Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Toys

The Demise of Model Rocketry? 728

Mark Lytle writes "Due to restrictions imposed by the rather broad Homeland Security Act, the hobby I suspect many Slashdotters, being technology buffs, grew up with, the Estes Model Rocket is now firmly on the endangered species list. The little cardboard rockets I learned science with in high school are evidently suspected of being potential weapons of mass destruction. Go figure. Perhaps by getting involved, we can stop this sillyness... Anyway, i hope so...."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

The Demise of Model Rocketry?

Comments Filter:
  • What? (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 20, 2003 @09:30AM (#5342835)
    Funny, are these things more dangerous than the guns you americans are so fond of?
  • That sucks!!!!!!! (Score:2, Insightful)

    by MrJerryNormandinSir ( 197432 ) on Thursday February 20, 2003 @09:35AM (#5342856)
    Is this true? I've been flying model rockets wth my kids for years! I taught my mids how to angle the rockets into the wind, and how to get the rocket to land where we want. On a hot summer day with no wind we've used parachutes, on April-June we've used
    streamers. I've even built a rocket with a strobe
    light for a payload, we launch it at night. the strobe light is my design.

    Home of the what?? It's supposed to be FREE!

  • Worse than the UK! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Big Mark ( 575945 ) on Thursday February 20, 2003 @09:36AM (#5342863)
    Over this side of the pond getting hold of engines bigger than the Estes D-size is a nightmare, you need to have licences to handle explosives, have your address registered as a storage area for explosives etc before you can even think of buying them. Shipping doesn't appear to be a problem - they stick them in a van and have them driven to you, for a princely sum - but it is an utter fucking nightmare to get hold of the big 'uns.

    I don't see why they do it either, D-class motors aren't exactly likely to propel a warhead any significant distance. Then again, we have had the IRA and friends (and enemies!) on our doorstep for over twenty-five years now...

    -Mark
  • Re:What? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Alan Partridge ( 516639 ) on Thursday February 20, 2003 @09:37AM (#5342865) Journal
    also, wasn't 911 carried out with the aid of BOXCUTTERS? Wouldn't it be more sensible to ban scissors than toy rockets?
  • by dreamchaser ( 49529 ) on Thursday February 20, 2003 @09:39AM (#5342882) Homepage Journal
    ...but when I was a teenager oh so many years ago, we actually did make destructive devices out of model rockets. No guidance system, but boy did they go BOOM when they hit their target (usually wrecked cars at a local junkyard) and the makeshift warhead went BOOM.

    However that may be, outlawing them seems to be going a bit too far. A determined terrorist doesn't need a kit to build a bomb or even a crude missile.
  • You know.... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by plazman30 ( 531348 ) on Thursday February 20, 2003 @09:40AM (#5342886) Homepage
    There's a boatload of stuff that be used in terrorist acts. Paper can start a fire. Rags and alcohol can also be used. Gasoline can be used to light a subway on fire. But somehow I don't see them banning gasoline or alcohol. So they have to pick on model rockets? A hobby that encourages people to learn about science in a fun way and encourages young minds to consider real careers.

    You know, before I went into technology, I used to be a research biologist. Hobbies like Model ROcketry are what kept me interested in science as a kid led me to pursue all science.

    You know, if we had recuiters for Pharmaceuticals stading outside of colleges offering new graduates 10.2 million over 3 years, then cancer would have been cured 10 years ago. Why do athletes, that contribute NOTHING to society, get paid the most in our society?
  • Re:Here We Go... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by vudujava ( 614609 ) on Thursday February 20, 2003 @09:42AM (#5342910) Homepage
    Offtopic my eye...

    The Department of Homeland Security has quickly begun to erode your rights. Next thing you know, they'll be measuring the amount of methane gas you expell after a trip to Taco Bell. Those who expell too much will be considered a threat to National Security and incarcerated without legal representation.

    Wake up you sheep!

    When the going gets tough, the average get conservative - Henry Rollins

  • Didn't you know? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by sporty ( 27564 ) on Thursday February 20, 2003 @09:43AM (#5342912) Homepage
    Didn't you know? Rocketry, especially model rocketry, is a well known secret art. With some bubble gum, a cardboard tube, an m-80 and some match shavings, we can make "weapons of mass destruction" that can traverse many miles from iraq to the US.

