Jump to content



Photo
- - - - -

Pbs: Nova - rise of drones


  • Please log in to reply
66 replies to this topic

#1 Finger_Shocker

Finger_Shocker

    CAG Veteran

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 26 January 2013 - 07:35 PM

http://mashable.com/...ova-drones-doc/

Neat......

Welcome to the future, we are all TARGETS

#2 Spokker

Spokker

    CAGiversary!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 26 January 2013 - 07:47 PM

Pretty soon there's going to be so many things a principled person cannot do in society. I already gave up one of my favorite things, train travel, because of national security creep. I'd like to visit New York City but won't because I don't want to be randomly stopped and frisked (I would absolutely flip out and be sent to jail so I'm going to do the sensible thing and avoid the city). Now you won't be able to go outside once the drones are in the sky. It's no wonder that far-right conspiracy personalities are booming in popularity. The federal government essentially hands them the material. I think it's unfortunate because there are a lot of issues with privacy and government overstep when it comes to things like security, but it can be easy to be dismissed as one of those Alex Jones freaks.

#3 Finger_Shocker

Finger_Shocker

    CAG Veteran

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 26 January 2013 - 07:51 PM

Pretty soon there's going to be so many things a principled person cannot do in society. I already gave up one of my favorite things, train travel, because of national security creep. I'd like to visit New York City but won't because I don't want to be randomly stopped and frisked (I would absolutely flip out and be sent to jail so I'm going to do the sensible thing and avoid the city). Now you won't be able to go outside once the drones are in the sky. It's no wonder that far-right conspiracy personalities are booming in popularity. The federal government essentially hands them the material.


When did they start doing train travel, I thought it was only air currently? I never been stopped on the train..

NYC ain't bad, I live here.

The cops only stops blacks and hispanics....:D, which isn't much of a difference across america...:booty:

#4 Spokker

Spokker

    CAGiversary!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 26 January 2013 - 08:15 PM

TSA on Amtrak is random at the moment, and will remain that way for quite some time, but I don't want to be caught up in it.

It's the TSA VIPR team that does the random checks. They also do random bag checks on the local rail transit here, subway, light rail and commuter rail. I was also detained briefly for taking photographs of trains (by local police, not TSA) and it put a bad taste in my mouth. They asked me to delete my pictures and I refused. After some intimidation they let me go.

It's funny, because at one point the Amtrak chief of police evicted the VIPR team from Amtrak property after a random check in Georgia years ago. But I guess they settled that since the VIPR team is back and on the job.

#5 Finger_Shocker

Finger_Shocker

    CAG Veteran

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 26 January 2013 - 08:23 PM

Thats funny,

Cause I taken Amtrak a couple of time and haven't seen any VIPR teams.. But then again I never carry alot of stuff on me.

Wow that sucks to hear, taking pictures of trains... sorry to hear bout it

I never even knew the TSA extended their grips to Amtrak, but I'll be on the look out for it from now

#6 Spokker

Spokker

    CAGiversary!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 26 January 2013 - 09:15 PM

Like I said, it's random. Even the TSA knows that it's futile to cover all 529 stations, many of them rinky dink stations in the middle of nowhere. But I suspect high speed rail, if it is ever completed, will have TSA style airport security.

#7 dafoomie

dafoomie

Posted 29 January 2013 - 07:09 AM

I think it's unfortunate because there are a lot of issues with privacy and government overstep when it comes to things like security, but it can be easy to be dismissed as one of those Alex Jones freaks.

Democrats used to champion these issues back in the day, when their guy wasn't President and they were the minority party in Congress. Now it's confined to the realm of Ron Paul Liberterians and old school 60s liberals who still believe that ever increasing government power is antithetical to freedom. Sad state of affairs.

#8 UncleBob

UncleBob

Posted 29 January 2013 - 07:23 AM

Democrats used to champion these issues back in the day, when their guy wasn't President and they were the minority party in Congress.


I'm left wondering how much of their fight against these issues was because they actually had a stance they believed in verses "Oh, hey, it's what they're doing, so we should be against it."
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy, instead of diminishing evil, it multiplies it."

