I believe Joseph Kittinger and the USAF thought of it (and did it) before Star Trek was even thought of to be a campy space show that'd never last one season.
{sigh} And fanboys know Star Trek, but they don't know about a guy actually jumping from the edge of space 50 years ago.
Don't underestimate the possibilities of mythical and theoretical equipment.
Look at Star Trek, since others have used that imaginary universe in this thread already. Cloaking shields to make a ship or planet disappear. Sure, perfectly rational. The ships in the Star Trek universe have gravity plating. If you can create it, you can negate it. Why not? The good old "suspension of disbelief" stands firm. But why stop there. What if the planet (if it was one) were in a trans-dimensional state, where it could be seen but only sometimes has a physical presence.
Or to step into one of my favorite imaginary universes, what if it was an object such as the Tardis. Hell, not only can it show up at any place, at any time in the universe (and sometimes alternate universe), but it can tow objects as large as a planet when needed. And of course, the door isn't a door, it's a transdimensional portal, so you're not stepping inside, you're stepping through. The physical "inside" isn't inside, it's actually somewhere else. Well, unless it's convenient for it to be effected by outside forces and the occupants are thrown around in a Star Trek like drama (Everyone lean left. Everyone lean right. Now fall down.)
Well, if you're going tank to tank, rolling your tank in to what could be 200 decoys, or 190 decoys and 10 real tanks, would be a deadly decision. The M1A2 can fire between 6 to 10 shots per minute. So at the high end, after you've fired, you may find yourself getting nailed by 10 tanks. Or you'll waste an awful of ammunition, and they only carry 40 to 55 rounds. After annihilating the decoys, it would suck to have the real tank squad roll down on you.
Not that I'd expect 200 tanks or decoys to be sitting in the same spot, but it would be a great example of hiding in plain sight.
I guess that's why you're not a military tactician. You wouldn't survive your first battle.
about 4 black SUVs entered the parking lot and stopped the inspection. Of course they claimed they were looking from something in another truck and required all the resorces of the DOT officers, but I suspected it was something different as the weight on the Bill of lading didn't seem to match the weight that was in the trailer.
I'm sure it was purely a coincidence. I see packs of SUV's with gov't suits in them all the time. Perfectly normal. Nothing to see here. Move along, citizens.:)
You could have been transporting all kinds of fun goodness. I had been told that spent fuel rods from nuclear plants were transported by train. Then in talking to someone who managed the shipping arrangements for them, he was pretty clear that they were being transported on unmarked trucks. "It's perfectly safe, they're sealed up tight." I found that very reassuring.:)
I started watching out for that good old Class 7 "RADIOACTIVE" placard. I have yet to see one, but if I do, I'll be getting away from it as fast as I can.
I'm sad to say, the land of the free, the United States of America. Not sad because I'm an American. I'm sad because this isn't the land of the free any more.
That's only one up to the better hiding spots, the highways.
There was an article not long ago about the DoD was transporting something secret. They opted to use plain white trailers on regular tractor trailer rigs. They'd load one up, and send a dozen or so trucks out at the same time from what was already a busy location.
The problem with doing something like SAMs (or worse, the Minuteman's) would be that they would be a huge problem if there were an accident. But as far as targets go, how many tractor trailers are on or off the road?
But, isn't masquerading military forces as civilians against some pesky rule of war?
TAK? The closest I can guess is T-AK which would be a DoD cargo ship.
The rest, all I can guess is that it's creating ways to take incoming projectiles and gracefully return them to their origin, presumably at high velocities.
It's a very valid strategy too. If there are 2 or 3 real targets, they may be easy to neutralize. What if those targets became 3000? You'll have an awful lot of your resources spread out to blow up non-targets. After a while, morale can stop dropping when the troops are sent out on yet another mission to blow up a balloon. And that can be dangerous. Thinking that they're "neutralizing" another balloon, and running into a real armed battalion would be a disaster.
The same applies to all kinds of other scenarios.
Decoys are useful for lots more than just defensive purposes. If intelligence says an area is occupied, and you're trying to pull a group out quietly, they may be diverted around such decoys, and right into a bigger trap.
But, if the decoys can be identified, that may not prove anything. 2000 decoy units and 3 real units, you could assume that the real units are protecting the places of value, right? Not necessarily. They only need to be close enough to react. So you have a real unit in front of Bunker A, and decoys in front of Bunkers B and C, you wouldn't necessarily want to attach Bunker A.