    C'mmon. What's the sense in this. Really. Anyone could be as dangerous with a potato gun and be less conspicuous, since you don't have to set it up, aim it and fire. Anyone who wants to make a rocket can make one if they really want to.

    Or maybe now we should just restrict banning play stations now that they have technology for guidance systems in them.
  • by mrpuffypants ( 444598 ) <mrpuffypants@gm a i l . c om> on Thursday February 20, 2003 @09:47AM (#5342936)
    naw, the cricket one wasn't the coolest...I loved the one with the camera in the nose cone that, when the charge to pop out the parachute fired, it took a picture facing down...now that was cool to see myself looking up at it. It will NOT be cool if I can't take my kids out to fire these things off one day in the future without getting a police excort for the fuel packs that I bought at Hobby Lobby.

    Hobby Lobby = Bin Laden Bazaar =[
  • This is stupid (Score:5, Insightful)

    by PitViper401 ( 619163 ) on Thursday February 20, 2003 @09:48AM (#5342944) Journal
    This is stupid. Our government passes all sorts of laws restricting our rights even farther in order to stop terrorism despite the fact that a lot of the terrorist attacks against America have been over seas at our embassies and such places. But the government did such a good job of bolstering people's fears that people are willingly giving away their constitutional rights in order to be "protected from terrorist attacks".
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 20, 2003 @09:50AM (#5342960)
    If you choose to "build your own", you will run into the following road blocks:

    1. If you live in an urban / suburban area, such activities are likely to be outright banned.

    2. If you live in a rural area, you will likely require some sort of explosives permit. The training, filing time will probably require you become a professional at building rocket engines. You then get the headaches Estes is running into now.

    3. In any event, your activities will probably get you "good neighbor" visits from the local sheriff, county police, state troopers, even the ATF or EPA (you are working with environmentally hazardous materials, remember!)

    If you decide to go "full steam ahead" in spite of all the above, eventually expect a visit from the people mentioned in #3 above. In these post 9/11 times, expect to receive a long "all expenses-paid" stay in a state or federal prison!
  • Re:You know.... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by tgagnon ( 651625 ) on Thursday February 20, 2003 @09:51AM (#5342962)
    You know, if we had recuiters for Pharmaceuticals stading outside of colleges offering new graduates 10.2 million over 3 years, then cancer would have been cured 10 years ago. Why do athletes, that contribute NOTHING to society, get paid the most in our society? I don't see how offering medical graduates tons of money would help cure cancer, hell, most doctors are useless anyways. You go to the doctor, tell him whats wrong and he prescribes whatever drug that has been pushed upon him the most, why do they need to be payed millions for that?

    And athletes get paid tons of money because they can do things most people can't do, even if they wanted to, plus they make up such a small percentage of the population. There are tons of people who make money doing useless things, you just hear about the athletes more often. Plus, I can garauntee that most athletes work harder at their jobs than you ever will.
  • by MyNameIsFred ( 543994 ) on Thursday February 20, 2003 @09:52AM (#5342966)
    References to Weapons of Mass Destruction have nothing to do with this issue. The fact that we are talking about rocket motors is only tangentially relevent. The issue is transportation of "explosive materials," and the new regulations due to the "Homeland Security." Sometimes there are legitimate concerns regarding potentially explosive devices. Remember that airplane crashing in Florida because of the fire in its cargo hold.

    No argument that the changes may be excessive. But to claim the government is equating model rockets and weapons of mass destruction shows deliberate ignorance or a pure attempt to get reader reaction.

  • by MarvinMouse ( 323641 ) on Thursday February 20, 2003 @09:52AM (#5342969) Homepage Journal
    What do they really need to be taught?

    I just see it as:

    "Okay, you see these engines... and now you see this flame. Don't put the engines near flame. Fire Bad."

    It's like duh! It's not that hard to transport model rocket engines. But apparently we need to train them to Defcon 5 level Top Secret Marine training so they can drive those engines around without someone fearing a terrorist attack by the amazing Axis of Evil.

