News Stories

[bladeofdarkness]

Originally Posted by ganbaru

Italy says 1,000 killed in Libya unrest
http://ca.reuters.com/article/topNew...71G0A620110223

I'd say someone should demand the UN human rights council investigate, except that Libya is part of it.

[Jinto]

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

Controlling the pitch-yaw is already bad enough because the thing is so light and can change direction even in light wind, you have to control the camera, its zoom function, and still keep watch on the radar for the position so it doesn't go off-course. And unlike games, the radar DOESN'T MARK YOUR ENEMIES or contours or obstacles. Just real-time streaming video.

A flight sim is easier to do, just requires more physical stamina. At least you are in the cockpit and you can feel where you are going.

Most of these drones, can be programmed before launch. The program contains the flight route (GPS based navigation) for automatic reconaissence and an emergency recovery route (should the drone loose contact with the base when it is in manual flight mode). Some of the drones have sophisticated image pattern recognition software running, that can sound alarm in the base, when it finds something that is similar to the parameterized search pattern.

Drones are very easy to operate once they are airborne. The most difficult part long distance devices like global hawk is take off and landing. That is why not all of them can start from e.g. aircraft carriers (or even smaller ships).

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by bladeofdarkness

what about Infra-red ?
it might not be an IFF, but it gives you pretty good info of ship size and locations.

The radar component is for marking your location, then designating the location of the bogey relative from the drone's position.

That is how GPS/radar works : calculates the distance between the "eye" and "objective", then draw a gigantic picture of all environmental and physical variables present. The camera/IFF only serves to determine the shape and size of that objective.

Originally Posted by Jinto

Most of these drones, can be programmed before launch. The program contains the flight route (GPS based navigation) for automatic reconaissence and an emergency recovery route (should the drone loose contact with the base when it is in manual flight mode). Some of the drones have sophisticated image pattern recognition software running, that can sound alarm in the base, when it finds something that is similar to the parameterized search pattern.

Drones are very easy to operate once they are airborne. The most difficult part long distance devices like global hawk is take off and landing. That is why not all of them can start from e.g. aircraft carriers (or even smaller ships).

From my knowledge, it only applies for this generation of drones built after the 2000s (I think they are 3rd gen). HD Image recognition software only appeared in the late 1990s, close to 2000, and are mounted on the heavier drones.

Lightweight drones, particularly those operated by reconnaissance, LRPTs (Long Range Patrol Troop) and FOFO (Fighting On Fortified Objectives - meaning to clean a place out and hold it against attack until help arrives : this include base defence for airforce and naval bases since 80% of airforce and naval staff can't fight on ground), don't have as much high level functions as the longer ranged drones like MQ9 as these drones are meant to be hand-carried and deployed on demand.

MQ9 is considered a heavy drone. Lightweight drones are launched either by throwing (like paper airplanes - no I am not joking, it's real) or catapult, and only have operational range of up to 6 km for 1-2 hours, and most of them don't have fully-automated guidance systems installed due to the additional weight it would add on, and reduction of the operation time as it draws more power from the drone's power supply unit.

[flying ^]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_gay_marriage
WASHINGTON – In a major policy reversal, the Obama administration said Wednesday it will no longer defend the constitutionality of a federal law banning recognition of same-sex marriage.

... so what other federal laws aren't they going to defend/enforce? I'm betting Attorney General Holder will get involved in the states efforts to reduce union pay (bet on it!)

------------------

Originally Posted by MrTerrorist

Wisconsin budget cuts: Madison rally attracts thousands

UPDATE on Wisconsin, the union sacrifice

(... you heard it here first!)

here is the bottom line... Part of Gov. Walker's budget repair bill is to refinance the states debt. If the 14 senate democrats-in-exile don't come back to work and vote on by February 26 at the latest this is what will happen... Since there will be a hundred million dollar budget shortfall pink slips will be sent out on Feb. 28. By July 1500 state employees will be laid off. In the next two years as many as 6000'employess could be laid off.
It's looking more and more like the union and senate dems are more interested in saving face than seeing people they represent fired. It's not about the workers, it's about power. Hey they lose 6000 but 24000 still have their CBA.

[ganbaru]

Hopes fade for more survivors in New Zealand quake
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...rticle1918460/

[SaintessHeart]

Cellphone calls alter brain activity: study

(Reuters) - Spending 50 minutes with a cellphone plastered to your ear is enough to change brain cell activity in the part of the brain closest to the antenna.

But whether that causes any harm is not clear, scientists at the National Institutes of Health said on Tuesday, adding that the study will likely not settle recurring concerns of a link between cellphones and brain cancer.