He was head of the FBI for a lot of years (as you said).
He was a publically known cross dresser.
He had the FBI keep secret files on Americans who may or may not have been subversive.
He used and abused his powers in most un-American ways.
And he was a devout Freemason.
There's more, but I'll leave it up to everyone else to dig up on their own.... and the truth is out there. But there's an awful lot of conspiracy crap too.
Yup, that's exactly what was demonstrated. Your online identity doesn't prove anything at all.
As a matter of fact, if 10,000 other people decided to become Mr. JW Smythe sometime today, I would not be one of hundreds, I'd be one of thousands.:)
I like my anonymity, and I like that I am identified as a lot of different people. Trying to figure out which is the real me, from the rest of the me's is a challenge.
What's funnier is, my real name has thousands of users (people using the name as their own). They were probably issued at birth, not as an attempt of identity theft. I'm very proud of my name, we are a diverse and well respected crowd.
It'd be a lot easier just to tap into some live wires under the hood. There are plenty of good places to stash a piece of equipment up there on most cars.
How about a theft of government equipment charge, followed by a tampering with evidence charge?
The report on the technology would be pretty boring. Oversized antenna? Check. Battery pack? Check. COTS tracking hardware and software? Check.
I know I've had law enforcement follow me, and eavesdrop on my phone calls occasionally. Well, not randomly occasionally. They were following particular, perfectly legal, events.
They've never told me that I was boring. Judging by the fact I was never taken in for further questioning or charges, they discovered my day to day life is... well... boring.:)
Yup, he went to work. Yup, he went home. Yup, he called a few friends, all of whom were just as boring. Oh listen! He's joking about how boring his calls are, and how he feels sorry for us listening to the conversation. Oh it's friday, he went to a bar with his girlfriend. Yup, he drank a little. Nope, he didn't contact anyone nefarious. Yup, he went home.
In one of my group of friends (real world, not just online), all but one had a Facebook account. They told him, "You'd better set one up." There was a legitimate reason for it, he just never got around to it. Since he didn't, they did. It had his name, picture, and they were posting comments for him. It was kind of humorous. And no, they didn't sign him up for anything illicit.:) It was enough encouragement for him to finally set up his own account, so they took the bogus one down.
Now, what's the difference between friends doing it for a friend, and someone doing it for their own nefarious purposes? Well, just about nothing, except the nefarious purposes would likely get that person in trouble.
We've all seen stories where someone got in legal trouble for pictures they posted. Like, a school teacher drinking beer, or a suspect in a case bragging about what they did. I found a profile not long ago of a rather attractive woman local to me. She was (or still is) a teacher at a local high school. By the posted comments, it was pretty apparent that it wasn't really the teacher. But if they were written a little better, some of the comments would have been damning. There were things about her liking sex with young boys, and frequent drug and alcohol abuse.
I'm sure this kind of thing happens all the time. So how do you tell? Well, you don't. If I wanted to put up a profile of a popular figure, and I filled it with things that were really happening to them, and photos gleaned from tabloid news sites and regular media, it would look perfectly legitimate.
Hmmm.
[JWSmythe goes off looking for photos of Bill Gates and the link to the NAMBLA group]
I'm still not sure how Lindsey Lohan makes the news. The same with Paris Hilton, Kim Kardashian, et al. They got picked up in tabloids, and somehow managed to get entertainment jobs.
Well, Kim Kardashian, I don't mind seeing pictures of. The others, well, don't interest me much. None of them are news, are related to news events (other than showing up for no reason other than to get photos taken for tabloids), or should be portrayed as news.
You know how it goes too. There should be a car accident, where one of them was a passer-by. That would change the title of the story from "Minor car accident blocks traffic, no injuries" to "Tragedy almost strikes as out of control cars crash in front of [insert pseudo-celebrity here]".
Quick, without looking can anyone tell me anything Lindsey Lohan done that was newsworthy?
Could be, but I kinda doubt it. Well, I assume they're suing the campaign, right? So if the campaign gets more money, then the campaign has something to pay with. But that's a dangerous prospect. They may accidentally put someone in power who has a grudge against them.
The one a few weeks ago had several people taking pictures that I'm sure would love to sell to the paper. There are police scanners, which if I were running a newspaper someone would be paid to monitor.
Newspapers are usually more than happy to buy pictures too. But...
