll never hear, "We used off the shelf hardware and stock footage to make this scene, and saved a few dollars."
This is not a good example of Linux and open source lowering TCO. This is an example of people who have unlimited money, need extreme flexibility, and insist on controlling all of the smallest details finding a tool that meets their needs.
If Hollywood really wanted to save money they'd stop supplying craft services to the extras.
Agreed. But my point is that there WERE procedures in place before 9/11 that called for intercepts, the situations in which they were called for were just apparently lacking.
The ADIZ (and DEWIZ in Alsaka) is simply a buffer zone to allow NORAD to identify all tracks entering US airspace. In the link you copied, you'll notice that identification of unknown tracks is initiated by NORAD, not ATC, but idntification is performed by ATC not fighter jets. NORAD is not Customs or Boarder Patrol. Once they establish that you aren't a cruise missle they aren't going to care what you are. It will be up to the FAA/Customs/Boarder Patrol if you get busted or not.
This is what the FAA has to say about ADIZ intercepts:
"Identification intercepts during peacetime operations are vastly different than those conducted under increased states of readiness. Unless otherwise directed by the control agency, intercepted aircraft will be identified by type only. When specific information is required (i.e. markings, serial numbers, etc.) the interceptor aircrew will respond only if the request can be conducted in a safe manner. During hours of darkness or Instrument Meteorological Conditions (IMC), identification of unknown aircraft will be by type only. The interception pattern described below is the typical peacetime method used by air interceptor aircrews. In all situations, the interceptor aircrew will use caution to avoid startling the intercepted aircrew and/or passengers."
In other words, they don't care who you are and what you are doing. They just want to know what TYPE of aircraft you are flying. You could be "intercepted" in your Cessna flying across the boarder and you wouldn't even know it.
This isn't using the military to enforce the law against U.S. citizens. It is using the military to protect U.S. airspace, something I consider much more important than protecting some of the countries we choose to protect.
The terrorists on 9/11 would not have responded to an intercept. Besides, that requires time and distance, a luxury that you don't have over that part of the US. The only option would be a shoot down, but when do you make that dicision? Police officers aren't allowed to shoot fleeing suspects in the back (something about due process) but you would advocate shooting down US commercial aircraft without time to make an informed dicision? That's assinine.
It doesn't cost any more to pay a fighter pilot (already employed by the military) to be ready to fly in 5 minutes, and it doesn't cost significantly more to park a pair of interceptors near the end of the runway rather than in the hanger with no weapons on board.
If you can have fighters in the air in 5 minutes, within 5 minutes of any airspace in the US, you must keep all civil aircraft at least 15 minutes from any major population areas. How do propose to do this? Most major airports are IN cities. Once a plane is 10 minutes off it's ground track it could be in the White House, the Pentagon, Sear's tower, Downtown LA, the Statue of Liberty, etc. F16's wouldn't have done any good on 9/11.
I agree, I don't want MPs on every street corner like in Israel.
They aren't MP's they are soldiers, and unlike most of the NG at airports in this country they have real bullets, and they are quite well trained. They still can't prevent suicide bombers. What makes you think we can with less invasive steps?
I agree that the diversion of domestic planes was unexpected (notwithstanding recent news regarding the info the FBI had), but what if (hypothetical) Cuba decided to send a few "commercial jets" our way?
If they were tracked from Cuba they would probably be forced down at a field in Florida and met by Border Patrol/Customs/USCG most likely NOT military.
What if a foreign air force "came in low" over the Atlantic?
I know of no foreign airforce that could accompish this, but if they did quite simply we would be screwed, yesterday today and tommorow. If a foreign airforce can fly across the Atlantic with enough force to do damage and get here undetected, does it matter what we do when they get here? Should we set up SAM sites on the Eastern Seaboard?
If you try to fly from Mexico into the U.S. without talking to ATC, you'll get an escort.
Prior to 9/11 you wouldn't get a fighter escort. Most likely you'll just be shadowed by Customs or the Coast Guard to your point of landing. But this has nothing to do with obeying ATC or fear of terrorists. It has everything to do with unlawfully entering US airspace. Of course this is a completely different problem than US planes diverting from their filght plans.
If you violate restricted airspace, you'll get an escort.
Depending on the reason for the restricted airspace, this might happen today, but not a year ago. There is restricted airspace everywhere, and it is violated all the time. Usually you'll just get a stern warning from controllers, sometimes nothing. If it's a big deal the FAA may be waiting for you when you land.
We don't need fighters in the air 24/7, but we should have fighters on strip alert around the country. Always.
Aside from the great expense this would generate for very little benefit (what would the fighters do exactly) there are legal issues as well. Federal law prohibts the use of the military to enforce the law against US citizens, this is why the Coast Guard and ot the Navy conducts interdiction against suspected smugglers. If the planes aren't aready in the air they'll never do any good anyway. The controllers at Dulles recognized the threat and notified the White House when the plane that hit the Pentagon was 14 miles away, this was after both Trade Towers were hit, and most everyone had an idea of what was going on. That would give fighters less than a minute and a half just to be there and watch the plane crash into it's intended target.
airline traffic stays in Class B airspace
Did they change the airspace rules again? Last time I checked most airlines fly above FL180, in Class A airspace. Of course they also have to fly in Class B (at the largest airports) or Class C (large airports) airspace if they want to land, and they'll have to fly through Class E airspace to get there.
