The FAA Reauthorization Act, which President Obama is expected to sign....
The agency projects that 30,000 drones could be in the nation’s skies by 2020. Big bad Bush did the Patriot Act and this board along with the media went nuts. Wonder if this will gt much coverage at all or if it will just be silently ignored like other bad decisions in this admin.
So what is the spin on this, how is this change we need? Republican house, and a Democrat Senate pass it, and a lib Democrat President to seal it into law.
-------------------- It isn't so much that liberals are ignorant. It's just that they know so many things that aren't so. Posts: 6949 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by buckstalker: Why are you so surprised? I have been telling you for quite some time now that THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE DEMS AND THE GOP
Because he is stupid? Just a guess.
-------------------- It is impossible to make anything foolproof because fools are so ingenious. Posts: 3311 | From: St. Louis | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not sure if it's stupidity or if he has just been thoroughly brainwashed by watching (and believing) what he hears on the the likes of Fox "News"
-------------------- ***********************
It's all in the timing... Posts: 4303 | From: DSA | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I watch more MSNBC and CNN than I do Fox. I watch all channels equally. Fox and MSNBC will air doubles of cable news at night so you can catch the episodes more easily. I have explained this before. I watch more Rachel Maddow than I do Hannity, if ever.
I am really shocked that you all are ok with this. Did you read the article? It says the FAA will not release WHO will get the government contracts, and wont say WHY. Big government, spy drones over your land, you are not allowed to know who gets all the money to build them or why. Why would Obama sign off on this if he is all about transparency? Whats the big coverup here?
-------------------- It isn't so much that liberals are ignorant. It's just that they know so many things that aren't so. Posts: 6949 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
cash, why not ask why your precious GOP house of representatives ALREADY passed this? they are already doing it, it's a bill to expedite the aproval process. i don't like it, but i also know that they use drones to monitor crops and otehr "harmless" things that don't invade our privacy...
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by CashCowMoo: I watch more MSNBC and CNN than I do Fox. I watch all channels equally. Fox and MSNBC will air doubles of cable news at night so you can catch the episodes more easily. I have explained this before. I watch more Rachel Maddow than I do Hannity, if ever.
I am really shocked that you all are ok with this. Did you read the article? It says the FAA will not release WHO will get the government contracts, and wont say WHY. Big government, spy drones over your land, you are not allowed to know who gets all the money to build them or why. Why would Obama sign off on this if he is all about transparency? Whats the big coverup here?
I NEVER said I liked it...I merely pointed out the fact that the GOP is just as guilty of "relieving us" of our privacy and liberties
-------------------- ***********************
It's all in the timing... Posts: 4303 | From: DSA | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by glassman: cash, why not ask why your precious GOP house of representatives ALREADY passed this? they are already doing it, it's a bill to expedite the aproval process. i don't like it, but i also know that they use drones to monitor crops and otehr "harmless" things that don't invade our privacy...
Why would I ask them when thy only control 1/3?
Posts: 6949 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by CashCowMoo: I watch more MSNBC and CNN than I do Fox. I watch all channels equally. Fox and MSNBC will air doubles of cable news at night so you can catch the episodes more easily. I have explained this before. I watch more Rachel Maddow than I do Hannity, if ever.
I am really shocked that you all are ok with this. Did you read the article? It says the FAA will not release WHO will get the government contracts, and wont say WHY. Big government, spy drones over your land, you are not allowed to know who gets all the money to build them or why. Why would Obama sign off on this if he is all about transparency? Whats the big coverup here?
I NEVER said I liked it...I merely pointed out the fact that the GOP is just as guilty of "relieving us" of our privacy and liberties
Well no sh**, I never said the GOP was perfect. They are not the ones in charge, and haven't been for a while now.
-------------------- It isn't so much that liberals are ignorant. It's just that they know so many things that aren't so. Posts: 6949 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by glassman: cash, why not ask why your precious GOP house of representatives ALREADY passed this? they are already doing it, it's a bill to expedite the aproval process. i don't like it, but i also know that they use drones to monitor crops and otehr "harmless" things that don't invade our privacy...
Why would I ask them when thy only control 1/3?
LOL... cash you amaze me, the bill orignated in the House and was sponsored by mostly GOPs'-here's the bill:
quote:Originally posted by glassman: cash, why not ask why your precious GOP house of representatives ALREADY passed this? they are already doing it, it's a bill to expedite the aproval process. i don't like it, but i also know that they use drones to monitor crops and otehr "harmless" things that don't invade our privacy...
