4 ms·

You generally seem pretty sharp, but your viewpoint here (and elsewhere) seems to be me to be (to use your occasional bluntness) simple contrarian idiocy. What

You generally seem pretty sharp, but your viewpoint here (and elsewhere) seems to be me to be (to use your occasional bluntness) simple contrarian idiocy. What you say is true but irrelevant. More than that, if you paid attention to the actual issue at hand instead of performing, I dunno, some basic cost-efficiency exercise, you'd see that "Manned aircraft are prohibitively expensive" is a source of pressure in the system. Manned aircraft are increasingly flown largely by machine. The recent San Francisco crash may have been prevented if a computer had been more active (if not in full control). Cost-efficiency might indicate we should push for such a thing, but we're comforted by the thought of a man at the helm. Why's that? Because that means a man has oversight of the automatic system. But we're going to want our planes to be fully automated at some point. So a drone flown by a man elsewhere may well be replaced by a drone flown by a drone elsewhere. And cost-efficiency means that there can be a great many of these drones in play. --- All of this would be fine if it were an earnest conversation about the role of government in society. This is not the case. The rule of law is being violated and it is an affront. Now I'm not exhorting you to share my viewpoint. I'm quite honestly just contemptuous of what I see as your waffling grey in a situation that is increasingly black and white.

tptacek 13y ago
10 incidents since 2006. The rule of law? Where does the law say that planes must be manned? I don't buy the idea that we should be hamstringing the government just for the sake of doing that; I think you have to point to an actual abuse of the program to make a case against it. Also: at no point in this or any other thread did I choose to make an argument by calling you a name. Perhaps you could extend everyone else that same courtesy.
- Helianthus 13y ago
  As I said, contemptuous. Edit: I mean, c'mon. 2006 only stirs the pot further. >> In June, FBI Director Robert Mueller admitted that his agency uses drones to spy on US citizens without any “operational guidelines.”
  - tptacek 13y ago
    "Admitted" is RT's carefully-chosen wording, since the fact that no warrants or "operational guidelines" were required for this activity was decided over 2 decades ago.
    - Helianthus 13y ago
      Before they started being used as lethal weapons. This distinction is neither subtle nor unobvious. I am content to end this conversation here.
      - tptacek 13y ago
        If you're going to make up hypothetical scenarios that have neither (a) happened ever nor (b) been actually mentioned, even by the inflammatory source we're commenting on, would you mind being clearer about that? Either way: what does it matter that drones have been used as lethal weapons? Manned aircraft have been used as lethal weapons for almost as long as there's been manned aircraft.
      - mpyne 13y ago
        Guns have been used as lethal weapons as well, and are far more pervasive, and can also be operated remotely. I don't see anyone calling to take the guns (remotely-operated or otherwise) away from the military though.
  - anigbrowl 13y ago
    You have no actual point to make, and you really need to chill out and stop being rude to people.
tzs 13y ago
> The rule of law is being violated and it is an affront You keep saying this. Could you tell us WHAT rule of law you think is being violated?
lotso 13y ago
Which law are they breaking? "Florida v. Riley, 488 U.S. 445 (1989), was a United States Supreme Court decision which held that police officials do not need a warrant to observe an individual's property from public airspace." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_v._Riley http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_v._Riley
ceol 13y ago
It's good that he's being contrarian, because the general opinion here stems from a bunch of tech enthusiasts being riled up at an imaginary boogeyman that's supposedly an affront to their internet rights — because in the end, they really only care about their ability to be jerkoffs online. When the NYPD started frisking every other black person, where was HN? What about when the right for women to have affordable birth control was being oppressed? But suddenly the government is peeking at your search history and it's "tyranny!" and "the government is out of control!" on the front page each day. All of these arguments are looking increasingly like conspiracy theories.
- unclebucknasty 13y ago
  >When the NYPD started frisking every other black person, where was HN? What about when the right for women to have affordable birth control was being oppressed? But suddenly the government is peeking at your search history and it's "tyranny!" That's not really fair, right? I mean this is Hacker News, so it makes sense that people are expressing interest in and concern about things related to technology. >All of these arguments are looking increasingly like conspiracy theories. I don't get this talk about "conspiracy theories". It's not a theory once it's unveiled and right in your face, is it? Trying to dub people's reactions or sentiment about these topics as conspiracy theories is dismissive and effectively a back-handed ad hominem attack. It is not a reason-based response to people's legitimate concerns and, worse, it's just plain incorrect. It is not theories that the government is using drones, massive surveillance programs, etc. These are admitted facts.
  - ceol 13y ago
    There are two (maybe three) articles on the front page right now unrelated to technology or "hacking." HN has long been an aggregator of all things interesting to SV, not just tech — and that's my point. You guys are bouncing around in your own little bubble (admittedly a bit faster now) but you're still just in your bubble. Meanwhile, you stay ignorant to the rest of the country and what it actually cares about, which means you will never have any far-reaching effect. People here are literally saying that we're in a dictatorship or a tyranny because the FBI asked for the use of unmanned drones 10 times in the past 10 years. Obviously I'm not talking about using unmanned drones when I talk about conspiracy theories. I'm talking about Helianthus' entire argument and the arguments I see being perpetuated here. He walks you through it (in true conspiracy-theorist style), asking questions you would never really ask and then answering them as though he makes some big revelation. They are taking this fact, that the government is flying unmanned blimps around DC as a more cost-efficient way to patrol DC's skies than having manned fighter jets, and using it as proof that the government is spying on civilians with absolutely no evidence. You see these types of folks pop up in news articles like this all the time, because they think they finally have the proof they need to convince the unwashed masses that there's something deeper going on. It just happens that HN is on an anti-government crusade, so they're passing out upvotes like candy to anyone who posts something remotely angry about the NSA.