#9 IRHari

IRHari

Posted 29 January 2013 - 11:09 AM

I read that Lockheed Martin sponsored it :)
"People the world over have always been more impressed by the power of our example than by the example of our power." -Bill Clinton

#10 berzirk

berzirk

    I'm not so serious

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 29 January 2013 - 05:03 PM

I believe the rampant use of drone strikes on Americans overseas, and foreigners we term terrorists, will be one of the main issues that is discussed decades down the road. As a non-supporter of Bush II and Obama, the Obama use tweaks me more, because he sold the idea of hope, and justice, and a more ethical use of power than Bush commanded. What we actually got was someone with an equal amount of blood on his hands, and the same zest for blood and destruction that W had. Especially if Universal Health Care gets repealed by the next Republican in office, what else will we know the Obama presidency for?

Bush II directed more money to AIDS assistance in Africa than anyone before or after him. We remember him for war mongering and invading our privacy. It will be interesting.

#11 dohdough

dohdough

    Sum Dum Guy

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 29 January 2013 - 06:26 PM

I believe the rampant use of drone strikes on Americans overseas, and foreigners we term terrorists, will be one of the main issues that is discussed decades down the road. As a non-supporter of Bush II and Obama, the Obama use tweaks me more, because he sold the idea of hope, and justice, and a more ethical use of power than Bush commanded. What we actually got was someone with an equal amount of blood on his hands, and the same zest for blood and destruction that W had. Especially if Universal Health Care gets repealed by the next Republican in office, what else will we know the Obama presidency for?

Bush II directed more money to AIDS assistance in Africa than anyone before or after him. We remember him for war mongering and invading our privacy. It will be interesting.

This goes to show you the state of what's considered "liberal" and "conservative" these days. This is also why it amuses me to no end when someone starts throwing "liberal" around to describe mainline Democrats, so much so that when it happens irl, I always ask people what they mean. Most "lefties" usually go on about neo-liberalism without knowing it and righties generally have no clue, just that "liberal"=bad...on one occasion, it was closely linked to homophobia and an Asian fetish, as in the guy had both and used it to weakly explain his political stances.

But back on topic. Using drones is actually something that has been in the works for years and is the natural progression of how both parties want to conduct war. Ending wars and bringing home troops needs to be replaced by something in order to continue the ongoing campaign of imperialism and drones are the answer. Politically, it's not worth sending 150,000 service members to some foreign country if you can't shape public opinion on it. Smaller, surgical strikes is the new face of war when you have a nebulous enemy.

On a couple of sidenotes, what passed for healthcare reform isn't universal healthcare and if I remember correctly, most of the AID's funds were dispersed to religious organizations, more than likely christian ones, that promoted abstinence rather than safer sex practices and sex education.

#12 IRHari

IRHari

Posted 29 January 2013 - 10:24 PM

"Surgical" implies high accuracy.
"People the world over have always been more impressed by the power of our example than by the example of our power." -Bill Clinton

#13 dohdough

dohdough

    Sum Dum Guy

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 30 January 2013 - 03:00 AM

"Surgical" implies high accuracy.


It is compared to how we usually do it and in no way am I saying that it's a good thing, just that it is a thing and the new reality. Believe me, I wish it wasn't the case.

#14 ID2006

ID2006

    "Klaymen, up here!"

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 30 January 2013 - 03:04 AM

I've got to wonder how long before someone (China?) uses a drone in our territory or that of an ally, then justifies it as their own national security. What will the reaction be?

I'm also curious about the behind the scenes bureaucracy. Sure Pakistan may be tolerating our drone strikes outwardly, but how are they reacting behind the scenes?

Almost feel sorry for these countries that the U.S. can push around because they'd have no chance of fighting back if they wanted to. We wouldn't dare do this in China or Russia (or would we?)

#15 Clak

Clak

    Made of star stuff.

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 30 January 2013 - 03:57 AM

I'm not sure if I'd say Pakistan is outwardly tolerating the drone strikes. They've been pretty pissed about it lately and haven't been hiding it nearly as much as they used to.
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that. -George Carlin

“Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.” -Mark Twain

“When a great genius appears in the world you may know him by this sign; that the dunces are all in confederacy against him." -Jonathon Swift

#16 Finger_Shocker

Finger_Shocker

    CAG Veteran

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 30 January 2013 - 12:15 PM

Pakistan gov't is corrupt, nothing like a little US greenbacks to smooth them over...

Go bribe a gov't official in the USA, you be thrown in the slammer, yet Uncle Sam been greasing other gov't officials for close to more half a then h century.

#17 berzirk

berzirk

    I'm not so serious

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 30 January 2013 - 05:43 PM

This goes to show you the state of what's considered "liberal" and "conservative" these days. This is also why it amuses me to no end when someone starts throwing "liberal" around to describe mainline Democrats, so much so that when it happens irl, I always ask people what they mean. Most "lefties" usually go on about neo-liberalism without knowing it and righties generally have no clue, just that "liberal"=bad...on one occasion, it was closely linked to homophobia and an Asian fetish, as in the guy had both and used it to weakly explain his political stances.