    Man, the news in the states is reading more and more like a comicbook everyday. With Weapons of Mass Destruction, Axis of Evil, Terrorist attacks, etc. It's just a big farce now.
  • Ahh yes.. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Large Green Mallard ( 31462 ) <lgm@theducks.org> on Thursday February 20, 2003 @09:52AM (#5342970) Homepage
    I think the TSA/Homeland Security/USPS is hell bent on making life difficult for everyone, on the rationale that at least one or two terrorists will be inconvenianced by it.

    "We need ID for you to send this parcel!" .. so when the plane goes down, with 5000 packages on, we can work out who planted the bomb! Or at least, pull the list, and arrest without charging anyone with a middle eastern name.

    "We're stopping terrorists!" .. well maybe. It's like saying, I would have won the lottery.. if only I'd played.
  • Re:What? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by yog ( 19073 ) on Thursday February 20, 2003 @09:53AM (#5342977) Homepage Journal
    An anonymous coward wrote:
    > Funny, are these things more dangerous than the guns you americans are so fond of?

    My, what an "insightful" remark. I'm simply overwhelmed.

    I shot off Estes model rockets in my youth. I think the primary danger of these things is to the operator, not to any site they might be targetting. The range is in the hundreds of feet. A slightly larger scale missile might be dangerous if it could be fitted with a payload and launched in the direction of a school, police HQ or the like. I don't think it's appropriate to ban Estes models however. Actually, how many people even use those things anymore? I thought model rocketry was pretty much dead.
  • ACLU (Score:4, Insightful)

    by duffian ( 603117 ) on Thursday February 20, 2003 @10:00AM (#5343019)
    Now is the time to stand up for your rights. Become a member:

    www.aclu.org [aclu.org]
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 20, 2003 @10:01AM (#5343030)
    They are just placing restrictions on the shipment of the engines (explosives). Everyone here seems to be saying they are outlawing the rockets themselves because they can be used as a weapon. That isn't what the article was saying at all.


    This makes me wonder what is happening with fireworks then. I know there are a lot of fireworks out there that have quite a bit more explosive force, and potental to be used in other ways. I'd bet on fireworks being banned long before the Estes Rockets.


    But, Guess if they do ban the rockets, that means a lot less rocket geeks, and more computer geeks or game programmers. I also wonder how many kids will turn to biology since bugs can be found anywhere and extracting body parts hasn't been outlawed yet.


    I just hope they don't outlaw these hobbys for kids, since as you know, Saddam does like to dismember his victims.

  • Re:What? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by warpSpeed ( 67927 ) <slashdot@fredcom.com> on Thursday February 20, 2003 @10:01AM (#5343031) Homepage Journal
    Wouldn't it be more sensible to ban scissors than toy rockets?

    How about BIC lighters? Each one containes enough butane to make a nice little bomb! Carry a few on board with you... Well I do not want to give anyone any ideas. The restrictions placed on airline travelers are moronic, because they will only catch morons. So now it seems that the moronic restrictions are going to expand to everyday life. I guess cigarettes should now be deemed a weapon of mass destruction too. Just think of the cancer/children/humanity/whatever...

  • Re:What? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by moonboy ( 2512 ) on Thursday February 20, 2003 @10:02AM (#5343038)


    Yes and No.

    Yes because in the hands of the right (or in this case wrong) person, they could certainly be used as a "weapons delivery system". They can reach altitudes high enough to distribute chemical or biological agents over a broader area than might otherwise be possible. They are (or at least have been) more inconspicuous than say a crop duster which has also come under scrutiny as a possible delivery method.