tptacek 13y ago

10 incidents since 2006. The rule of law? Where does the law say that planes must be manned? I don't buy the idea that we should be hamstringing the government just for the sake of doing that; I think you have to point to an actual abuse of the program to make a case against it. Also: at no point in this or any other thread did I choose to make an argument by calling you a name. Perhaps you could extend everyone else that same courtesy.

Helianthus 13y ago
As I said, contemptuous. Edit: I mean, c'mon. 2006 only stirs the pot further. >> In June, FBI Director Robert Mueller admitted that his agency uses drones to spy on US citizens without any “operational guidelines.”
- tptacek 13y ago
  "Admitted" is RT's carefully-chosen wording, since the fact that no warrants or "operational guidelines" were required for this activity was decided over 2 decades ago.
  - Helianthus 13y ago
    Before they started being used as lethal weapons. This distinction is neither subtle nor unobvious. I am content to end this conversation here.
    - tptacek 13y ago
      If you're going to make up hypothetical scenarios that have neither (a) happened ever nor (b) been actually mentioned, even by the inflammatory source we're commenting on, would you mind being clearer about that? Either way: what does it matter that drones have been used as lethal weapons? Manned aircraft have been used as lethal weapons for almost as long as there's been manned aircraft.
    - mpyne 13y ago
      Guns have been used as lethal weapons as well, and are far more pervasive, and can also be operated remotely. I don't see anyone calling to take the guns (remotely-operated or otherwise) away from the military though.
- anigbrowl 13y ago
  You have no actual point to make, and you really need to chill out and stop being rude to people.

tzs 13y ago

> The rule of law is being violated and it is an affront You keep saying this. Could you tell us WHAT rule of law you think is being violated?

lotso 13y ago

Which law are they breaking? "Florida v. Riley, 488 U.S. 445 (1989), was a United States Supreme Court decision which held that police officials do not need a warrant to observe an individual's property from public airspace." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_v._Riley http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_v._Riley

ceol 13y ago

It's good that he's being contrarian, because the general opinion here stems from a bunch of tech enthusiasts being riled up at an imaginary boogeyman that's supposedly an affront to their internet rights — because in the end, they really only care about their ability to be jerkoffs online. When the NYPD started frisking every other black person, where was HN? What about when the right for women to have affordable birth control was being oppressed? But suddenly the government is peeking at your search history and it's "tyranny!" and "the government is out of control!" on the front page each day. All of these arguments are looking increasingly like conspiracy theories.

unclebucknasty 13y ago
>When the NYPD started frisking every other black person, where was HN? What about when the right for women to have affordable birth control was being oppressed? But suddenly the government is peeking at your search history and it's "tyranny!" That's not really fair, right? I mean this is Hacker News, so it makes sense that people are expressing interest in and concern about things related to technology. >All of these arguments are looking increasingly like conspiracy theories. I don't get this talk about "conspiracy theories". It's not a theory once it's unveiled and right in your face, is it? Trying to dub people's reactions or sentiment about these topics as conspiracy theories is dismissive and effectively a back-handed ad hominem attack. It is not a reason-based response to people's legitimate concerns and, worse, it's just plain incorrect. It is not theories that the government is using drones, massive surveillance programs, etc. These are admitted facts.
- ceol 13y ago
  There are two (maybe three) articles on the front page right now unrelated to technology or "hacking." HN has long been an aggregator of all things interesting to SV, not just tech — and that's my point. You guys are bouncing around in your own little bubble (admittedly a bit faster now) but you're still just in your bubble. Meanwhile, you stay ignorant to the rest of the country and what it actually cares about, which means you will never have any far-reaching effect. People here are literally saying that we're in a dictatorship or a tyranny because the FBI asked for the use of unmanned drones 10 times in the past 10 years. Obviously I'm not talking about using unmanned drones when I talk about conspiracy theories. I'm talking about Helianthus' entire argument and the arguments I see being perpetuated here. He walks you through it (in true conspiracy-theorist style), asking questions you would never really ask and then answering them as though he makes some big revelation. They are taking this fact, that the government is flying unmanned blimps around DC as a more cost-efficient way to patrol DC's skies than having manned fighter jets, and using it as proof that the government is spying on civilians with absolutely no evidence. You see these types of folks pop up in news articles like this all the time, because they think they finally have the proof they need to convince the unwashed masses that there's something deeper going on. It just happens that HN is on an anti-government crusade, so they're passing out upvotes like candy to anyone who posts something remotely angry about the NSA.