"What we showed is glucose metabolism (a sign of brain activity) increases in the brain in people who were exposed to a cellphone in the area closet to the antenna," said Dr. Nora Volkow of the NIH, whose study was published in the Journal of the American Medical Association.

The study was meant to examine how the brain reacts to electromagnetic fields caused by wireless phone signals.

Volkow said she was surprised that the weak electromagnetic radiation from cellphones could affect brain activity, but she said the findings do not shed any light on whether cellphones cause cancer.

"This study does not in any way indicate that. What the study does is to show the human brain is sensitive to electromagnetic radiation from cellphone exposures."

Use of the devices has increased dramatically since they were introduced in the early-to-mid 1980s, with about 5 billion mobile phones now in use worldwide.

Some studies have linked cellphone exposure to an increased risk of brain cancers, but a large study by the World Health Organization was inconclusive.

Volkow's team studied 47 people who had brain scans while a cellphone was turned on for 50 minutes and another while the phone was turned off.

While there was no overall change in brain metabolism, they found a 7 percent increase in brain metabolism in the region closest to the cellphone antenna when the phone was on.

Experts said the results were intriguing, but urged that they be interpreted with caution.

"Although the biological significance, if any, of increased glucose metabolism from acute cellphone exposure is unknown, the results warrant further investigation," Henry Lai of the University of Washington, Seattle, and Dr. Lennart Hardell of University Hospital in Orebro, Sweden, wrote in a commentary in

JAMA.

"Much has to be done to further investigate and understand these effects," they wrote.

Professor Patrick Haggard of University College London said the results were interesting since the study suggests a direct effect of cellphone signals on brain function.

But he said much larger fluctuations in brain metabolic rate can occur naturally, such as when a person is thinking.

"If further studies confirm that mobile phone signals do have direct effects on brain metabolism, then it will be important to investigate whether such effects have implications for health," he said.

John Walls, a spokesman for CTIA-The Wireless Association, an industry group, said the scientific evidence so far "has overwhelmingly indicated that wireless devices, within the limits established by the FCC (Federal Communications Commission), do not pose a public health risk or cause any adverse health effects."

Volkow said her the findings suggest the need for more study to see if cellphones have a negative effect on brain cells.

Meanwhile, Volkow isn't taking any chances. She now uses an ear phone instead of placing a cellphone next to her ear.

"I don't say there is any risk, but in case there is, why not?"

[MeoTwister5]

Unless the radiation is discovered to be ionizing, and thus actually able to affect DNA, it's still currently a pile of horse crap.

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by MeoTwister5

Unless the radiation is discovered to be ionizing, and thus actually able to affect DNA, it's still currently a pile of horse crap.

High frequency radio waves are. Radar can kill you if you stand close to a modern multipulse emitter.

Not sure about how high frequency the EM waves are from a cellphone.

[Vexx]

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

High frequency radio waves are. Radar can kill you if you stand close to a modern multipulse emitter.

Not sure about how high frequency the EM waves are from a cellphone.

Even "old" radar could kill you but that's millimeter waves (120mm ~) -- baking frequencies and with radar - very high power.

Cellphones emit extremely weak amplitude/power signals. If you jam it against your head all day every day ...you *might* increase the risk minimally of something adverse. But really, you are in FAR more statistical danger from your car, your bathtub, or Mr. Sun In The Sky (especially at high altitude like Denver, CO). If you jam your laptop against your head all day, you MIGHT increase risk as well... it emits all sorts of "radiation" (non-ionizing).

Studies should continue, of course, as it should for all technology impacts -- but some people react to technology as if it were witchcraft and they stop making rational sense with the things they rant about.

[SaintessHeart]

Talking about technology, here is another interesting article :

Dirty air triggers more heart attacks than cocaine

(Reuters) - Air pollution triggers more heart attacks than using cocaine and poses as high a risk of sparking a heart attack as alcohol, coffee and physical exertion, scientists said on Thursday.

Sex, anger, marijuana use and chest or respiratory infections and can also trigger heart attacks to different extents, the researchers said, but air pollution, particularly in heavy traffic, is the major culprit.

The findings, published in The Lancet journal, suggest population-wide factors like polluted air should be taken more seriously when looking at heart risks, and should be put into context beside higher but relatively rarer risks like drug use.

Tim Nawrot of Hasselt University in Belgium, who led the study, said he hoped his findings would also encourage doctors to think more often about population level risks.

"Physicians are always looking at individual patients -- and low risk factors might not look important at an individual level, but if they are prevalent in the population then they have a greater public health relevance," he said in a telephone interview.

The World Health Organization (WHO) describes air pollution as "a major environmental risk to health" and estimates that it causes around 2 million premature deaths worldwide every year.

