Johnny Coli Posted March 31, 2006 Posted March 31, 2006 Nice double twist. Please tell me the possible commercial applications for unmanned drones, and whether those applications will be large enough to justify the large cost of their early stage development. 648437[/snapback] Huh? Where are you getting that from? I was replying that Paul's Wright Brothers example didn't make sense in the context of this discussion. Never mind the question of whether you think it's a good thing for national or any security standpoint, for this technology to be field tested and implemented outside DoD purview. 648437[/snapback] Hey, man, if you think turning something loose with a 90% false positive rate is a-OK for US border security, then that's ok with me. You guys know a lot more about finances and security than I do. I feel better already knowing that a multi-million dollar piece of equipment that can direct a border patrol to a rabbit nine times, and a illegal alien once out of every ten times is flying around down near the border with no one in it. I'm sure the american people would agree.
Johnny Coli Posted March 31, 2006 Posted March 31, 2006 So more sorties, exposing more people into harms way, and oh, questionable whether or not the military can legally run the sorties. Hummm...... seems like you are talking out both sides of your mouth. Have you considered running for office. 648445[/snapback] Yeah, Bill. I'm the one not making any sense.
VABills Posted March 31, 2006 Posted March 31, 2006 Yeah, Bill. I'm the one not making any sense. 648457[/snapback] If you run manned airplanes, then people have to be on the planes. That puts them in danger especially in bad weather, etc... of crashing. Also, you will whine that military is running operation on or in US teritory. Also, I'm pretty sure the majority of the sensor electronics would be the same, manned or unmanned.
Ghost of BiB Posted March 31, 2006 Posted March 31, 2006 What originally got my hackles up, is the Auto-Bush-Bad response to something. None of this cost stuff came up until much later. I'm not defending Bush by saying that, either. But some folks, you among them automatically start in with the abuse of your rights whenever anything regarding domestic surveillance is mentioned. Conversely, any possible shot that can be taken at what physical security is in place is fired as well. The dynamics of even attempting to provide for some level of security inside a free and open society, with a zillion miles of border and seacoast are extremely complex. The only possible solutions involve integrating a complex, multi-layered system of defenses, in depth. Also, many at a distance from those borders. but, hell, there's problems doing that too. You (and others) seem to be against anything going on, and seem to be convinced most everyone involved is incompetent and corrupt, and I guess the thought is the Democrats can do it much better. After all, didn't they just publish a comprehensive strategy in specific detail as to how and why? Just seems to be the theme. I have different opinions. I have a lot of problem with a lot of the stuff going on too.
UConn James Posted March 31, 2006 Posted March 31, 2006 ....and seem to be convinced most everyone involved is incompetent and corrupt.... 648477[/snapback] With the inclusion of 'lazy and inept,' most people who post here on PPP daily say that for any public-sector employee, (and for a lot of private-sector employees as well). O' course, they write many of said musings on their company's time.
Johnny Coli Posted March 31, 2006 Posted March 31, 2006 What originally got my hackles up, is the Auto-Bush-Bad response to something. None of this cost stuff came up until much later. I'm not defending Bush by saying that, either. But some folks, you among them automatically start in with the abuse of your rights whenever anything regarding domestic surveillance is mentioned. Conversely, any possible shot that can be taken at what physical security is in place is fired as well. The dynamics of even attempting to provide for some level of security inside a free and open society, with a zillion miles of border and seacoast are extremely complex. The only possible solutions involve integrating a complex, multi-layered system of defenses, in depth. Also, many at a distance from those borders. but, hell, there's problems doing that too. You (and others) seem to be against anything going on, and seem to be convinced most everyone involved is incompetent and corrupt, and I guess the thought is the Democrats can do it much better. After all, didn't they just publish a comprehensive strategy in specific detail as to how and why? Just seems to be the theme. I have different opinions. I have a lot of problem with a lot of the stuff going on too. 648477[/snapback] Bush hasn't shown us any reason to trust him wrt civil rights. In fact, his multiple signing statements added onto laws with his and Alberto's "interpretations" of which laws they have to follow and which ones they don't suggest he doesn't give a damn. He fought the FISA law. The compromise Congress gave him letting him off the hook for that little indiscretion wasn't even enough, and he added a signing statement to that, saying in not so many words that his interpretation was he didn't have to follow the oversight rules. They're in court right now in Hamden v. Rumsfeld saying that habeas rules don't apply to people they tag as enemy combatants. Everyone would love it if the rules dictating how they performed their jobs were loosened, done away with, or were free to ignore. We'd have a bunch of drugs out there tomorrow. But the rules are there for a reason. Why is it so egregious and such a burden to get a warrant? This isn't "Bush Bad!" This is "Civil Rights Good!"