I don't understand why I was quoted then that first paragraph was posted in reply, but your last sentence made me just about lol.

But back on topic. Using drones is actually something that has been in the works for years and is the natural progression of how both parties want to conduct war. Ending wars and bringing home troops needs to be replaced by something in order to continue the ongoing campaign of imperialism and drones are the answer. Politically, it's not worth sending 150,000 service members to some foreign country if you can't shape public opinion on it. Smaller, surgical strikes is the new face of war when you have a nebulous enemy.

Perhaps. I feel like the public needs to be sold better on it then. I think more people look at drones as remote control death devices, which are less understood, than a confrontation with an armed opponent, and making strategic decision on how to neutralize the opponent. Throw in the massive civilian casualties that are being reported as a result of drone strikes, and much like most things these days, unless you have a better PR guy than the opposing group, you're probably going to lose to public opinion. That's more important now than it has been in previous decades.

On a couple of sidenotes, what passed for healthcare reform isn't universal healthcare and if I remember correctly

Agreed, I should've said Affordable Care Act/Obamacare instead. Mis-use of "Universal Health Care" by me.

most of the AID's funds were dispersed to religious organizations, more than likely christian ones, that promoted abstinence rather than safer sex practices and sex education.

As a pretty well known "non-Christian" around these parts, it doesn't really matter to me WHO got the money. I sincerely believe it was his goal to find a way to get money to Africa to fight the spread of AIDS (and not to pad the pockets of NGO administrators). Missionaries have a long and horrible history throughout that continent, but if they are going to teach abstinence, while educating on the spread of AIDS, delivering medication to slow the progression of the disease, or even just hand out a ton of rubbers, good for W, and shame on previous presidents for not making it a major point of action. He is not appropriately credited for that great act, because he is better known for many widely considered bad ones. That's my question on Obama. Will he be known for one thing that many consider to be very good (Affordable Care Act) or will it be the use of drones, lack of action on Gitmo, continuation of wars, and expansion in some regions? I don't know. We can discuss in a couple decades.

#18 dohdough

dohdough

    Sum Dum Guy

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 30 January 2013 - 05:59 PM

Point of it was that people consider Obama liberal when he's really center-right when looking at his policies, which are similar to Bush's.

IMO, Obama will be known for just being the first black president. Conservatives will turn him into this weird mix of Clinton and Carter.

Tablet typing in bed cause I wrecked my hip last night putting a roast in the oven, so my post wasn't as detailed as I usually like, sorry. Lift with your knees will never be forgotten now...hahaha.

#19 Clak

Clak

    Made of star stuff.

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 30 January 2013 - 07:45 PM

You know, if you'd said you burned yourself I'd totally understand that, but how the hell do you hurt your hip placing a roast in the oven?

Old man doh over here....;)
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that. -George Carlin

“Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.” -Mark Twain

“When a great genius appears in the world you may know him by this sign; that the dunces are all in confederacy against him." -Jonathon Swift

#20 dohdough

dohdough

    Sum Dum Guy

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 30 January 2013 - 07:56 PM

You know, if you'd said you burned yourself I'd totally understand that, but how the hell do you hurt your hip placing a roast in the oven?

Old man doh over here....;)

When you turn 33, you'll see how it is!:lol:

Pre-heated oven, door comes out about 2 feet, bottom rack is about 6 inches off the floor, a 10lb roast, and a whole lot of dumb. I was leaning in, felt my left hip tightening, and then pain...lots of it. On the brightside, I didn't drop the roast! Too much cumin though.

#21 cancerman1120

cancerman1120

    CAGiversary!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 30 January 2013 - 08:30 PM

When you turn 33, you'll see how it is!:lol:

Pre-heated oven, door comes out about 2 feet, bottom rack is about 6 inches off the floor, a 10lb roast, and a whole lot of dumb. I was leaning in, felt my left hip tightening, and then pain...lots of it. On the brightside, I didn't drop the roast! Too much cumin though.


I am 38. I hurt myself all the time in the dumbest ways. Pull a muscle in my back drying off from the shower? Yeah I can do that.

#22 joeboosauce

joeboosauce

    Snarf! Get in the...

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 01 February 2013 - 09:59 PM

Surprise, surprise...