Nawrot's team combined data from 36 separate studies and calculated the relative risk posed by a series of heart attack triggers and their population-attributable fraction (PAF) -- in other words the proportion of total heart attacks estimated to have been caused by each trigger.

The highest risk PAF was exposure to traffic, followed by physical exertion, alcohol, coffee, air pollution, and then things like anger, sex, cocaine use, smoking marijuana and respiratory infections.

"Of the triggers for heart attack studied, cocaine is the most likely to trigger an event in an individual, but traffic has the greatest population effect as more people are exposed to (it)," the researchers wrote. "PAFs give a measure of how much disease would be avoided if the risk was no longer present."

A report published late last year found that air pollution in many major cities in Asia exceeds the WHO's air quality guidelines and that toxic cocktails of pollutants results in more than 530,000 premature deaths a year.

While passive smoking was not included in this study, Nawrot said the effects of second-hand smoke were likely to be similar to that of outdoor air pollution, and noted previous research which found that bans on smoking in public places have significantly reduced heart attack rates.

British researchers said last year that a ban on smoking in public places in England led to a swift and significant drop in the number of heart attacks, saving the health service 8.4 million pounds ($13 million) in the first year.

Tim Chico, a heart specialist at the University of Sheffield who was not involved in this research, said it would help health authorities focus on which are the most important triggers.

"However, what triggers the heart attack should be considered the "last straw." The foundations of heart disease that lead to a heart attack are laid down over many years," he said in an emailed comment. "If someone wants to avoid a heart attack they should focus on not smoking, exercising, eating a healthy diet and maintaining their ideal weight."

What I find vague is the "exposure to traffic" part - is it exposure to combusted gases, or to crazy speedsters who are adverse to looking at their speedometer as well as their road hogs counterparts who can't decide on the directions to their destination?

[ganbaru]

U.S. seeks backing for action to end Libya bloodshed
http://ca.reuters.com/article/topNew...71G0A620110225
I just hope than anyone wouldn't send troups...

[bladeofdarkness]

Originally Posted by ganbaru

U.S. seeks backing for action to end Libya bloodshed
http://ca.reuters.com/article/topNew...71G0A620110225
I just hope than anyone wouldn't send troups...

why ?
would anyone classify the sending of troops to stop the killing as anything other then a humanitarian endever at this stage ?

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by ganbaru

U.S. seeks backing for action to end Libya bloodshed
http://ca.reuters.com/article/topNew...71G0A620110225
I just hope than anyone wouldn't send troups...

Originally Posted by bladeofdarkness

why ?
would anyone classify the sending of troops to stop the killing as anything other then a humanitarian endever at this stage ?

I am confused. Are you guys referring to combat or support operations?

[bladeofdarkness]

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

I am confused. Are you guys referring to combat or support operations?

i can't speak for ganbaru, but i'd say that dealing with stuff like the Navy or Airforce (things the protesters have no way of countering, and who have the potential of killing hundreds with every attack) without actually sending ground troops, would count as perfectly reasonable.
you don't even need to attack them, just make it clear that continued use of such tools as bomber aircrafts would result in internatonal interventon.

no one could argue anyone is trying to "invade" Libya to "Steal its oil", and it would at least level the playing field somewhat.

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by bladeofdarkness

i can't speak for ganbaru, but i'd say that dealing with stuff like the Navy or Airforce (things the protesters have no way of countering, and who have the potential of killing hundreds with every attack) without actually sending ground troops, would count as perfectly reasonable.
you don't even need to attack them, just make it clear that continued use of such tools as bomber aircrafts would result in internatonal interventon.

no one could argue anyone is trying to "invade" Libya to "Steal its oil", and it would at least level the playing field somewhat.

You have to send ground troops because they are the ones physically conditioned to do the heavy-lifting of debris and dead bodies (alliteration unintended) : nobody goes through the training of walking 24km in the 30kg full-combat gear (40kg if you are GPMG-gunner, 45kg if you are medic, signaller, or AT-man, and even more-so if you are the demoman or HMG-crewman) other than the boys on the ground.

And yeah, we don't need another Kosovo. Those damn Tomahawks are seriously destructive despite being surgical weapons.

[bladeofdarkness]

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

You have to send ground troops because they are the ones physically conditioned to do the heavy-lifting of debris and dead bodies (alliteration unintended) : nobody goes through the training of walking 24km in the 30kg full-combat gear (40kg if you are GPMG-gunner, 45kg if you are medic, signaller, or AT-man, and even more-so if you are the demoman or HMG-crewman) other than the boys on the ground.