If they never go to the paper with the shot, and/or they wanted too much money, or they don't have any information other than the picture, then it's worthless. You have to have text to put with it, or you just have a snapshot of some event, that they can't really publish without some context.
And just because someone was out shooting doesn't mean that they captured anything worthwhile. I've gone through enough photos that people thought were good, that weren't usable for anything. Hell, a good percentage of anyone's photos, especially at a live event, are worthless. Try shooting a live band in a dark bar, and you'll see what I mean. If you use a flash, it'll completely change the composition of the shot, and piss off the band. Without, it can be a trick to get the good ones, and even harder where some people seem to think that it's a good idea to stand in front of your camera. With the still camera, it's not so bad, but I usually have a video camera running too. I *HAVE* to leave it cranked up to about 7 feet, and even then, when I've reviewed the footage, some moron will jump in front of it so they can see what it is. "Ooohh, look, it's one of them video cameras. I wonder what it's doing." It's shooting video dumbass, now move.
Ok, enough of my rant.:)
For the scanners, a lot of people have them. But depending on the size of your city, you may be scanning an awful lot of frequencies. Also, you may be dealing with trunked and possibly encrypted traffic. I know when I've listened, sometimes I missed huge parts of the transmission because there were several overlapping conversations on different frequencies, and I didn't lock onto one.
But, consider what they'd hear. They'd probably just get that there was a vehicle accident without injuries. Very boring. If it were right outside of my building, I probably wouldn't go out to get more info. I usually see two or three of those a day, just driving from home to work and back.
Someone I know was covering a story recently. The photographer *HAD* to be there between 1:30pm to 3pm, with specific things to shoot. The reporter was to join at 2:30pm. What'd they get? Not a single usable photo. The event wrapped up at about 2:45. The photographer got there at 4pm. If I recall correctly, they got pulled in to shoot something else, which ran later than it should have.
Actually, "Jaycees open haunted house tonight at fairgrounds" is something I agree is "news" (unlike Paris Hilton shenanigans), as it will actually matter to some people.
Ya, the Jaycees story did nothing for me, because I'm not local. But, that's a good local interest story. If I was there, I would have probably covered it.:) I really don't like how most publications have begun to drift towards entertainment tabloidism. They need to keep their readership up, and to do so, they have to attract and keep a wide audience.
There are reasons exciting news doesn't always make it to the paper. The biggest one would be, no reporter or photographers got to the scene. They may have been following bigger stories, or weren't even dispatched to it. A lot of times, they find out about events when citizens call them in. The police don't generally bring journalists along with them. They usually won't even call, unless there's some reason they want it to be leaked.
Just like you shouldn't say a word to a cop unless you want it to be used against you in court, you shouldn't say a word to the press. Even if the journalist you're talking to is a honorable and reputable person, before you know it your sound bite or quote fragment makes you look like a serial killing pedophile.
I've worked at several places, where talking to either one is grounds for immediate termination, and could result in legal action. It's not to keep the actions of the company secret (generally), but it's so a quote fragment isn't used to make both you and the company look bad.
The bus accident doesn't sound like a big deal. No one was hurt. Some repairs will need to be done. In most areas, if they ran a story on every accident report, there wouldn't exactly be enough room for anything else. In the local section of one paper, they'd run the crime sheet. It was just one liners (traffic accident at xx and yy; assult at zz; etc). It took several pages. Most of it was nothing reports of nothing.
If you're a witness to a story, call it in to the local media. Be standing there when they arrive and give them your statement. Even if they show up to a scene, but can't get any information from anyone and the story isn't obvious, it's a non-story, and will be trashed in favor of "Jaycees open haunted house tonight at fairgrounds" (from the front page of your paper).
Nope, I'd bet it was more of a calculated decision. Put yourself in their position.
You are a local media mogul, and have a political candidate over a barrel. They've committed a violation of law.
There are two options. Well, two main ones. There are of course others.
1) They can fight you in court, but they'll get torn up both publicly in the media (which you own) and in court. They won't win their campaign.
2) You promise to forget about their little transgression, but in exchange you may ask for "favors" in the future. Additionally, you will support them in your media, adding to the stack of redeemable "favors".
Option 1 costs a lot of money, and no one wins.
Option 2 doesn't cost a lot, and it's advantageous to both parties involved. It's dirty, but that's the game of both business and politics.
Any good business person will go for option 2. Any responsible business person will go for option 1. Responsibility goes out the window when you can have a politician in your pocket.