    No because it is people that kill, not guns. Guns (be they fully automatic assault rifles, handguns, shotguns or hunting rifles), automobiles, rockets, baseball bats, hammers, knives, and many other implements/tools can be and are used to kill people. Do we outlaw automobiles, rockets, baseball bats, hammers, knives? No, of course not. We regulate their use and punish those who use them wrongly. The key is to punish and punish effectively. We Americans have plenty of laws to punish the law breakers, it is just that they are often not enforced or the sentencing is too light thus causing recidivism (IMHO).
  • Re:What? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by sharkey ( 16670 ) on Thursday February 20, 2003 @10:03AM (#5343041)
    No. They are neither more, nor less dangerous than the guns we are fond of. They are inanimate objects, without will or intent of their own, just like guns.
  • by asmithmd1 ( 239950 ) on Thursday February 20, 2003 @10:03AM (#5343043) Homepage Journal
    Kids are indoctrinated with sports from the time they are born. They watch it on TV, they play little league, before JV, before varsity in High School. If a kid isn't a master of a sport before he leaves High School there is no chance of him playing at the College level. And after that there is essentaily no chance of playing in the pros. Compare the above model to how we train Scientists. Senior year in high school, students decide maybe I would like to be a biologist, no maybe chemist, I will just start out undecided.
    As a culture we celebrate the wrong things. Who has done more to save lives, increase the well being of everyone and increase our standard of living: Micheal Jorden or the inventor of the MRI
    can you name the inventor of the MRI without google?
  • by Therlin ( 126989 ) on Thursday February 20, 2003 @10:07AM (#5343070)
    ... have already won.

    No, for real. Now we live in fear, now we are taking liberties away.

    Would people before 9/11 have run out of a club screaming and freaking out because someone used mace? Nope.
  • by doodleboy ( 263186 ) on Thursday February 20, 2003 @10:12AM (#5343099)
    The terrorist attacks were a horrible atrocity, and a year and a half later I still can't understand how anyone could willingly commit such a awful crime against humanity.

    It's bad enough that 3000 innocents were killed, but the real legacy of the attacks may well be the ongoing erosion of our civil rights by those in power, e.g. the Patriot Act and its forthcoming descendents (Patriot II, TIA, etc.).

    What I've been worrying about lately is: how do democracies die? I think using some emergency to convince voters to give up their constitutionally guaranteed civil rights is a great start. It's like the Communist hysteria of the 50's, only potentially worse because of all the technology that can be brought to bear.

    The intersection of technology and surveillance was something that needed to be looked at before 9/11 ever happened, but now... I just hope people come to their senses by the time the next election rolls around.
  • Re:What? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by will_die ( 586523 ) on Thursday February 20, 2003 @10:13AM (#5343109) Homepage
    If you want to carry a sharp weapon type thing on a plane, just get a music CD precut it in shape and then sneak it in with some others. Just make sure you are not using a CD-R you don't want to get the RIAA mad at you.
    But then again it would be far easier to get a ceramic knife through.
  • Irrational (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Tyreth ( 523822 ) on Thursday February 20, 2003 @10:15AM (#5343126)
    Didn't 9/11 teach us that you cannot stop a determined enemy? They had no bombs, no high tech weaponry. They used aircraft, a specialised WMD. This is simply _not_ the way to stop terrorism. A terrorist will get his/her hands on explosives, firearms, or whatever they need regardless of what rules are put in place.

    Imagine a society where citizens are not allowed knives, guns, explosives, anything sharp or slightly dangerous. Now imagine someone manages to sneak a gun/knife through the defenses. How much more damage could he cause because the citizens are undefended?

    My point is basically that if you increase defense it will keep the amount of damage a terrorist can do around the same - the weapons they have at their disposal will be less, but they will need less to do lots of damage. The way to defeat terrorism is to understand your enemy - find out why they hate you. If you have no fault then God will testify on your behalf whether you die or not. If you have a fault - well, then you know what you need to do. Don't get me wrong, murdering defenseless people is evil, but the question is whether the terrorist hate for good reason. Stop their mouths by being without blame - then when they murder ask why. They will stand condemned by their own words.

  • by tanveer1979 ( 530624 ) on Thursday February 20, 2003 @10:16AM (#5343132) Homepage Journal
    Once a serial arsonist used paper and gasoline to burn down 350 buildings, killing about 20 people in a month. He was facinated by fire. This happened in the US. For a determined terrorist, it just takes a can of gas, as what happened in Korea where 120 were killed and the man in question was just deranged and mentally disturbed. Banning things like this only cause inconvinience to normal people. Terrorists find a workaround.