Why would I ask them when thy only control 1/3?
LOL... cash you amaze me, the bill orignated in the House and was sponsored by mostly GOPs'-here's the bill:
COSPONSORS(24), ALPHABETICAL [followed by Cosponsors withdrawn]: (Sort: by date)
Rep Barletta, Lou [PA-11] - 2/11/2011 Rep Bucshon, Larry [IN-8] - 2/11/2011 Rep Capito, Shelley Moore [WV-2] - 2/11/2011 Rep Coble, Howard [NC-6] - 2/11/2011 Rep Cohen, Steve [TN-9] - 2/11/2011 Rep Cravaack, Chip [MN-8] - 2/14/2011 Rep Denham, Jeff [CA-19] - 2/11/2011 Rep Farenthold, Blake [TX-27] - 2/11/2011 Rep Gibbs, Bob [OH-18] - 2/11/2011 Rep Graves, Sam [MO-6] - 2/11/2011 Rep Guinta, Frank C. [NH-1] - 3/2/2011 Rep Hanna, Richard L. [NY-24] - 2/11/2011 Rep Hultgren, Randy [IL-14] - 2/11/2011 Rep Lankford, James [OK-5] - 2/11/2011 Rep Long, Billy [MO-7] - 2/11/2011 Rep Meehan, Patrick [PA-7] - 2/11/2011 Rep Miller, Gary G. [CA-42] - 2/11/2011 Rep Petri, Thomas E. [WI-6] - 2/11/2011 Rep Reed, Tom [NY-29] - 2/11/2011 Rep Rokita, Todd [IN-4] - 2/14/2011 Rep Shuster, Bill [PA-9] - 2/11/2011 Rep Southerland, Steve [FL-2] - 2/11/2011 Rep Westmoreland, Lynn A. [GA-3] - 2/11/2011 Rep Young, Don [AK] - 2/11/2011
Glass. I never said that they didnt sign off on it. I am saying that the Republicans only control the house. So this bill that they signed, went to the Dems in the Senate and was passed. Now, Obama is set to sign it.
I GET IT...yes I know Republicans and Democrats both signed on it. I love this poor decision is marginalized by focusing attention on the minority control who supported it and not the overal leader. Anyway, I dont know why they are even screwing around with crap like this when we have far greater issues that need attention.
Posts: 6949 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
This might sound silly, but I have a hunch that there are people in this administration who are wanting to tax tithes given at church at Sunday services.
-------------------- It isn't so much that liberals are ignorant. It's just that they know so many things that aren't so. Posts: 6949 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I love this poor decision is marginalized by focusing attention on the minority control who supported it and not the overal leader.
LOL... they are all in it together. you only focus on 'the leader" cuz you are partisan, which we've been telling you for years is how they keep screwing everybody and get away with it.
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
BTW cash? if yo had clicked on the bill and seen how many pages it was? you might complain about that too like you did when the Dems wrote 2000 page bills... not all of are getting what we deserve, but enough of us are that rest have to suffer too.
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by glassman: I love this poor decision is marginalized by focusing attention on the minority control who supported it and not the overal leader.
LOL... they are all in it together. you only focus on 'the leader" cuz you are partisan, which we've been telling you for years is how they keep screwing everybody and get away with it.
Exactly why I'm supporting Paul...
-------------------- ***********************
It's all in the timing... Posts: 4303 | From: DSA | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It had to happen eventually. Drones have been far too effective on the field for domestic enforcement not to want them.
For departments using this for surveillance I think it is mostly just novelty and desire driving this. You ever look out of a plane window with a good view of Nebraska? How long did it take you to get bored? 1 minute? 2?
No matter how many eyes you have in the sky unless you have something specific to look at you are looking at a whole lot of nothing. Take it from a guy who knows.
As to border and other enforcement agencies, it's all about money in my opinion. I think the future of the US armed forces air superiority will increasingly rely on drones. It is easier to train a joystick pilot whose workstation is the same as his training station than to prepare a man to fly a fighter at 40,000ft. And how much less will construction cost be if you can build to 3/5ths scale carrying the same armament but not having to include life support or central structure integrity reinforcement? Building on assembly you could outfit three drones for every F-22 Raptor.
I agree that it is not the same but I truly believe it is the future of air/space warfare.