I was surprised this didn't have the "What could possibly go wrong" tag.:)
Note in the question he did say "... do I try to write one my self...". I've seen quite a few reports where someone wrote a proof of concept virus that was just a bit more virile than they thought, and it ended up everywhere. It'll lead to that "Oops, I thought I prevented it from doing..." This is fun, we get a front row seat to someone making a complete ass out of themselves. I hope it doesn't cause too much trouble..
That wasn't the whole story. Indians didn't claim every inch of land. It was the immigrants, with terribly wrong ideas and government funding, support, and encouragement, that did those crimes. There could have been a peaceful solution while still allowing expansion. We still saw Native Americans as lesser people (along with a bunch of other groups including Africans and women of any race).
I was running a mental countdown on it for a while. Kinda like the "Doomsday Clock", except for the second American revolution. During the Bush administration, it was very close to midnight. When Bush signed away the Posse Comitatus Act, it would have only taken declaring martial law on US streets to incite it. That put us right on the edge of it happening.
I don't see the American people standing up for a coup or full blown revolution on their own. They'd have to be pushed to it, and that would have done it.
I did work through the scenarios of what would happen. None of them were very pretty. The civilians far out number anything the government could put together, but they are extremely under armed. I used to say, China could take over the US by sending over farmers with pitchforks. They could loose 100 to 1, and still slowly walk across America taking over. Until enough government forces realized how wrong it was to fight American citizens, it would be a bloodbath.
I won't suggest anyone even attempt such a rebellion, but if it comes to it, it will happen, and they will die. Anyone who thinks otherwise is a fool. But, if the government pushes the people far enough, it won't be one group, it will be disorganized people all across America, who will then become organized people, who can succeed. But like I said, it won't be pretty. I hope the day never comes.
With the new administration, things have come down (ignoring the crap that Fox News and a few others spew). I believe we have stepped away a good bit from it. From minutes to midnight, to probably 10pm. That's really good, considering the Doomsday clock is at 6 minutes to midnight.
Slashdot Mirror
I believe Joseph Kittinger and the USAF thought of it (and did it) before Star Trek was even thought of to be a campy space show that'd never last one season.
{sigh} And fanboys know Star Trek, but they don't know about a guy actually jumping from the edge of space 50 years ago.
Don't underestimate the possibilities of mythical and theoretical equipment.
Look at Star Trek, since others have used that imaginary universe in this thread already. Cloaking shields to make a ship or planet disappear. Sure, perfectly rational. The ships in the Star Trek universe have gravity plating. If you can create it, you can negate it. Why not? The good old "suspension of disbelief" stands firm. But why stop there. What if the planet (if it was one) were in a trans-dimensional state, where it could be seen but only sometimes has a physical presence.
Or to step into one of my favorite imaginary universes, what if it was an object such as the Tardis. Hell, not only can it show up at any place, at any time in the universe (and sometimes alternate universe), but it can tow objects as large as a planet when needed. And of course, the door isn't a door, it's a transdimensional portal, so you're not stepping inside, you're stepping through. The physical "inside" isn't inside, it's actually somewhere else. Well, unless it's convenient for it to be effected by outside forces and the occupants are thrown around in a Star Trek like drama (Everyone lean left. Everyone lean right. Now fall down.)
Well, if you're going tank to tank, rolling your tank in to what could be 200 decoys, or 190 decoys and 10 real tanks, would be a deadly decision. The M1A2 can fire between 6 to 10 shots per minute. So at the high end, after you've fired, you may find yourself getting nailed by 10 tanks. Or you'll waste an awful of ammunition, and they only carry 40 to 55 rounds. After annihilating the decoys, it would suck to have the real tank squad roll down on you.
Not that I'd expect 200 tanks or decoys to be sitting in the same spot, but it would be a great example of hiding in plain sight.
I guess that's why you're not a military tactician. You wouldn't survive your first battle.
I'm sure it was purely a coincidence. I see packs of SUV's with gov't suits in them all the time. Perfectly normal. Nothing to see here. Move along, citizens. :)
You could have been transporting all kinds of fun goodness. I had been told that spent fuel rods from nuclear plants were transported by train. Then in talking to someone who managed the shipping arrangements for them, he was pretty clear that they were being transported on unmarked trucks. "It's perfectly safe, they're sealed up tight." I found that very reassuring. :)
I started watching out for that good old Class 7 "RADIOACTIVE" placard. I have yet to see one, but if I do, I'll be getting away from it as fast as I can.