And yeah, we don't need another Kosovo. Those damn Tomahawks are seriously destructive despite being surgical weapons.

this relief efforts can only happen AFTER the riots end.
in the meanwhile, you have a fairly modern army, with a considerable airforce and navy, attacking what are, in theory at least, unarmed protesters and killing them by the hundreds.
add the mercs being hired to ensure the dirty work gets done, and this thing could end up being worse then the Hama massacre or black september.

would the world be willing to accept something like that today ?

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by bladeofdarkness

this relief efforts can only happen AFTER the riots end.
in the meanwhile, you have a fairly modern army, with a considerable airforce and navy, attacking what are, in theory at least, unarmed protesters and killing them by the hundreds.
add the mercs being hired to ensure the dirty work gets done, and this thing could end up being worse then the Hama massacre or black september.

would the world be willing to accept something like that today ?

I think you have the wrong idea of peacekeeping and humanitarian forces.

Peacekeeping forces are allowed to shoot anyone carrying weapons in weapon-restricted areas (it is true, but most peacekeepers simply arrest the guy or make him remove the magazine from the gun and walk past), the only kind of military op they are allowed to do are S&S (Search and Seize) not S&D (Search and Destroy).

Humanitarian ops means to provide limited policing and protection to aid workers and the general population against crimes (usually looting) within the TAOR (Tactical Area of Responsibility) mandated by the UN. The army troopers do the heavy-lifting while the MPs are the one who do the police work, and it is limited to ARRESTS AND CUSTODY ONLY.

And we don't have to worry about the mercs because most of them aren't well trained enough to cause problems (unless they are from ex-Soviet states and trained by the KGB-Spetsnaz types). The problem is that they don't give a shit about who they shoot or rape - so the civilian bodycount is going mount in the areas where they operate.

[bladeofdarkness]

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

I think you have the wrong idea of peacekeeping and humanitarian forces.

Peacekeeping forces are allowed to shoot anyone carrying weapons in weapon-restricted areas (it is true, but most peacekeepers simply arrest the guy or make him remove the magazine from the gun and walk past), the only kind of military op they are allowed to do are S&S (Search and Seize) not S&D (Search and Destroy).

Humanitarian ops means to provide limited policing and protection to aid workers and the general population against crimes (usually looting) within the TAOR (Tactical Area of Responsibility) mandated by the UN. The army troopers do the heavy-lifting while the MPs are the one who do the police work, and it is limited to ARRESTS AND CUSTODY ONLY.

And we don't have to worry about the mercs because most of them aren't well trained enough to cause problems (unless they are from ex-Soviet states and trained by the KGB-Spetsnaz types). The problem is that they don't give a shit about who they shoot or rape - so the civilian bodycount is going mount in the areas where they operate.

last i heard, Gaddafi is having his navy bomb civilan locations because they are in control of the protesters, and having fighter aircraft strafe and bomb the protesters.

i'm no expert on war crimes, but i'm fairly sure those count as such.
isn't there some kind of law against war crimes ?

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by bladeofdarkness

last i heard, Gaddafi is having his navy bomb civilan locations because they are in control of the protesters, and having fighter aircraft strafe and bomb the protesters.

i'm no expert on war crimes, but i'm fairly sure those count as such.
isn't there some kind of law against war crimes ?

War crimes are usually committed first then charged later, by an invader to the invaded (or vice-versa).

But those acts are committed within the country by the state on its people, so it is technically a localised and civil case within the country and probably not a "war crime" as defined by the UN Charter (as a civil war probably won't be counted as a real war unless one side is covertly funded by a foreign interest group, like the 1970s Afghan War between the Orussians and Liberion).

It can be touted as an infringement of human rights, however the perception of human rights differ between regular law and Sharia law, which is practiced widely in Libya as it is a Muslim country. Also, the legal system is so corrupted in Libya and there is no clear rule for most criminal/legal issues, so technically there is nothing to apply or refer to.

IMO, it would be treated as an internal case by outsiders because they don't want to put their hand into a beehive with two queens. The other countries can't do much other than condemn Gaddafi for his heavy-handed methods.

[bladeofdarkness]

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

But those acts are committed within the country by the state on its people, so it is technically a localised and civil case within the country and probably not a "war crime" as defined by the UN Charter. Though it can be touted as an infringement of human rights, but the perception of human rights differ between regular law and Sharia law, which is practiced widely in Libya as it is a Muslim country.

don't laws of war apply equaly to all armed conflicts, including civil wars ?

IMO, it would be treated as an internal case by outsiders because they don't want to put their hand into a beehive with two queens. The other countries can't do much other than condemn Gaddafi for his heavy-handed methods.

thats probably going to be the case.
can't say i'm happy about it, as it just proves once again that the idea of international law is complete bullshit, and the idea of human rights is nonsense.
but thats probably going to be the case.