Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(City Pages)   The Onion strikes again. Radio DJ posts photoshop of three drones over Obama's inauguration with "they're obviously scanning the crowd for potential trouble"   (blogs.citypages.com) divider line 82
    More: Dumbass, onions, obama, inauguration  
•       •       •

16555 clicks; posted to Main » on 24 Jan 2013 at 3:10 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



82 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-01-24 04:48:31 PM  
Ah, KFAI. The Twin Cities home to royalty-free music and paranoid political ramblings. Laugh. A. Minute.
 
2013-01-24 04:49:52 PM  

kindms: Crotchrocket Slim: propasaurus: I like his fallback position when he's called on it: why wouldn't you have surveillance drones? It's an efficient use of the technology.

So, terrible, 1984 is here, evil drones when he thought Obama was doing it. Otherwise, why not use them.

Someone please explain to me how police using UAVs to monitor the skies is any scarier than having a police pilot up in a helicopter, monitoring the skies. Are we assuming that all UAVs must be armed? Why not the same assumption for police helicopters and other aircraft? Why is this particular technology so scary?

Answer: drone detractors don't know a thing about them that isn't put up on the internet without citation by some gravelly voiced asshole who has an internet radio show, and they think drones are some sort of Decepticon Terminators or something.

The difference is simple. MONEY. It costs a lot of money to use aerial surveillance to monitor individuals using planes and helicopters. This was the major deterrent in the abuse of such technology. So removing the cost barriers involved allows for much much more abuse and monitoring. They now can fly a drone almost 24/7 with very little cost and they can monitor entire cities with a single drone. They now want to use this tech to monitor Americans wholesale.

So you keep thinking this isn't any different than a pilot in a noisy helicopter costing thousands to stay in the air over a specific target vs. a drone flying 24/7 watching anything and everything. Yup no difference at all. No way that these things will be abused. Lets leave not even discuss WHY law enforcement thinks they need these etc etc


You best had STFU about how much money the government spends in general, as otherwise this is a completely hypocritical argument otherwise (not sure if you are one of those people but there are enough around I had to type that).

You realize that everywhere you go in public already has a crapload of closed circuit security cameras accessible to law enforcement? Even if this isn't the case you do not have the reasonable expectation of privacy outside of your home anyway; other private citizens have the right to set up their own security cameras. How is this really a game changer again? It's not if you don't believe human beings act like comic book characters IRL.
 
2013-01-24 04:51:44 PM  
Andy Driscoll, KFAI host, is a giant idiot.
 
2013-01-24 04:51:45 PM  

kindms: Why is it so crazy to think they would be flying drones over the inauguration ?


While I love laughing at people who mistake Onion articles for reality... kind this.

I know New Orleans tried to order a drone of some sort for the Super Bowl this year.  I guess it was too expensive, so there won't be a drone... but the fact is it was part of the initial plan.
 
2013-01-24 04:56:01 PM  

kindms: So removing the cost barriers involved allows for much much more abuse and monitoring. They now can fly a drone almost 24/7 with very little cost and they can monitor entire cities with a single drone. They now want to use this tech to monitor Americans wholesale.


But they can only monitor you in public.  There's no amount of public monitoring that really can be considered "abusive".
 
2013-01-24 04:57:36 PM  

downstairs: kindms: Why is it so crazy to think they would be flying drones over the inauguration ?

While I love laughing at people who mistake Onion articles for reality... kind this.

I know New Orleans tried to order a drone of some sort for the Super Bowl this year.  I guess it was too expensive, so there won't be a drone... but the fact is it was part of the initial plan.


Kind of makes a big part of kindms's response to me... pathetic and utterly unrealistic. Not helping your "cause" there by being as misinformed etc. as I had written you all off as earlier....
 
2013-01-24 05:17:47 PM  

Crotchrocket Slim: downstairs: kindms: Why is it so crazy to think they would be flying drones over the inauguration ?