Sadly true.
I'm sad to say, the land of the free, the United States of America. Not sad because I'm an American. I'm sad because this isn't the land of the free any more.
Oh, and here's about 15 million references to check through. There are probably a few duplicates in there. Enjoy.
I think you're probably misunderstanding what they were saying.
The value 3.14 != 3.14159265 != 3.1415926535897932384626433832795, but they all equal pi. :)
If you're trying to compare calculations with someone else, it's helpful that your constants are ... well ... constant. Pesky little things like that can sometimes have serious consequences/A.. (what? I thought you were measuring force in newtons!) I know it's a different reason, it's just showing what a bit of variation can do.
That's only one up to the better hiding spots, the highways.
There was an article not long ago about the DoD was transporting something secret. They opted to use plain white trailers on regular tractor trailer rigs. They'd load one up, and send a dozen or so trucks out at the same time from what was already a busy location.
The problem with doing something like SAMs (or worse, the Minuteman's) would be that they would be a huge problem if there were an accident. But as far as targets go, how many tractor trailers are on or off the road?
But, isn't masquerading military forces as civilians against some pesky rule of war?
Use it? I can't even figure out what it means.
TAK? The closest I can guess is T-AK which would be a DoD cargo ship.
The rest, all I can guess is that it's creating ways to take incoming projectiles and gracefully return them to their origin, presumably at high velocities.
The proper word is "decoy".
It's a very valid strategy too. If there are 2 or 3 real targets, they may be easy to neutralize. What if those targets became 3000? You'll have an awful lot of your resources spread out to blow up non-targets. After a while, morale can stop dropping when the troops are sent out on yet another mission to blow up a balloon. And that can be dangerous. Thinking that they're "neutralizing" another balloon, and running into a real armed battalion would be a disaster.
The same applies to all kinds of other scenarios.
Decoys are useful for lots more than just defensive purposes. If intelligence says an area is occupied, and you're trying to pull a group out quietly, they may be diverted around such decoys, and right into a bigger trap.
But, if the decoys can be identified, that may not prove anything. 2000 decoy units and 3 real units, you could assume that the real units are protecting the places of value, right? Not necessarily. They only need to be close enough to react. So you have a real unit in front of Bunker A, and decoys in front of Bunkers B and C, you wouldn't necessarily want to attach Bunker A.
Lets not forget the other fine points.
He was head of the FBI for a lot of years (as you said).
He was a publically known cross dresser.
He had the FBI keep secret files on Americans who may or may not have been subversive.
He used and abused his powers in most un-American ways.
And he was a devout Freemason.
There's more, but I'll leave it up to everyone else to dig up on their own. ... and the truth is out there. But there's an awful lot of conspiracy crap too.
Yup, that's exactly what was demonstrated. Your online identity doesn't prove anything at all.
As a matter of fact, if 10,000 other people decided to become Mr. JW Smythe sometime today, I would not be one of hundreds, I'd be one of thousands. :)
I like my anonymity, and I like that I am identified as a lot of different people. Trying to figure out which is the real me, from the rest of the me's is a challenge.
What's funnier is, my real name has thousands of users (people using the name as their own). They were probably issued at birth, not as an attempt of identity theft. I'm very proud of my name, we are a diverse and well respected crowd.
ah George. How we loved thee.
His quote, as recorded on the SCOTUS decision on FCC vs All Citizens of the United States:
"A guy who used to be in Washington knew that his phone was tapped, used to answer, Fuck Hoover, yes, go ahead."
It'd be a lot easier just to tap into some live wires under the hood. There are plenty of good places to stash a piece of equipment up there on most cars.
How about a theft of government equipment charge, followed by a tampering with evidence charge?
The report on the technology would be pretty boring. Oversized antenna? Check. Battery pack? Check. COTS tracking hardware and software? Check.
I know I've had law enforcement follow me, and eavesdrop on my phone calls occasionally. Well, not randomly occasionally. They were following particular, perfectly legal, events.
They've never told me that I was boring. Judging by the fact I was never taken in for further questioning or charges, they discovered my day to day life is ... well ... boring. :)
Yup, he went to work. Yup, he went home. Yup, he called a few friends, all of whom were just as boring. Oh listen! He's joking about how boring his calls are, and how he feels sorry for us listening to the conversation. Oh it's friday, he went to a bar with his girlfriend. Yup, he drank a little. Nope, he didn't contact anyone nefarious. Yup, he went home.
