the clockmaker said:
Yes, you do need authorisation, and no one but you is talking about giving the LAPD hellfires
Reading comprehension. It's not difficult. Well maybe to some people, but please put in an actual effort. You quote someones post and say they are totally correct, incorporating it into your argument, and then act like you didn't. You act like Loony is 100% correct because drone operators are expensive when he quotes statistics on predator drone operators. Do you think they are getting paid that money because no one can figure out how to run a pseudo automatic flight simulator or do you think its because the devices they are using are loaded with missiles?
Are you ESL or do you just always have difficulty understanding basic English?
the clockmaker said:
Those also have lesser range, lesser flight time, lesser sensor suites, and do not have the stability necessary to be armed. On top of that remember that the maintenance applies to every drone, so if you have 'hundreds above our cities' then yes, even if you use piss poor, unstable short range drones, there will be a huge maintenance cost.
Law enforcement reports say you're wrong. They say they can do it just as efficiently for 1/30th the cost. And the professional drones have high quality cameras, even the small ones.
the clockmaker said:
I made no mention of preds in my post.
You quote or otherwise refer to someone else's post in your argument with regards to cost. Their post was all about predator drones. Do not offer up information about predators if you do not want to talk about predators. Otherwise don't ***** at me for responding to subjects you bring up.
the clockmaker said:
Provide evidence of this claim. It flies, it needs maintenance to continue flying. Show some evidence that it requires less than a helo, remembering that you are positing a situation with hundreds of these flying about
Hundreds of them flying about is irrelevant to the argument. The argument is 1:1 because the cost allows there to be more. Obviously if you have 8000 drones flying around its going to cost as much or more than having 10 helicopters. That's the whole point of my argument. That I would rather have 10 helicopters than 8000 drones. How is this so hard for you to understand? You're arguing against the imaginary 'helicopters are more efficient crowd,' and it has nothing to do with the actual subject.
And you're seriously not sure that a 2 pound UAV takes less maintenance than a freaking helicopter? I can't even find data on maintenance costs because that's how little maintenance they require, people don't even list it as a serious cost. Even giant drones like predators cost(and yes they directly apply to the argument by illuminating on the cost comparative) cost like 1/8th of their slightly larger counterpart: jet fighters. [http://americansecurityproject.org/blog/2012/the-us-and-its-uavs-a-cost-benefit-analysis/]
the clockmaker said:
A drone is, for the sake of this conversation, a UAV, an aerial vehicle that does not require the pilot to be physically in the cockpit. Note that that does not greatly affect the maintenance.
No, it effect piloting costs, because drones can follow a series of waypoints allowing for a single operator to control multiple drones. How much does a couple monitors sitting in a room with 50 cameras cost? Less than having 50 unnecessary people piloting them for no reason? Less than having 50 helicopter pilots fly around the city?
the clockmaker said:
It proves the insecurity of drones in a similar manner to proving that walking through an unlocked door proves on a basic level that houses can be burgled.
No, it's a lot easier than that, social hacking is minimal risk considering how bad people are at tech security. And once you have the codes you can access them from anywhere, you don't have to walk into the control center to control the drones, as the article you referenced pointed out.
the clockmaker said:
Please show evidence that uneducated pers are going to be in charge of drone operations.
Because everyone is awful at tech security and people get hacked all the time for just that reason? And why would a convention magically disappear just because now it pertains to drone camera security? People suck at this stuff, they will always suck at this stuff. If the freaking pentagon can't keep classified files secure, what the hell makes you think that Joe Blow down at the local police station who took a 12 hour computer competency course will be able to?
the clockmaker said:
you stated that drones could do things legally that helicopters could not, my request was for you to indicate what that was.
No your question was about laws dictating where police choppers could fly and film. You're on like a whole different level of terrible reading comprehension here. Did you even read your own post? "Are there laws, beyond the FAA, that dictate where police choppers can and cannot fly, what they can and cannot film?"
the clockmaker said:
Really now, there is a police officer looking at you and suddenly you feel like a victim of the motherfucking holocaust. Think about that, really think.