PBS Drone Coverage Brought to You by Drone Makers
Lockheed's Nova sponsorship violates underwriting rules
http://fair.org/take...y-drone-makers/

The PBS Nova broadcast "Rise of the Drones" was sponsored by drone manufacturer Lockheed Martin--a clear violation of PBS's underwriting guidelines.
As Kevin Gosztola reported (FireDogLake, 1/24/13), the January 23 broadcast was a mostly upbeat look at surveillance and weaponized drones. "Discover the cutting edge technologies that are propelling us toward a new chapter in aviation history," PBS urged, promising to reveal "the amazing technologies that make drones so powerful."

Some of that technology, unbeknownst to viewers, was created by the company described as giving Nova "additional funding" at the beginning of the broadcast. Lockheed Martin, a major military contractor with $46 billion in 2011 sales, is a manufacturer of drones used in warfare and intelligence, including the Desert Hawk, the Falcon, the Stalker and the Tracer. In December 2012, Lockheed bought AME Unmanned Air Systems, maker of the Fury drone (New Times, 12/19/12).
Nova's history of unmanned flight technology included comments from Abe Karem, dubbed the "father of the Predator" drone. His current company, FireDogLake's Gosztola noted, has a business relationship with Lockheed Martin.

The show did not entirely skirt the controversies over drones. A section of the broadcast dealt with drone pilots firing on targets in countries like Afghanistan or Pakistan. Viewers, though, are told that drone pilots have distinct advantage over conventional pilots. One drone operator talks about how, after a strike, a drone can "stick around for another few hours to watch what happens afterwards." A more critical look at drone wars might have mentioned these are the same circumstances under which U.S. drones have attacked rescue workers and funeral processions (Bureau of Investigative Journalism, 6/4/12).

The show does not ignore the question of civilian deaths--though it says "the facts are hard to come by" and that "there are not fully reliable counts of civilian deaths." Nova does mention that some estimates are that 30 percent of those killed are civilians, and talks about one attack that killed 23 civilians in Pakistan.

But, in keeping with the generally upbeat tone, Nova tells viewers that technology will help turn things around. "Drones can strike with pinpoint precision," the programs explains, "but their visual sensors are limited in ways that can lead pilots to make mistakes." Not to worry, though; "engineers are working to create new sensors that can see more in greater detail than ever before."

The program's sponsorship tie to the drone industry were never mentioned--though there were opportunities to disclose that relationship. In addition to Lockheed Martin's connection to one of the interview subjects, the show discussed a U.S. drone that was captured by Iran--without mentioning that it was manufactured by Nova's underwriter. And when Nova discusses the drones of the future, it's talking about the kind of miniature drones Lockheed Martin is developing to provide "constant surveillance capabilities" (TPM IdeaLab, 7/4/12).

Though the broadcast included an underwriting announcement at the beginning ("Additional funding from Lockheed Martin: Inspiring tomorrow's engineers and technologists"), that credit was removed from the webcast, and the company is not credited on the Nova website for the episode.

So can a corporation really provide "additional funding" for public TV journalism that discusses its own interests? PBS rules would seem to say no. The network has three tests that "are applied to every proposed funding arrangement in order to determine its acceptability":
* Editorial Control Test: Has the underwriter exercised editorial control? Could it?
* Perception Test: Might the public perceive that the underwriter has exercised editorial control?
* Commercialism Test: Might the public conclude the program is on PBS principally because it promotes the underwriter’s products, services or other business interests?

On the perception test, PBS explains:
When there exists a clear and direct connection between the interests or products or services of a proposed funder and the subject matter of the program, the proposed funding will be deemed unacceptable regardless of the funder's actual compliance with the editorial control provisions of this policy.

On commercialism:
The policy is intended to prohibit any funding arrangement where the primary emphasis of the program is on products or services that are identical or similar to those of the underwriter.

It is difficult to see how PBS could argue that the Nova special does not violate these rules. And PBS wants you the believe they take such matters seriously:
Should a significant number of reasonable viewers conclude that PBS has sold its professionalism and independence to its program funders, whether or not their conclusions are justified, then the entire program service of public television will be suspect and the goal of serving the public will be unachievable.
If PBS really believe these words, why did they allow the Lockheed-funded "Rise of the Drones" to air?

ACTION:
Ask PBS ombud Michael Getler to investigate whether Nova's "Rise of the Drones" violates PBS underwriting guidelines.
CONTACT:
PBS Ombud
Michael Getler
ombudsman@pbs.org
Phone: 703 739 5290
Posted Image

"The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, but he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them." - George Orwell

#23 joeboosauce

joeboosauce

    Snarf! Get in the...