-------------------- No longer eligible for government service due to lack of tax issues. Posts: 5178 | From: Up North | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
So what will you all feel when you find out drones are looking at you in your backyard? By both government and private sectors? Collecting your patterns of behavior such as time of day you leave your house, and what you do in your backyard such as target shoot, or make something, or whatever. Its all no big deal right? Lets keep blaming Republicans for their faults and dismiss any adverse moves made in the current administration. I could care less if Republicans signed off on this with Democrats. Obama has the final say, he can say this is too creepy and too much big government, but he never talks like that when it comes to expansion.
All I ever hear is "but...Republicans yadda yadda yadda". but but but....
Somehow even though Obama is the President, if something goes wrong its because the Republicans started it.
-------------------- It isn't so much that liberals are ignorant. It's just that they know so many things that aren't so. Posts: 6949 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Cow, what I'm telling you is I am the guy that has been looking in your backyard, and quite frankly, your backyard is boring.
Eventually you are correct, air rights over private homes will become important. Before we get to that though we will have to settle who gets the oil under the north pole. I think that will be pressing far earlier than commercial companies deciding to spy to find out what you grill and which herbicide you use.
Hell...I'd image Google has a good idea already anyway and they didn't need flying equipment to do it.
-------------------- No longer eligible for government service due to lack of tax issues. Posts: 5178 | From: Up North | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by CashCowMoo: So what will you all feel when you find out drones are looking at you in your backyard? By both government and private sectors? Collecting your patterns of behavior such as time of day you leave your house, and what you do in your backyard such as target shoot, or make something, or whatever. Its all no big deal right? Lets keep blaming Republicans for their faults and dismiss any adverse moves made in the current administration. I could care less if Republicans signed off on this with Democrats. Obama has the final say, he can say this is too creepy and too much big government, but he never talks like that when it comes to expansion.
All I ever hear is "but...Republicans yadda yadda yadda". but but but....
Somehow even though Obama is the President, if something goes wrong its because the Republicans started it.
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, I dont like it. I dont want DRONES flying over my land and property taking video or images of me. I know Google Earth does this is a soft manner. This though can be used for streaming.
All I know is if this was signed off on by Bush, this board would be up in arms over it. Now its just no big deal.
When the "Patriot Act" was passed by Bush this board was livid over it, but when Obama signed a FOUR YEAR extension over it....it gets little debate if any.
-------------------- It isn't so much that liberals are ignorant. It's just that they know so many things that aren't so. Posts: 6949 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The anger at the Patriot act was because it actively allowed entry and search without warrants. It allowed seizure of private documents (such as financial statements) without obtaining warrants. The language was intentionally broad brushed so that nearly any act could be labeled as terrorism if you were an investigation target.
That is a tad different than someone peeping from 10,000 feet.
The act is still a major problem and something I disagree with the administration, the senate majority, and the congressional majority on. I understand why they like having the powers afforded but it infringes way too far. Much farther than exterior cameras ever could.
-------------------- No longer eligible for government service due to lack of tax issues. Posts: 5178 | From: Up North | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by CashCowMoo: Well, I dont like it. I dont want DRONES flying over my land and property taking video or images of me. I know Google Earth does this is a soft manner. This though can be used for streaming.
All I know is if this was signed off on by Bush, this board would be up in arms over it. Now its just no big deal.
When the "Patriot Act" was passed by Bush this board was livid over it, but when Obama signed a FOUR YEAR extension over it....it gets little debate if any.
cash, when i was a kid i knew the kids of the people who put the satellites up.... the joke was that our parents knew what brand of cigarretes we were smoking with them... this was in the 70's...
in 1982 i was lucky enought to be in HI when this band came out and toured witht his album, the concert hall there is tiny, and these guys were HOT! enjoy and try not to get too worked up about what you can't control...
posted
Do you think one of those drones could help me find my car keys that I lost last week?
Posts: 5729 | From: Wisconsin | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Groups Concerned Over Arming Of Domestic Drones
"Chief Deputy Randy McDaniel of the Montgomery County Sheriff’s Office in Texas told The Daily that his department is considering using rubber bullets and tear gas on its drone."
Keep the tin foil hat jokes and black helicopter remarks coming, but this is serious and is happening right before your eyes. If this was President Bush the media would be all over it, but since Obama is in office....this is "no big deal".