You know, you're totally correct there.
In one of my group of friends (real world, not just online), all but one had a Facebook account. They told him, "You'd better set one up." There was a legitimate reason for it, he just never got around to it. Since he didn't, they did. It had his name, picture, and they were posting comments for him. It was kind of humorous. And no, they didn't sign him up for anything illicit. :) It was enough encouragement for him to finally set up his own account, so they took the bogus one down.
Now, what's the difference between friends doing it for a friend, and someone doing it for their own nefarious purposes? Well, just about nothing, except the nefarious purposes would likely get that person in trouble.
We've all seen stories where someone got in legal trouble for pictures they posted. Like, a school teacher drinking beer, or a suspect in a case bragging about what they did. I found a profile not long ago of a rather attractive woman local to me. She was (or still is) a teacher at a local high school. By the posted comments, it was pretty apparent that it wasn't really the teacher. But if they were written a little better, some of the comments would have been damning. There were things about her liking sex with young boys, and frequent drug and alcohol abuse.
I'm sure this kind of thing happens all the time. So how do you tell? Well, you don't. If I wanted to put up a profile of a popular figure, and I filled it with things that were really happening to them, and photos gleaned from tabloid news sites and regular media, it would look perfectly legitimate.
Hmmm.
[JWSmythe goes off looking for photos of Bill Gates and the link to the NAMBLA group]
I'm still not sure how Lindsey Lohan makes the news. The same with Paris Hilton, Kim Kardashian, et al. They got picked up in tabloids, and somehow managed to get entertainment jobs.
Well, Kim Kardashian, I don't mind seeing pictures of. The others, well, don't interest me much. None of them are news, are related to news events (other than showing up for no reason other than to get photos taken for tabloids), or should be portrayed as news.
You know how it goes too. There should be a car accident, where one of them was a passer-by. That would change the title of the story from "Minor car accident blocks traffic, no injuries" to "Tragedy almost strikes as out of control cars crash in front of [insert pseudo-celebrity here]".
Quick, without looking can anyone tell me anything Lindsey Lohan done that was newsworthy?
[waiting]
[waiting]
[cricket noises]
Nope, didn't think so.
Could be, but I kinda doubt it. Well, I assume they're suing the campaign, right? So if the campaign gets more money, then the campaign has something to pay with. But that's a dangerous prospect. They may accidentally put someone in power who has a grudge against them.
Newspapers are usually more than happy to buy pictures too. But...
If they never go to the paper with the shot, and/or they wanted too much money, or they don't have any information other than the picture, then it's worthless. You have to have text to put with it, or you just have a snapshot of some event, that they can't really publish without some context.
And just because someone was out shooting doesn't mean that they captured anything worthwhile. I've gone through enough photos that people thought were good, that weren't usable for anything. Hell, a good percentage of anyone's photos, especially at a live event, are worthless. Try shooting a live band in a dark bar, and you'll see what I mean. If you use a flash, it'll completely change the composition of the shot, and piss off the band. Without, it can be a trick to get the good ones, and even harder where some people seem to think that it's a good idea to stand in front of your camera. With the still camera, it's not so bad, but I usually have a video camera running too. I *HAVE* to leave it cranked up to about 7 feet, and even then, when I've reviewed the footage, some moron will jump in front of it so they can see what it is. "Ooohh, look, it's one of them video cameras. I wonder what it's doing." It's shooting video dumbass, now move.
Ok, enough of my rant. :)
For the scanners, a lot of people have them. But depending on the size of your city, you may be scanning an awful lot of frequencies. Also, you may be dealing with trunked and possibly encrypted traffic. I know when I've listened, sometimes I missed huge parts of the transmission because there were several overlapping conversations on different frequencies, and I didn't lock onto one.
But, consider what they'd hear. They'd probably just get that there was a vehicle accident without injuries. Very boring. If it were right outside of my building, I probably wouldn't go out to get more info. I usually see two or three of those a day, just driving from home to work and back.
Someone I know was covering a story recently. The photographer *HAD* to be there between 1:30pm to 3pm, with specific things to shoot. The reporter was to join at 2:30pm. What'd they get? Not a single usable photo. The event wrapped up at about 2:45. The photographer got there at 4pm. If I recall correctly, they got pulled in to shoot something else, which ran later than it should have.