    Here in india, owning a gun is a nightmare, there are tonnes of documents and it takes ages. If somebody wants to own a gun it is actually a nightmare to do it legally, and guess what terrorists roam with AK-47s.

    In my opinion, your adminstration has gone mad.
  • by fermion ( 181285 ) on Thursday February 20, 2003 @10:16AM (#5343136) Homepage Journal
    The restriction is that a carrier cannot accept shipment of explosive materials unless the employees dealing with those specific shipments pass certain background tests. Therefore shipping companies, who quite reasonable want to hire the cheapest people at the cheapest rates, are not going to increase their costs and difficulty of finding employees by imposing such addition background checks. As an example of how difficult this is, just look at the increased requirements for the airline baggage checkers. There really are not enough qualified people who are willing to work for the pay and hours the job requires. The article states that only UPS is currently restricting shipments.

    Obviously model rocketry needs engines so that the hobbyist can test their designs, or check if they glued together the prefab cutouts properly. Because there is demand, this restriction opens up some business opportunities. Certain less popular shippers, like Airborne, could hire employees with proper security clearance and advertise the fact. A small surcharge could be added to help defray the added employee cost. Local rocketry enthusiast could work part time building model rocket engines for their friends. There are companies that supply kit that allow you to construct model rocket engines. These could be shipped without the propellent, which could be then be obtained locally. This would allow the individual to build the engines.

    Of course, some of the above solutions my be worse than the problem, resulting in kids blowing off fingers and damaging eyes, but it is all in the name of fear based legislation!

  • by TygerFish ( 176957 ) on Thursday February 20, 2003 @10:21AM (#5343179)
    A nice broad, sweeping, law always seems to be a great idea for people involved in legislative groupthink and there is real irony in the this example.

    Considering the many, well-understood, and readily-available ways of the creating the means for blowing up--hint: *never* apply heat or spark to vaporized gasoline--a legal dragnet that impedes access to things as innocuous as model rocket moters is pure irony.

    You've got to laugh imagining some bearded guy shouting at another, 'put away that fertilizer and help me scrape out nine-thousand number threes!'

    We have proof positive that our government is run by people who were expected to make laws for Disneyland.

  • Re:What? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by misterhaan ( 613272 ) on Thursday February 20, 2003 @10:24AM (#5343208) Homepage Journal
    I understand that we have to be careful in these post 9/11 times [ . . . ]
    why is it that so many people believe that we need to be any more careful now than we needed to be a year and a half ago? i most certainly say that we do not!

    it was great to see the way the nation reacted by coming together and helping each other out in the days following the attack, but everything more recent than about two weeks after has just been getting worse. we have been dishonoring the memories of those who lost their lives for no good reason by slowly whittling away the freedoms that made the usa something we could be proud of, and by breeding fears of another attack.

    the plain simple truth is: terrorism most likely will not affect you! certainly the entire country mourns for the losses families suffered, but how many people were really directly effected by either knowing well someone who died, or witnessing the event? i think that it's well and good for americans to be upset by such events, and to help each other out when they happen, but until it happens again, remember that most of the threats we're supposed to be cowering in fear over aren't really that bad, don't affect a very large area, and are very unlikely to affect you directly.

    thank you.

    (no offense meant to the parent)

  • Re:What? (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 20, 2003 @10:24AM (#5343213)

    Yes because in the hands of the right (or in this case wrong) person, they could certainly be used as a "weapons delivery system". They can reach altitudes high enough to distribute chemical or biological agents over a broader area than might otherwise be possible. They are (or at least have been) more inconspicuous than say a crop duster which has also come under scrutiny as a possible delivery method.

    Yeah - over about 0.25 square miles...

    Model rockets are great science toys. When I have kids, I hope my sons and/or daughters will have as much (supervised) fun with them as I did.

  • Re:Reasons (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 20, 2003 @10:24AM (#5343218)
    There are many ways to disperse chemical agents in the air without using rockets. Kid balloons, to give one easy example. Will they outlaw balloons too?

    To me, they're just showing how they're happy to trade the 90% of civil liberties for a mere 1% of national security.
  • by gravelpup ( 305775 ) <rockdog@gma i l . com> on Thursday February 20, 2003 @10:27AM (#5343242) Journal
    The Internet is. And the GameCube. And TV. Etc.