While I love laughing at people who mistake Onion articles for reality... kind this.

I know New Orleans tried to order a drone of some sort for the Super Bowl this year.  I guess it was too expensive, so there won't be a drone... but the fact is it was part of the initial plan.

Kind of makes a big part of kindms's response to me... pathetic and utterly unrealistic. Not helping your "cause" there by being as misinformed etc. as I had written you all off as earlier....


Well, all I can tell you is what I heard around town.  Maybe I'm wrong on the reason why they eventually didn't get a drone.  My point only was that its something that is *possible* for large public events, and doesn't seem to crazy to me.
 
2013-01-24 05:26:24 PM  

BronyMedic: ha-ha-guy: ObscureNameHere: Well, as long as we don't have Drone Riots...

/readies nerve stapler....

Play University and get the Secret Project that turns all Network Nodes into Hologram Theaters early on. Then pick up some SPs that add talents later in the game and you'll be fine.

Are we talking about video games, or Scientology?


Some games are so bad, you wonder if they weren't scripted by Hubbard...
 
2013-01-24 05:28:19 PM  

waterrockets: kindms: Why is it so crazy to think they would be flying drones over the inauguration ?

Because they're not allowed to operate in US airspace except around US bases?


Incorrect. Several states have passed legislation allowing them to be tested for CONUS use.
 
2013-01-24 05:34:55 PM  
Man, I love the Onion!!

So many great laughs...
 
2013-01-24 05:38:18 PM  

waterrockets: kindms: Why is it so crazy to think they would be flying drones over the inauguration ?

Because they're not allowed to operate in US airspace except around US bases?


DC is close to bases. ...swing a dead cat... and all that
 
2013-01-24 05:39:30 PM  

vpb: I doubt it is possible to fly remotely operated drones in such a close formation.


It may be impossible now, but soon won't be.

There was a great NOVA on last night where it showed how they are working on "fleets" of drones who can fly together - using technology to keep them a minimum distance apart from each other. I think you can catch the show here:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/military/rise-of-the-drones.html

Amazing shiat...
 
2013-01-24 05:40:48 PM  
Too fast on the button...

While several states currently only allow them to be used in the vicinity of military posts/bases (such as my own state of Oklahoma, which currently restricts the testing to the Elgin area), the fact that law enforcement agencies and large events (such as the aforementioned Superbowl) are already including them in their plans (even if they end up scrapping it due to cost) should be of some concern.

To get you started on educating yourself, I'll just leave these right here:

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2012/08/23/docs-law-enforcement- ag encies-plan-to-use-domestic-drones-for-surveillance

http://www.aclu.org/blog/tag/domestic-drones

http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/Bay-Area-Law-Enforcement-Agenci es -Test-Drones-173415551.html

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/12/california-law-enforcemen t- move-to-buy-drones-draw-controversy/

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/dec/10/homeland-security-in cr easingly-loaning-drones-to-l/

http://www.pnj.com/viewart/20130116/NEWS02/301160033/Panel-votes-ban -s pying-drones

http://rt.com/usa/news/missouri-drone-surveillance-us-579/

https://www.eff.org/foia/faa-drone-authorizations

So, I'm sorry. About domestic drones only being permitted in airspace surrounding military installations... you were saying?


/over 5 million results on Google, covering several states' law enforcement agencies use of, or efforts to obtain drones for domestic surveillance.
//several of those entries cover states' legislation to ban the practice.
///happy reading!
 
2013-01-24 05:47:33 PM  

vpb: I doubt it is possible to fly remotely operated drones in such a close formation.


A better question is why would you want to?
 
2013-01-24 05:53:14 PM  

fusillade762: vpb: I doubt it is possible to fly remotely operated drones in such a close formation.

A better question is why would you want to?



upload.wikimedia.org

Showboating. Why else?
 
2013-01-24 05:56:05 PM  
Is there a law similar to Poe's Law, where the derpier someone gets the less they are able to distinguish between parody and reality?
 