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 01 February 2013 - 10:06 PM

Since we are on the topic of drones... here is mega-zord drone!

Watch the World’s Highest Resolution Drone-Mounted Camera in Action
http://gizmodo.com/5...amera-in-action

Posted Image
Posted Image

"The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, but he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them." - George Orwell

#24 dafoomie

dafoomie

Posted 05 February 2013 - 12:56 PM

The administration's legal case for drone strikes on Americans was leaked today.

http://www.nytimes.c...qaeda.html?_r=0
http://openchannel.n...-americans?lite

http://msnbcmedia.ms...White_Paper.pdf

A confidential Justice Department memo concludes that the U.S. government can order the killing of American citizens if they are believed to be “senior operational leaders” of al-Qaida or “an associated force” -- even if there is no intelligence indicating they are engaged in an active plot to attack the U.S.

“The condition that an operational leader present an ‘imminent’ threat of violent attack against the United States does not require the United States to have clear evidence that a specific attack on U.S. persons and interests will take place in the immediate future,” the memo states.

Instead, it says, an “informed, high-level” official of the U.S. government may determine that the targeted American has been “recently” involved in “activities” posing a threat of a violent attack and “there is no evidence suggesting that he has renounced or abandoned such activities.” The memo does not define “recently” or “activities.”


What al-Qaida associated force was Abdulrahmen al-Awlaki a senior operational leader of?

#25 thrustbucket

thrustbucket

    CAGiversary!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 05 February 2013 - 04:52 PM

That's lovely.

#26 joeboosauce

joeboosauce

    Snarf! Get in the...

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 05 February 2013 - 10:45 PM

Posted Image
Posted Image

"The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, but he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them." - George Orwell

#27 Finger_Shocker

Finger_Shocker

    CAG Veteran

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 05 February 2013 - 11:02 PM

How sad ...... a person who fought against Bush became Bush ...LOL

#28 dohdough

dohdough

    Sum Dum Guy

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 05 February 2013 - 11:07 PM

Posted Image


Don't if I'd take it that far, homie.

How sad ...... a person who fought against Bush became Bush ...LOL

And that's why when someone calls Obama a socialist or the MOST LIBERAL PRESIDENT EVAR1!!11!1, you know they're full of shit.

#29 joeboosauce

joeboosauce

    Snarf! Get in the...

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 05 February 2013 - 11:17 PM

Don't if I'd take it that far, homie.


And that's why when someone calls Obama a socialist or the MOST LIBERAL PRESIDENT EVAR1!!11!1, you know they're full of shit.


Doh, on your first point, as you know, has had the largest drone campaign ever and it seems like he is leading the charge into this brave new world of "acceptable" warfare. In fact, he's normalized it. Under the fake liberal veneer that you rightly point out. He's expanded the criteria for targets to the point that that is no need for criteria except "I feel it in my gut!" to quote a certain clown prince. Dubya at least had very strict criteria. Now, we can have that Orwellian constant state of war.
Posted Image

"The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, but he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them." - George Orwell

#30 dohdough

dohdough

    Sum Dum Guy

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 06 February 2013 - 01:10 AM

Doh, on your first point, as you know, has had the largest drone campaign ever and it seems like he is leading the charge into this brave new world of "acceptable" warfare. In fact, he's normalized it. Under the fake liberal veneer that you rightly point out. He's expanded the criteria for targets to the point that that is no need for criteria except "I feel it in my gut!" to quote a certain clown prince. Dubya at least had very strict criteria. Now, we can have that Orwellian constant state of war.

You missed my points completely. Honestly, your macro is in very poor taste and you being one of the more educated people in vs. in regards to these types of issues(social and political), I really expect more from you. I shouldn't have to explain the white washing of MLK and that quote, which your characterization employs.

Dropping it all on Obama ignores the fact that if it wasn't Obama, it would've been someone else and the country has been under a constant state of war since it's inception. This is a systemic problem, not an individual one. Hell, I'd blame John Yoo long before I'd blame Obama, but you also have to know how a person like Yoo can come to such an influential position to begin with. And if it wasn't John Yoo, would there have been another person that would come up with the same legal manipulations?

This type of warfare has been in the works for over 30 years and the idea of killer robots is even older. Do I like the situation? No. Does Obama deserve some blame? Hell yes because he has some agency especially now that he's in his second term, but pointing your finger only at him and not at the system is missing the forest for the trees.