Ya, the Jaycees story did nothing for me, because I'm not local. But, that's a good local interest story. If I was there, I would have probably covered it. :) I really don't like how most publications have begun to drift towards entertainment tabloidism. They need to keep their readership up, and to do so, they have to attract and keep a wide audience.
There are reasons exciting news doesn't always make it to the paper. The biggest one would be, no reporter or photographers got to the scene. They may have been following bigger stories, or weren't even dispatched to it. A lot of times, they find out about events when citizens call them in. The police don't generally bring journalists along with them. They usually won't even call, unless there's some reason they want it to be leaked.
Just like you shouldn't say a word to a cop unless you want it to be used against you in court, you shouldn't say a word to the press. Even if the journalist you're talking to is a honorable and reputable person, before you know it your sound bite or quote fragment makes you look like a serial killing pedophile.
I've worked at several places, where talking to either one is grounds for immediate termination, and could result in legal action. It's not to keep the actions of the company secret (generally), but it's so a quote fragment isn't used to make both you and the company look bad.
The bus accident doesn't sound like a big deal. No one was hurt. Some repairs will need to be done. In most areas, if they ran a story on every accident report, there wouldn't exactly be enough room for anything else. In the local section of one paper, they'd run the crime sheet. It was just one liners (traffic accident at xx and yy; assult at zz; etc). It took several pages. Most of it was nothing reports of nothing.
If you're a witness to a story, call it in to the local media. Be standing there when they arrive and give them your statement. Even if they show up to a scene, but can't get any information from anyone and the story isn't obvious, it's a non-story, and will be trashed in favor of "Jaycees open haunted house tonight at fairgrounds" (from the front page of your paper).
Maybe Senator Reid hasn't been playing ball with them lately.
Nope, I'd bet it was more of a calculated decision. Put yourself in their position.
You are a local media mogul, and have a political candidate over a barrel. They've committed a violation of law.
There are two options. Well, two main ones. There are of course others.
1) They can fight you in court, but they'll get torn up both publicly in the media (which you own) and in court. They won't win their campaign.
2) You promise to forget about their little transgression, but in exchange you may ask for "favors" in the future. Additionally, you will support them in your media, adding to the stack of redeemable "favors".
Option 1 costs a lot of money, and no one wins.
Option 2 doesn't cost a lot, and it's advantageous to both parties involved. It's dirty, but that's the game of both business and politics.
Any good business person will go for option 2. Any responsible business person will go for option 1. Responsibility goes out the window when you can have a politician in your pocket.
I was surprised this didn't have the "What could possibly go wrong" tag. :)
Note in the question he did say "... do I try to write one my self ...". I've seen quite a few reports where someone wrote a proof of concept virus that was just a bit more virile than they thought, and it ended up everywhere. It'll lead to that "Oops, I thought I prevented it from doing ..." This is fun, we get a front row seat to someone making a complete ass out of themselves. I hope it doesn't cause too much trouble..
That wasn't the whole story. Indians didn't claim every inch of land. It was the immigrants, with terribly wrong ideas and government funding, support, and encouragement, that did those crimes. There could have been a peaceful solution while still allowing expansion. We still saw Native Americans as lesser people (along with a bunch of other groups including Africans and women of any race).
I was running a mental countdown on it for a while. Kinda like the "Doomsday Clock", except for the second American revolution. During the Bush administration, it was very close to midnight. When Bush signed away the Posse Comitatus Act, it would have only taken declaring martial law on US streets to incite it. That put us right on the edge of it happening.
I don't see the American people standing up for a coup or full blown revolution on their own. They'd have to be pushed to it, and that would have done it.
I did work through the scenarios of what would happen. None of them were very pretty. The civilians far out number anything the government could put together, but they are extremely under armed. I used to say, China could take over the US by sending over farmers with pitchforks. They could loose 100 to 1, and still slowly walk across America taking over. Until enough government forces realized how wrong it was to fight American citizens, it would be a bloodbath.
I won't suggest anyone even attempt such a rebellion, but if it comes to it, it will happen, and they will die. Anyone who thinks otherwise is a fool. But, if the government pushes the people far enough, it won't be one group, it will be disorganized people all across America, who will then become organized people, who can succeed. But like I said, it won't be pretty. I hope the day never comes.
With the new administration, things have come down (ignoring the crap that Fox News and a few others spew). I believe we have stepped away a good bit from it. From minutes to midnight, to probably 10pm. That's really good, considering the Doomsday clock is at 6 minutes to midnight.