2013-01-24 06:00:08 PM  

LouDobbsAwaaaay: Is there a law similar to Poe's Law, where the derpier someone gets the less they are able to distinguish between parody and reality?


Not sure. Maybe derpiness has something to do with cognitive ability?
 
2013-01-24 06:02:08 PM  

Aigoo: Too fast on the button...

While several states currently only allow them to be used in the vicinity of military posts/bases (such as my own state of Oklahoma, which currently restricts the testing to the Elgin area), the fact that law enforcement agencies and large events (such as the aforementioned Superbowl) are already including them in their plans (even if they end up scrapping it due to cost) should be of some concern.

To get you started on educating yourself, I'll just leave these right here:

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2012/08/23/docs-law-enforcement- ag encies-plan-to-use-domestic-drones-for-surveillance

http://www.aclu.org/blog/tag/domestic-drones

http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/Bay-Area-Law-Enforcement-Agenci es -Test-Drones-173415551.html

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/12/california-law-enforcemen t- move-to-buy-drones-draw-controversy/

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/dec/10/homeland-security-in cr easingly-loaning-drones-to-l/

http://www.pnj.com/viewart/20130116/NEWS02/301160033/Panel-votes-ban -s pying-drones

http://rt.com/usa/news/missouri-drone-surveillance-us-579/

https://www.eff.org/foia/faa-drone-authorizations

So, I'm sorry. About domestic drones only being permitted in airspace surrounding military installations... you were saying?


/over 5 million results on Google, covering several states' law enforcement agencies use of, or efforts to obtain drones for domestic surveillance.
//several of those entries cover states' legislation to ban the practice.
///happy reading!


Soon enough the same (unarmed) technology is going to be available at the consumer level, albeit probably on the quadrotor platform. Drones everywhere!

I mean, hell, if you had shown this to me 10-20 years ago:
i01.i.aliimg.com

I would have been blown away. Especially when you told me it only costs 30 bucks.
 
2013-01-24 06:13:34 PM  
God damn I love when someone gets duped, then doubles down on the reasoning.
 
2013-01-24 06:15:08 PM  

Cythraul: Why would a drone fly so low over its target as to be seen by the naked eye? Isn't their nominal operational altitude like, waaaay, waaaay high up?


Second post in and someone's talking facts already?

Face it, there are a great number of people out there who are so dumb they fall for this shiat. They fall for it because they don't know anything (like how UAVs operate). And since they don't know anything, they just make shiat up.
 
2013-01-24 06:29:23 PM  

unlikely: literallyunbelievable.org has become one of my favorite sites. It a regular feature in my daily breaktime surf now.


Thanks for that. Now I can't stop reading it. Holy crap.
 
2013-01-24 06:31:55 PM  

Zeno-25: I would have been blown away. Especially when you told me it only costs 30 bucks.


symas032.info

That's awesome.
 
2013-01-24 06:53:20 PM  
I just used that article to troll a Tea Party-type nut. Worked like a charm with hilarious results, I suggest everyone do the same.
 
2013-01-24 06:59:36 PM  
I like this logic: "The burden of proof for factual and researched content falls to everyone".

So whose fault is it that he was a massive idiot and posted fake pictures as news? IT'S ALL OF OUR FAULT!!! Not his! It's YOUR fault! It's MY fault! We're ALL equally responsible! I'm so, so sorry! *Sob*
 
2013-01-24 07:42:55 PM  

Stig O'Tracy: Funny to read the snark that the DJ unleashed when it was revealed that it was a hoax. "Well, I believed it because it's the kind of thing they might do these days. Watch out people!" Like he did everyone a favor.

I HATE the fact that there is no actual journalism left in the world. News outlets will print absolutely anything that they think will give them an edge over their competitors, only to have to retract it when the actual truth comes out. Walter Cronkite would be spinning in his grave if he saw the depths that the journalistic standard has fallen.