    20 years ago, I was the only kid I knew who was into rockets. And two of the above three things didn't exist yet. You think it's gotten any more popular since then?

  • +1 Insightful (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Niles_Stonne ( 105949 ) on Thursday February 20, 2003 @10:30AM (#5343269) Homepage
    Wish I had mod points.

    This is exactly how I feel as well. Science, which often takes more work than sports, should be celebrated.

    Teachers at all levels need to be paid better as well. The "Well, I'm only an average programmer, so I'll teach instead" mentality/expectation needs to be reversed.
  • Re:What? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Treebeard the Ent ( 638978 ) on Thursday February 20, 2003 @10:50AM (#5343419) Homepage Journal
    (no offense meant to the parent)

    I understand no offense was intended, but I do disagree with you.

    I think it would be rather selfish of us to think of only ourselves. I mean, think of it, on 9/11, did you think to yourself, "Thank goodness it wasn't me on one of those planes. I know this could have been prevented with tighter airport security, but that would have inconvienieced me. I certainly hope they don't start tightening airport security now."?

    So many people complain about how inscure Microsoft software is, but then complain about our country making it's self more secure. Personally, I'd rather have a secure country than secure software...
  • by Figz ( 217203 ) on Thursday February 20, 2003 @11:03AM (#5343512) Homepage
    Although it's sad that we might not be allowed to launch a model rocket again, the real crime here is that our young/unborn children may never get the chance to do it. I have fond childhood memories of rocketry with my dad; I always hoped I could share the same thing with my child some day.
  • LDRS in Danger? (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 20, 2003 @11:22AM (#5343662)

    I went to a meet of the Large and Dangerous Rocket Society a few years ago. Holy smokes. They had one rocket that was about 15 feet tall and weighed 80 pounds. When it was launched it freakin' disappeared. I don't mean just for a few moments, I mean even with their radio tracking, they had no idea where it went. Quite awesome. They had to call the FAA before launching the biggies, to make sure there were no nearby flying aircraft, since they fully expected some of those things to go over 30K feet!

    I guess civilian missles are a thing of the past.
  • by AnotherScratchMonkey ( 592037 ) on Thursday February 20, 2003 @11:22AM (#5343663) Homepage
    Expect more kids to lose hands as the rising cost of proven motors drives them to switch to basement-brewed bombs.
  • by BobBoring ( 18422 ) on Thursday February 20, 2003 @11:26AM (#5343700) Homepage
    For instance, I could say that since we allow the government to regulate the operation of motor vehicles, it is only a matter of time before the government regulates all aspects of life.

    It is because roads are funded with public money and the public uses those roads that the government has any right of regulation for vehicles. We allow the government to regulate the operation of motor vehicles only on public roads or public property in the US. You can drive at any age, drive vehicles of any type or drive vehicles of any condition on your own property. You can have a vehicle shipped by common carrier to any location in the US. As long as you do not operate the vehicle on pubic roads or property you do not have to register, insure or jump through any other regulatory hoops for that vehicle.

    Now, you ask where do we draw the line? We don't draw the line. The politicians you have elected do. This is a republic, not a democracy and therefore if you are concerned with this problem, contact your representative and find out where he or she stands. I hope you know who your representative is.

    Wrong, We draw the lines. Don't contact your government representative to "find out where he or she stands". Contact them to let them know where you as a constituent stand. If your government representative does not represent you and your interests, align with like-minded people and work for getting your reprehensive replaced. Quit allowing the horse to drive the cart. The people selecting representatives, not people abdicating their responsibilities and passively taking on the values of the government, run a republic.
  • Re:+1 Insightful (Score:2, Insightful)

    by tgagnon ( 651625 ) on Thursday February 20, 2003 @11:31AM (#5343747)
    Science, which often takes more work than sports, should be celebrated. Being a college athlete I am definately biased on this subject, but that doesn't mean I can't disagree with you.