The lesson is: fly every ATC instruction as though he's trying to kill you. Sure, it's his responsibility, but it's your life.
No it isn't, and that attitude has killed hundreds of pilots. I suggest you reread the FAR's. As PIC it is always your responsibility to fly the plane safely no matter what the guy on the gournd tells you.
The airplanes I like to fly (tube-and-fabric taildraggers, sailplanes, aerobatics) cost $20,000. TCAD-like [collision avoidance] devices are around $20,000 installed. See the problem?
I don't see the problem. The FAA already mandates aircraft carry certain equipment in controlled airspace. If they mandate TCAD for certain airspace, you'll either have to comply or stay out.
Planes deviate ALL THE TIME, even in the Class A. Airplanes have radio failures, even in the Class A. Pilots get busy and don't respond to ATC. They might even have an emergency that causes tehm to lose contact and deviate from their assigned course. This actually happens quite frequently, even in the Class A. I don't know where you got this image you have that above FL180 everyone is just trotting along within feet of their assigned path talking to ATC every 30-45 seconds.
If you don't have radio comm with ATC or if you ignore ATC instructions for any significant period of time, you WILL get an F16 escort. That's why that golfer that bought the farm in SD after flying without comm from FL had an F16 escort long before the plane went down.
You might today, but most likely not. A year ago your certainly wouldn't have. The first thing a controller will do if you are NORDO is communicate with other aircraft in the vicinty to keep them out of your way and try to establish visual contact. The only place you would likely see jets scrambled prior to 9/11 would be in the defense zones.
Payne Stewart's plane had an escort, because it was clear that it was on autopilot, and no one on board was in control. However, F16's were not scrambled to intercept, controllers requested assistance from several F15 fighters on training maneuvers in the area. The plane was also not deviating from it's course, it just never stopped climbing after departure.
It's also why it's kind of weird we couldn't scramble any planes to help out on 9/11. Not suggesting any conspiracies, but one has to admit we responded faster to the lone golfer flying over the country off flight plan than we did to 4 commercial jets doing so.
Pure FUD. It isn't weird at all. NO PLANES WERE SCRAMBLED IN THE PAYNE STEWART CASE! Once it was clear that the plane was going to just keep on flying it was escorted by fighters to make sure airspace was clear and track it's progress. Prior to 9/11 there was no protocol in place to scramble fighters for anything. This would require alert fighters on the runways at bases all across the country and CAP 24 hours a day. We had that for a couple of weeks after 9/11, but it stopped some time ago.
There was no indication of hijacking on any of the planes on 9/11. None of the controllers talking to either of the planes had any idea about the others, or what was really going on. When the first plane crashed into the WTC, almost everybody thought it was an accident. Even in DC where there has been restricted airspace over the White House for years, there are hundreds of incursions every year. Prior to 9/11 most of these simply resulted in stern warnings. Even post 9/11 jets aren't scrambled everytime some pilot forgets his "immediate turn" when departing National.
You're citing something you saw over a decade ago as current events? I have been in several towers and TRACON facilities since then, and I have never heard of such a thing.
What type of facility does the FAA operate in Jefferson City, MO? It must have been TRACON or ARTCC since tower controllers are usually just looking out the window anyway. Maybe someone was pulling you leg.
Could you please cite a refrence for your fanciful story of controllers with flipping screens and numbered flags? Or did you hear that "from a friend who knows a guy who works in a tower somewhere?"
What you propose has been available on Cisco routers for about 2 years. It's called TCP Intercept:
"When used in intercept mode (the default setting) it checks for incoming TCP connection requests and will proxy-answer on behalf of the destination server to ensure that the request is valid before then connecting to the server. Once TCP Intercept has established a genuine connection with the client and the server, it then merges these two connections into a single source-destination session. It offers a zero window to the client to prevent it from sending data until the server sends a window offer back. In the case of bogus requests, its use of aggressive time-outs on half-open connections and support of threshold levels for both the number of outstanding and incoming rate of TCP connection requests, protect servers while still allowing valid requests through."
You post makes little sense. You say that you were inticed by payola based not on money, but on promotional materials from bands you didn't like?
You ignored the bands you did like because they can't afford to compete? Even an unsigned band must have CDs they could give away. It would be even easier to get interviews, autographs, personal apperances etc. These types of things are very expensive for major artists, but cost next to nothing for smaller labels. This seems like a playing field where they could compete.
Might that be because they're too busy working on current death penalty cases, which have a "deadline", so to speak? Most death penalty opponents seem to focus on a particular case with the aim of saving that person, and once he's been executed, there is little urgency to continue.
I doubt this is the case. If it is then these groups are bigger fools than I gave them credit for. Convincing demonstrating that an actually innocent person had been executed would probably result in calls for a moritorium.
I read the two ACLU articles you quoted, and I must say that I'm shocked the ACLU is against the death penalty. Since I can't seem to track down any of their sources I am dubious of their biased interpretation.