I HATE the fact that people can't tell the difference between Facebook and news outlets.
 
2013-01-24 07:56:10 PM  

Aigoo: Too fast on the button...

While several states currently only allow them to be used in the vicinity of military posts/bases (such as my own state of Oklahoma, which currently restricts the testing to the Elgin area), the fact that law enforcement agencies and large events (such as the aforementioned Superbowl) are already including them in their plans (even if they end up scrapping it due to cost) should be of some concern.

To get you started on educating yourself, I'll just leave these right here:

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2012/08/23/docs-law-enforcement- ag encies-plan-to-use-domestic-drones-for-surveillance

http://www.aclu.org/blog/tag/domestic-drones

http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/Bay-Area-Law-Enforcement-Agenci es -Test-Drones-173415551.html

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/12/california-law-enforcemen t- move-to-buy-drones-draw-controversy/

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/dec/10/homeland-security-in cr easingly-loaning-drones-to-l/

http://www.pnj.com/viewart/20130116/NEWS02/301160033/Panel-votes-ban -s pying-drones

http://rt.com/usa/news/missouri-drone-surveillance-us-579/

https://www.eff.org/foia/faa-drone-authorizations

So, I'm sorry. About domestic drones only being permitted in airspace surrounding military installations... you were saying?


/over 5 million results on Google, covering several states' law enforcement agencies use of, or efforts to obtain drones for domestic surveillance.
//several of those entries cover states' legislation to ban the practice.
///happy reading!


Oh noes being observed in public where I don't have any expectation of privacy THIS IS AN OUTRAGE

You put more info out about yourself that is available to the NSA when you logged into Fark today than what hours of being tailed by a drone could ever produce.

Technologically ignorant people are goddamn insufferable. If you're going to piss yourself about the tools the government is using at least have a more realistic reason to piss yourself.
 
2013-01-24 10:35:17 PM  
From his response on learnng it was a shoop: But, we do, in fact, live in a country where easily 50% or more of everything we're told is believed, often because it sounds "official". There may be no completely "reliable" sources for our news. But it's often what we're NOT told that determines where the truth lies.

Did anyone from the White House deny that there was a formation flyover of drones monitored from a secret site in Las Vegas?

/I'm guessing the high-roller room at the Flamingo. Nobody goes in there.
 
2013-01-25 12:16:30 AM  
Literally unbelievable

A website dedicated to people on facebook, Twitter etc. falling hook, line and sinker for Onion articles, and just being completely appaled and shocked.

It's a really good timekiller, and it is updated regularly.

24.media.tumblr.com

25.media.tumblr.com
 
2013-01-25 12:50:31 AM  
... and yet they failed to strafe the podium.

Stupid drones.
 
2013-01-25 02:09:01 AM  
Ooh! Look how edgy you are!
 
2013-01-25 03:06:51 AM  

Aigoo: I won't lie--I had to check three times to see it was the Onion when I first saw the story. It's not unbelievable that a President who's used them to such great effect might have a demonstration flyover (not meant to scan for trouble, just for kicks).


/live in a state that will be a test for domestic drone use
//not happy about it, but not "omfg, it's armageddon and Obama is the Antichrist!" either


Mazzic518: Can those drones even fly that close in formation like that?

Short answer: yes. Long answer: depends on the particular type of drone and payload (if any). Here's a vid of a different type of drone doing just that: http://defensetech.org/2012/02/01/creepycool-video-tiny-uavs-flying-i n -formation/ and here's an article stating that, until recently, they could only fly in a formation of up to six: http://www.businessinsider.com/the-pentagon-is-quietly-setting-up-fle e ts-of-killer-drones-2012-10 (bit sensational on the headline, IMO, but at least it's not Infowars).


I've only seen those indoors.
 
2013-01-25 10:24:10 AM  

Clemkadidlefark: ... and yet they failed to strafe the podium.

Stupid drones.


0-media-cdn.foolz.us
 
Displayed 32 of 82 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report