[stinkyFeet]

Niven's Law #16: There is no cause so right that one cannot find a fool following it.

Also, sometimes I wonder if dealing with people like that lowers your own standards for supporting your own points.

[Thaeris]

I wonder if we've been in the process of being so over-radicalized with everything we've been told that we can no longer hold discussion about matters. This woman so blindly holds to what she believes that she cannot hold it up to the fire and test it. But before the HLP Atheist Squad descends upon this statement to derail the thread, I'd like to disturb you with matters of state. Please read this fine article about Posse Comitatus, and discuss:

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

...Because... you most definately need drones to keep you safe. From yourself.

[Aardwolf]

You talking about how non-federal (?) police are using surveillance drones? Are they the property of the federal government or something? Or are they military? Or what's your point?

[Thaeris]

Not necessarily, but the drone I think you're talking about was purchased with Federal funds coming from Homeland Security. That may be a different discussion all together.

[Aardwolf]

Then what were you talking about when you (I presume sarcastically) said

...Because... you most definately need drones to keep you safe. From yourself.

Or was that in reference to something in one of the youtube videos I didn't bother watching?

[z64555]

Spit it out Thaeris, What's your beef with drones?

[An4ximandros]

It removes the soul from war!

They will keep you safe from the greatest enemy of your country, yourself.

[Dragon]

Spit it out Thaeris, What's your beef with drones?

He's most likely just siding with fighter pilots on the issue. As for fighter pilots and drones... http://www.afblues.com/wordpress/2008/01/09/01092008/

[General Battuta]

Drowns

[-Sara-]

I don't know what works for America to get some money, but here in the Netherlands the terminating of financial help for third-world countries gained a good bit of support and votes. Apparently it involves several billions if not more, from which the costs of getting food to Africa is almost 1000+% or so of what grain actually costs. Also helping their agriculture lasts only several years before they do it their way again and screw it up, so time for different and more financial friendly approaches. Many in the Netherlands also support Australian immigration approaches, where if you want to live here, you must be able to earn a good bit of money and if you can't earn money you don't get in (and don't get to be a drain on the economy) but I doubt EU lets that fly.

[Thaeris]

Then what were you talking about when you (I presume sarcastically) said

...Because... you most definately need drones to keep you safe. From yourself.

Or was that in reference to something in one of the youtube videos I didn't bother watching?

Sorry for not getting back to this sooner. Here's an article to consider:

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/07/usaf-drones-trail-civilian-auto-traffic-in-new-mexico/259517/

Training is important, but I feel that the implications of doing this sort of "training" is equally important, and not in a good sense. If nothing else, the government is using your funds to propagate and expand programs as these, and they offer no real benefit to you.

Also, **** drones, Z. A Cessna and an observer team in most every instance is cheaper than a military-grade drone. Your police department certainly doesn't need drones that can fire tear gas with the assistance of a fire control computer.

[Scotty]

Cheaper in every way but lives risked, you mean.

[Thaeris]

Good grief, replace everthing with drones, then.

Last time I checked, there were a lot of people who want to be pilots, and they fly aeroplanes and helicopters just fine.

[Dragon]

Cheaper in every way but lives risked, you mean.

You're not really risking your life tracking speeding drivers and other highway transgressions, especially if you're doing this from the air when they can't crash into you. Drones in combat roles work, because they're cheaper and less risky than manned fighters. Of course, they can't completely replace fighters because of EW concerns, but they work for taking pot shots at terrorists. Using UAVs for tracking road pirates seems like an overkill, since a military grade flight sim would do just fine for training UAV operators. Unlike real pilots, they don't really have much difference between flying a real and a simulated Predator.

[Scotty]

Cheaper in every way but lives risked, you mean.

You're not really risking your life tracking speeding drivers and other highway transgressions, especially if you're doing this from the air when they can't crash into you. Drones in combat roles work, because they're cheaper and less risky than manned fighters. Of course, they can't completely replace fighters because of EW concerns, but they work for taking pot shots at terrorists. Using UAVs for tracking road pirates seems like an overkill, since a military grade flight sim would do just fine for training UAV operators. Unlike real pilots, they don't really have much difference between flying a real and a simulated Predator.

I was responding in general.  Despite the presence of a specific example, Thaeris was pretty obviously against the idea of drone use in general, and I responded in kind.

[NGTM-1R]

I'm pretty sure that once you outfitted a Cessna with the sensors to bring it up to drone levels of capability it's not going to be cheaper anymore. It'll certainly have several times the fuel operating cost simply because it's considerably heavier, and lack the loiter time and covert nature of a drone. (Hint, this has been done in various South American countries, the drones are better.)

The article is also hilariously alarmist. So they track a car for training purposes; it's cheaper than the article's proposed alternative, and it's completely harmless since they're not targeted and they're not running a ****ing license plate or something and they're not calling the cops on you if you're speeding.

And even if they were, this wouldn't be very different from existing police helicopters, which is what makes it dumb like the privacy argument against stoplight cameras is dumb; you're out driving around in public, anyone can see your car, you have no reasonable expectation of privacy unless or until somebody tries to open the trunk or look under the seats.

[Dragon]

The article is also hilariously alarmist. So they track a car for training purposes; it's cheaper than the article's proposed alternative, and it's completely harmless since they're not targeted and they're not running a ****ing license plate or something and they're not calling the cops on you if you're speeding.

They don't? Then they should. What's the point of doing this if you're not even going to stop any road pirates you find? As I mentioned, training itself can be done with a good flight sim.

I'm pretty sure that once you outfitted a Cessna with the sensors to bring it up to drone levels of capability it's not going to be cheaper anymore. It'll certainly have several times the fuel operating cost simply because it's considerably heavier, and lack the loiter time and covert nature of a drone. (Hint, this has been done in various South American countries, the drones are better.)

If we're talking traffic control, then the entire sensor suite can consist of a decent camera and a speed control radar. The latter needs a longer range than usual, but I don't think such devices would be very expensive compared to a FLIR, NV, laser designator and the sophisticated RC suite a Predator has. Also, you don't need covert nature for tracking speeding drivers, since the point is getting them to slow down.

[Aardwolf]

Yo Thaeris, you were saying something about Libertarian environmental policies being all about "property rights" because if someone pollutes your property, you have legal recourse...

Well there's a problem with that. It means the more property you have, the more your right to not be polluted matters. Also stuff like air pollution. Also it doesn't address depletion of finite resources.

 

[Thaeris]

There's such a thing called common sense?

Regulations and laws are not necessarily bad, and when they work, they work very well. A lot of times, however...

Ultimately what one must rely upon in any society is individuals who will do the right thing through their morals and ethics. When no one is capable of doing that, the society falls apart.

I would state this: there was a point in US history where Federalization was necessary to promote cohesion and unity within the nation. I believe we are at a point now where a level of de-Federalization is necessary. Reforms must be made to law and practice if you desire to continue to live in a free and prosperous nation.

[Scotty]

Ultimately what one must rely upon in any society is individuals who will do the right thing through their morals and ethics. When no one is capable of doing that, the society falls apart.

This is a great concept, but falls apart right at the concept level because people are dicks.