What does this have to do with the holocaust? They were never sent to concentration camps, they lived in Berlin and the gestapos watched them. They clearly had it just great.
the clockmaker said:
Most war crimes come out of the stress and emotional reactions of the soldiers involved. Reducing war to an emotionless pursuit of objectives reduces the chances of events like My Lai
Not invading sovereign nations that clearly don't want to be invaded reduces the chances of events like My Lai. Reducing stress and emotional reactions lets us more easily invade sovereign nations and blow up people who don't want to be invaded.
the clockmaker said:
Al Qaeda, the taliban and other organisations of that ilk are insular due to the fear of location, infiltration and destruction. As such, any male between the age of 16-35 (not 'anyone who isn't a child')who is spending time at a compound utilised by these organisations is, within a reasonable degree of certainty, going to be involved in these activities.
We double tap funerals. Funeral goers are within a 'reasonable degree of certainty' all terrorists? And then when we hit them with a second strike 10 minutes later those are all terrorist paramedics right? Declaring everyone we kill isn't good sense, its tantamount to lying so we can cover our asses in media coverage. The same old bullshit they always play where the government cites the media, the media cites the government and everyone abdicates responsibility for blowing people up under the umbrella of "they're all terrerists."
the clockmaker said:
I also note that your sources made frequent usage of 'said to' and 'alleged' due to the lack of concrete information regarding the situation on the ground, and yet you simply stated it as fact.
double tapping funerals isn't alleged. Civilian casualties aren't alleged. Both have been admitted by US sources. They merely don't admit that that many people have died from it. And the allegation is that close to 1000 have died, conservative sources only say as high as 300. I say who gives a shit, we have no good reason to be over there, we are definitely killing civilians, and we wonder why people hate us?
the clockmaker said:
the time frame is not of immense relevance here, teh US is struggling to pay its bills and you are advocating measures that would exacerbate that based on your incomplete understanding of what spying is and paranoia.
The time frame proves the trend. You think they are going to go oh we saved money here lets spend it reducing our debt? Fuck no, they are going to spend it on something else because it's money no one is accounting for that's already in the budget.
And who gives a shit because in the end we are just going to collapse our economy, oil is going to drop the dollar, we will inflate our currency to hell and back, and then we will reinvent the deutschdollar after people start using stacks of rubber-banded dollars as toys for our children.
Because we want things, we don't want to pay for them, and reducing the cost of anything isn't going to change that it's just going to buy something else that we don't need.
the clockmaker said:
A police officer can follow you down the street without a warrant.
A police officer is not made out of wires. In US v Jones the supreme court ruled against technological tracking, citing it as a form of search, and as such violates the 4th amendment against unreasonable search.
Provisions allowing for domestic drone use under the patriot act are in violation of the constitution. These sections have never been tested because to bring a case one must show damages, and drones have never been used domestically; the main story this thread is predicated on is a lie spread by bad journalists.
the clockmaker said:
If I am thinking of the same US citizens as you, they had taken up a position in an organisation at war with the nation, with the purpose of assisting that organisation in its objectives. They did so working with enemy combatants and outside of the united states.
We aren't thinking of the same citizens. I'm thinking of the Beatles. I'm thinking of Albert Einstein. I'm thinking of Martin Luther King and Bayard Rustin. I'm thinking of CORE and the SNCC. I'm thinking of student demonstrators against the Vietnam war and for women's rights. I'm thinking of LBJ spying on Nixon and Nixon spying on LBJ and neither of them calling each other on it because they were both violating laws. I'm thinking of MKULTRA. I'm thinking of COINTELPRO. I'm thinking of the Tuskegee experiments.
the clockmaker said:
In addition, I am concerned to see you lifting a the operational situation of the CIA in Yemen and applying it whole cloth to the actions of the LAPD in California.
I'm concerned that you haven't payed any attention to US history.
the clockmaker said:
You seem to be very afraid of this technology based on a misunderstanding of how it is currently applied, an assumption that it will be misapplied in this context and also that it must be used in the same operational context in both the streets of LA and the border regions of Pakistan.
And you seem to have a very poor understanding of English, economics, history and law. You have a difficult time with simple logic equations when used abstractly in comparisons. Issues with consistent misreadings of my posts, posts you reference as well as your own posts(somehow.) As well as an inability to follow consistent trends in data over long periods of time and apply that information to your understanding.