-------------------- It isn't so much that liberals are ignorant. It's just that they know so many things that aren't so. Posts: 6949 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why would obama sign this bill? Very simple there is a group of very very wealthy people at the top that realy run the country. Nobody in either party can get nominated to run in a presidential election unless they get the official nod from them.
And if you read your history and put two and two together it is easy to see that this is no recent event. We only have rights as long as they fall with in a margin of acceptence. I happen to believe if the population realy starts to catch on this group will take the gloves off. Drones for observation and armed might just be the first real step.
-------------------- Wise men learn more from fools than fools from the wise. Posts: 3827 | From: beautiful California | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
the only defense is to understand the technology...
start here and work your way up the food chain:
Review: iPhone-controlled drone fun but expensive
November 3, 2010 By MICHAEL FELBERBAUM , AP Business Writer Review: iPhone-controlled drone fun but expensive (AP)
Enlarge
This product image provided by Parrot, shows the AR.Drone. Parrot, a company known more for its Bluetooth hands-free car speakerphones, has launched a small, unmanned aircraft that can be controlled using an iPhone or another of Apple Inc.'s Wi-Fi-enabled gadgets, including the iPod Touch and the iPad.(AP Photo/Parrot) NO SALES
(AP) -- You can pretty much do anything with your iPhone these days - control your digital video recorder from afar, unlock your car, and now, fly a drone.
Ads by Google
Android Phones - Comparing Wireless Rates? Create a Personalized Plan with C Spire! - cspire.com
Parrot, a company known more for its Bluetooth handsfree car speakerphones, has launched a small, unmanned aircraft that can be controlled using an iPhone or another of Apple Inc.'s Wi-Fi-enabled gadgets, including the iPod Touch and the iPad. After reading about it online, I felt compelled to take the drone for a test drive because, honestly, what gadget geek wouldn't want one?
The $300 AR.Drone is a quadricopter - a helicopter with four separate propellers - made of carbon fiber and strong plastics.
Weighing less than a pound, the gadget can fly up to 11 mph, controlled from up to 150 feet away. The drone has two built-in cameras that stream video of what it sees directly to your iPhone, or another Apple device. You then control aspects of the flight by tilting the iPhone from side to side, using the gyroscope in the device.
Don't worry if you don't have a good cellular or Wi-Fi connection. The drone has its own Wi-Fi system to communicate directly with the iPhone without needing to go through an outside Wi-Fi hotspot.
The setup was quite easy. After downloading the free app from Apple's iTunes store and charging the battery for the AR.Drone, I was ready to fly. With one touch of a button on the screen, the AR.Drone was hovering about three feet off the ground. Landing is just as simple, with one on-screen button that slowly lowers the drone to the ground.
video transmission with lo power can be very diffucult to mainatin
and drone on drone might be a fun game too
in the 60's it was popular to fight the model airplanes that were on wires... anybody else remember those? i built a compettition model to 90% but never got eh motor, it got crushed by one of my siblings "by accident" for something i did to 'em... i prolly deserved it too
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Explore making custom maps in an interactive tutorial. Map of Domestic Drone Authorizations Public · 80,940 views Created on Apr 17 · By Jennifer · Updated Apr 24 16 ratings · 16 comments · KML ·
PUBLISHED: 04:32 EST, 26 May 2012 | UPDATED: 12:46 EST, 26 May 2012
Revealing: A list of keywords used by government analysts to scour the internet for evidence of threats to the U.S. has been released under the Freedom of Information Act
The Department of Homeland Security has been forced to release a list of keywords and phrases it uses to monitor social networking sites and online media for signs of terrorist or other threats against the U.S.
The intriguing the list includes obvious choices such as 'attack', 'Al Qaeda', 'terrorism' and 'dirty bomb' alongside dozens of seemingly innocent words like 'pork', 'cloud', 'team' and 'Mexico'.
Released under a freedom of information request, the information sheds new light on how government analysts are instructed to patrol the internet searching for domestic and external threats.
The words are included in the department's 2011 'Analyst's Desktop Binder' used by workers at their National Operations Center which instructs workers to identify 'media reports that reflect adversely on DHS and response activities'.
Department chiefs were forced to release the manual following a House hearing over documents obtained through a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit which revealed how analysts monitor social networks and media organisations for comments that 'reflect adversely' on the government.
However they insisted the practice was aimed not at policing the internet for disparaging remarks about the government and signs of general dissent, but to provide awareness of any potential threats.
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