Johnny Coli Posted March 31, 2006 Posted March 31, 2006 But some folks, you among them automatically start in with the abuse of your rights whenever anything regarding domestic surveillance is mentioned. Conversely, any possible shot that can be taken at what physical security is in place is fired as well. 648477[/snapback] I'm going to add in another reply to this statement. Hell yeah people should pipe up about civil rights. Every single time something new is introduced we should beat it into the ground until it is airtight with respect to civil rights. You think it's a bad thing. I think it's a damn good thing, and in the end makes it a stronger piece of security, or a law enforcement tactic. As a drug discovery researcher, it's not my job to make a compound look good. It's my job to tear it to pieces, test the hell out of it, and show the chemists why I think their miracle molecule sucks. A good, successful drug will be able to withstand that level of scrutiny. Our laws, how we enforce those laws and our security should be under the same microscope.
Ghost of BiB Posted March 31, 2006 Posted March 31, 2006 I'm going to add in another reply to this statement. Hell yeah people should pipe up about civil rights. Every single time something new is introduced we should beat it into the ground until it is airtight with respect to civil rights. You think it's a bad thing. I think it's a damn good thing, and in the end makes it a stronger piece of security, or a law enforcement tactic. As a drug discovery researcher, it's not my job to make a compound look good. It's my job to tear it to pieces, test the hell out of it, and show the chemists why I think their miracle molecule sucks. A good, successful drug will be able to withstand that level of scrutiny. Our laws, how we enforce those laws and our security should be under the same microscope. 648530[/snapback] And as defense planner, my job has been to tear it to pieces, wargame the hell out of options, and show the policyites why their miracle political BS sucks. A good, comprehensive defense plan for the US will be able to withstand that level of scrutiny. When it doesn't it needs to be fixed. Our laws, how we enforce those laws and our security should be under the same microscope-but given latitude to change. The difference here, is after going through all that (with much more of an emphasis on civil rights and laws that you probably would ever believe) the chemists aren't accusing you of violating your civil rights when you tell them the molecule doesn't work.
Johnny Coli Posted March 31, 2006 Posted March 31, 2006 The difference here, is after going through all that (with much more of an emphasis on civil rights and laws that you probably would ever believe) the chemists aren't accusing you of violating your civil rights when you tell them the molecule doesn't work. 648546[/snapback] You'd be surprised.
Ghost of BiB Posted March 31, 2006 Posted March 31, 2006 You'd be surprised. 648550[/snapback] Probably not, but you get my meaning. I've seriously considered writing a book on this stuff, but I'm too lazy, corrupt and incompetent.
Alaska Darin Posted March 31, 2006 Posted March 31, 2006 Often, if you are working within a budget. 648100[/snapback] Then perhaps we should stop subsidizing the national defense of Germany, England, Japan, and Korea and worry a bit more about our own country. I know, I know. We need to be able to project power everywhere in a short period of time. The longer that argument is made the less comfortable I am with it.
Bill from NYC Posted March 31, 2006 Posted March 31, 2006 Then perhaps we should stop subsidizing the national defense of Germany, England, Japan, and Korea and worry a bit more about our own country. I know, I know. We need to be able to project power everywhere in a short period of time. The longer that argument is made the less comfortable I am with it. 648633[/snapback] I am with you except for England. They are such great friends that I don't begrudge anything that we might be giving them.
Ghost of BiB Posted March 31, 2006 Posted March 31, 2006 What keeps coming to light everytime any subject of this nature comes up, is that there are literally thousands upon thousands of constantly moving pieces to foreign policy-national security. Then, they have to be weighed against the thousands upon thousands of pieces in other issues of national concern. Many of which there are seriously competing interests for funds. This sh-- ain't easy, and no one is ever going to get it all right. Less government isn't necessarily the answer. More efficient government is (which would by definition result in less, but...). Also, everyone getting back into their own lane wouldn't hurt matters any. What is the function, by definition, for the federal government again? How about state, local, whatever? Where is it written that the Federal Government is responsible for retirement accounts? Where is it written it provides medical care?
Chilly Posted March 31, 2006 Posted March 31, 2006 Shall we examine that 90% number? I take it you didn't read the PDF either, or selected soundbites from it. If we listen to ABC News & germboy, you'd guess that the drones are responsible for 90% negatives.Seems that false alarms are generated by "sensor alerts." So what are they? Yup, those 90% falsies are all due to expensive high tech stuff up in the air. 648448[/snapback] Meh, it don't matter to me where the 90% came from, but 90% false positives no matter where it came from is pretty crappy.
Bill from NYC Posted March 31, 2006 Posted March 31, 2006 Where is it written that the Federal Government is responsible for retirement accounts? Where is it written it provides medical care? 648694[/snapback] In the policy of all hospitals in which illegal aliens can stroll into and receive free medical care.