Okay, simple question: how does killing these people make society safer, if they're already convicted and sitting in jail?
Nobody ever escapes from prison do they?
Have you ever heard of parole?
Do you think that having a bunch of prisoners, who have already been given the worst sentence they can get, have no chance for parole, and will be in prison for the rest of their lives no matter what they do makes prisons a safer place to be?
No matter what you sentence a person to they may be released from prisio in the future. You cannot control what future legislatures or judges will do. This is a fact. Hundreds of people who were in jail for "life without the possibility of parole" have been released. You cannot claim that a life sentence is equivalent to the death penalty.
It seems to me that taking a "life means life" approach, where a life sentence means you spend the rest of your life in jail unless your conviction is overturned, is the most reasonable approach to murder and violent crime.
People sentenced to life in prison are usually released. Even if you could change that, why should we support the most henious criminals for the rest of their lives? Prisioners are expensive; the morst violent ones even more so. A prisoner in jail for life with no possibility for parole is bullet proof. You can't control him with promises of rewards for good behavior, because he'll never get out. You can't punish him for bad behavior, because the ACLU won't let you. No, you just have to build more prisons, hire more guards, and suppport these bastards for the rest of their lives. No thanks.
How many [innocent people] have been put to death by the state for being "the right people"?
None. Zero. Zip. Zilch. Not a single one. You can be confident of this because all those orgs counting the innocents being released have been desperatly trying to find an innocent person who had been executed for the last hundred years and they haven't been able to come up with a single case. The innocent people being released is simply further proof that the system works. After all, they were released.
Bear in mind that is is only a teensy tiny fraction of those being released who are actually found innocent of the crime for which they are convicted; in most cases these people's sentences are commuted, or they are released because of some legal technical or procedural problem.
If soilders deliver food, is that aid? If the Army sets up mobile hostpitals and administers vaccines to children is that a "humanitarian programme"?
If the combined allied forces release millions of Jews, Poles, and Blacks from concentration camps where they were patiently waiting to be executed is that a military action?
The problem with using you terminology is that all of these things are in fact military actions, and yes, it upsets a great many people all over the world when the "meddling superpowers" engage in these actions. It doesn't change the fact that it is the right thing to do. If you are claiming that 9/11 is the price we pay for being the good guys then all I can say is, bring it on. Because we sure as hell aren't going to back down from what we know is right to avoid upsetting you delicate constitution.
I hope you are very happy in whatever world it is that you live in. You are welcome in the real world anytime you chose to join the rest of us.
I may be wrong but I don't think it is the humanitarian programmes overseas that make the USA unpopular.
You are indeed wrong. Most of the atrocities in the world are created by people when you help the people who are disadvantage in these situations you piss off the people who put them in the situation in the first place.
Help the Kuwaitis, piss of the Iraqis. Help the Iraqi people piss off the Iraqi government. Help the Somalis, piss off the warloads.
I think the interferring in local politics and dropping bombs and stuff tend to make more enemies.
That's why we only (deliberately) drop bombs on our enemies.
I do actually "help the starving people in Ethiopia" by working (for free) to raise funds for an aid programme there.
And do you get that it takes soldiers fighing the bad guys to make sure that aid gets to the intended recipients?
OBL hates the US because of the US presence in Saudi Arabia. The government of Saudi Arabia apprechiates the US as an ally, and a force for stability in the region. OBL is an extremeist that does not represent the views of the people or government of Saudi Arabia. Would you have us pull out of Saudi Arabia to avoid antagonising OBL? That just doesn't make any sense.
Should we cease all aid to Israel because it annoys Saddam? What if the money you are sending to Ethiopa does upset someone, who will someday become a terrorist and attack your country, will you cease sending aid?
I think it is clear that if the USA wasn't so quick to take sides in conflicts overseas, then we wouldn't have the current terrorism problem.
That may in fact be true. We can't go back and rewrite history so we'll never know. While were speculating though, it is very likely that without any US involvement in Europe, Africa, and Russia in the last century, the Eastern Hemisphere would not be a very plesant place to live. If you are and Isolationist fine, but that means you can't help the starving people in Ethiopia, or stop the slaughter of innocents in Somalia, or liberate the concentration camps.
It's pretty simple. We are the good guys. The bad guys always hate the good guys. As long as we keep being the good guys the bad guys will hate us. Should we stop being the good guys just so we can be friends with the bad guys?
you can't be very intelligent if you are willing to risk your own life in conflicts that...have political and/or economic motivations rather than moral or humanitarian ones
So politicitans and capatalists are dunb and whiney hippies are smart. You know the US gets involved in lots of humanitarian programs overseas. This pisses a lot of people off and makes us enemies. Should we stop all foriegn aid programs?
Then again you could be wrong:
"Army recruiters like Sgt. First Class Jeremy Burton are pitching a new program that offers direct enlistment in the Special Forces."
I know you just ripped this off, but you do realized that the second Death Star was, "Fully operational" and the Emperor only tricked the Rebel Alliance into believing it was still under construction don't you? It was a trap you see.