Ghost of BiB Posted March 31, 2006 Posted March 31, 2006 In the policy of all hospitals in which illegal aliens can stroll into and receive free medical care. 648737[/snapback] We're bordering on thread crossover and identity loss here, but I still think it's a valid point. What ends up happening is that everything is a compromise, so everything is watered down and not as effective as it could be. Whether providing free anything to illegal aliens is, to me, not a federal issue. First, there shouldn't be 11 million of them, but the horse is out of the barn. Each local economy is affected in a different way, and it should at the highest level be a state issue on how to deal with it. See, places like California have a border. Of course their should be federal border controls and enforcement, I highly advocate that. But, if you have a problem with illegal immigration you, as a State can supplement the effort, and not cry that Washington isn't fixing your problem for you. National Defense, OTOH, is mandated by the Constitution. Something that the "rights" championeers often wave, but ignore when something doesn't fit. The federal government has a constitutionally mandated responsibility to provide for a common defense. It is also the purview of the executive branch to determine policy direction. Once the policy direction has been established, it's up to the rest of the government bsically to support it. That doesn't mean blindly saying "Charge", but it also doesn't mean effecting legislation to circumvent it. It's Congresses job to legislate, not to determine defense policy. Well, crap, I could go on and on, and also have.
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted March 31, 2006 Posted March 31, 2006 Meh, it don't matter to me where the 90% came from, but 90% false positives no matter where it came from is pretty crappy. 648695[/snapback] It depends. Some things - critical biosensors, for example, are designed to give lots of false positives because they err on the side of caution (i.e. if a biosensor thinks it might detect a bioterrorism agent, it raises the alarm, because the alternative - a false negative - is a hell of a lot worse than all the false positives you can imagine). That makes a biosensor well suited for what it's supposed to do - sense bioweapons releases; but if you instead tried to use it as a medical diagnostic tool...well, then it would suck. But as they're used, 90% false positives is pretty damned good. UAV's for border patrol...could be pretty much the same thing. A "false alarm" might be a "good" thing in the context. Or it might not. It sure as sh-- isn't a measure of reliability on its own, though.
Ghost of BiB Posted March 31, 2006 Posted March 31, 2006 It depends. Some things - critical biosensors, for example, are designed to give lots of false positives because they err on the side of caution (i.e. if a biosensor thinks it might detect a bioterrorism agent, it raises the alarm, because the alternative - a false negative - is a hell of a lot worse than all the false positives you can imagine). That makes a biosensor well suited for what it's supposed to do - sense bioweapons releases; but if you instead tried to use it as a medical diagnostic tool...well, then it would suck. But as they're used, 90% false positives is pretty damned good. UAV's for border patrol...could be pretty much the same thing. A "false alarm" might be a "good" thing in the context. Or it might not. It sure as sh-- isn't a measure of reliability on its own, though. 648758[/snapback] "CNN reports unidentified white powder." They'd have a field day at my place. No, not that - I'm not a good housekeeper. Biosensor programs are a great subject, because they have all the elements. We could start with detect to warn vs. detect to treat, coupled with federal funding, and it's right up Coli's alley. SDS's too, as a matter of fact. Could be fun. Could spend some good time on NSPD 33 alone. We can even throw in the military setting up totally inefficient in a domestic environment BIDS systems. How about the DFU samplers that were purchased for several American cities, but not buying the 8 primary agent field assay kits to do a spot analysis because certain Congresscritters demanded that all initial analysis go to an EPA approved lab? Initial field screens? New thread? Or should it be ignored because it wasn't on the news today? Several billions of dollars aside, of course. Cost of designed failure. Did you know that the "positivity percentage" for the nerve agent test in the M256 kit was actually decreased by switching from horse cholinesterase enzymes to eel cholinesterase enzymes, but gave a better read on whether an anti-cholinesterase was present? The other side of 90% is that nasty little 10%. 9/11 taught the cost of failure, it's already been forgotten. Depends on how one looks at it, I guess. But, I know I can always count on you to catch all that. People don't get how smart you really are, Tom.
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted March 31, 2006 Posted March 31, 2006 But, I know I can always count on you to catch all that. People don't get how smart you really are, Tom. 648859[/snapback] Smart enough to know what I don't know, which is a hell of a lot more than most manage. People also never seemed to twig to Coli's shift from arguing that recon drones were some massive threat to privacy that would see everything that's going on in everyone's house, to recon drones are massively "unreliable" and wrong nine times out of ten. So 90% of the time, when they're using their X-Ray specs to look into your bedroom, they'll see something else. Nice argument there, Coli.
Ghost of BiB Posted March 31, 2006 Posted March 31, 2006 Smart enough to know what I don't know, which is a hell of a lot more than most manage. People also never seemed to twig to Coli's shift from arguing that recon drones were some massive threat to privacy that would see everything that's going on in everyone's house, to recon drones are massively "unreliable" and wrong nine times out of ten. So 90% of the time, when they're using their X-Ray specs to look into your bedroom, they'll see something else. Nice argument there, Coli. 648933[/snapback] Yeah, it's been done, but whatever.
Recommended Posts