    Playing football in college I can honestly say that 5 hours of classes, writing essays, studying for tests and doing homework is 10 times easier than going to practice everyday during the season. Unless you've played at least college sports its hard to make someone understand what it takes to really compete.

    What I am not saying is that teacher's shouldn't be paid more or that people in medicine shouldn't be paid more. But I am arguing the fact that athletes should be singled out as example of whats wrong with society. How is an athlete getting paid millions to play any different then a musician making millions off a record or a developer making millions off of some video game? Well, besides taking less work to do the latter.

    You can't quantify merit based solely on whether or not someone's actions saved lives. I mean, what if kids watching sports are more likely to participate in these kinds of activites, leading to healthier and more active lifestyles?

    Sure, some athletes may be paid too much, but there are more people making money in the porn industry than playing sports and yet you never see anyone use that as an example of the problems of todays society.
  • Re:What? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by swillden ( 191260 ) <shawn-ds@willden.org> on Thursday February 20, 2003 @11:49AM (#5343921) Journal

    Mr. Heston

    You have the wrong guy; I work for a living.

    please tell us what many guns "aren't designed for killing at all"

    Go do your own research.

    I will give you a couple of hints, though. There are many other examples, but I'll let you find them yourself. Look up target rifles and you'll find that they have numerous characteristics that make them far from ideal as weapons, both the styles used in shooting competitions and the styles used in athletic competitions, such as biathlons. Do some reading on the design features incorporated into common .22 caliber sport rifles and you'll see that their ability to kill anything is not on the list of design criteria.

    On the flip side, do some research into what features are desirable for guns intended to be used as weapons, particularly anti-personnel weapons, and then take a look at which firearms incorporate those features. What you'll find is that very few of them do.

    Like any other piece of technological equipment, guns are designed for specific applications, and they're most effective when used as intended. And, the point here is, *many* of those applications don't include killing people, so blanket statements that "a gun's sole purpose is to kill" are simply ill-informed.

  • by Wintermancer ( 134128 ) on Thursday February 20, 2003 @11:54AM (#5343963)
    Really, I learned a lot more in undergraduate genetics, microbiology, botany and orgainic chemistry courses on how to be a terrorist than I did by launching model rockets.

    Got Botulism? [hc-sc.gc.ca] It might take a while to isolate and identify the proper strain, but terrorists don't have the marketing department breathing down their necks to meet a shipping date. They're patient if they have to be. Once identified, it's just a matter of culturing and refining the toxin.

    Got Ricin? [state.tx.us] Yes, the lovely castor bean plant (ricinus communis) produces a rather nice toxin. Readily available through many plant stores. A bit of applied organic chemistry lab work, and you too can get the desired organic compound.

    Got GB Nerve gas? [uky.edu] Malathion (an readily available and highly used insecticide) and the first component of the binary nerve gas GB are very similar. Any organic chemist worth his money would be able to do some work to make it exactly similar. The other component is isopropol alcohol. You can find that in any drugstore.

    Got FAE? [fas.org] Why bother with ANFO (ammonium-nitrate fuel-oil, the fertilizer bomb that has been used in many, many places) truck bombs? A little bit of applied mechanical engineering and you to can have explosives on par with low-yield nuclear weapons. Sure, ethylene oxide and propylene oxide may be a bit hard to source, but you can use others to get a similar result.

    Or, as was demonstrated by one nutcase in South Korea, all it takes is a determined individual with gasoline to kill many people on a subway.

    Model rockets? Give me a break. Next on the list: slingshots.
  • by wfrp01 ( 82831 ) on Thursday February 20, 2003 @12:08PM (#5344084) Journal
    A determined terrorist doesn't need a kit to build a bomb or even a crude missile

    A determined terrorist doesn't need bombs and missles either. I'm convinced the threat of terrorism is overstated for one simple reason: if anyone in the US were really keen on causing death and destruction, it would be easy. I don't want to enumerate all the possiblities here, lest someone conclude I spend too much time thinking about this stuff; but really, if you want to kill, maim, and destroy, it wouldn't be that hard - our current police state's silly lockdown tactics notwithstanding. Gasoline and a match, ya know? The fact that we don't see trains derailing all over the place and so forth gives me some confidence that Ashcroft/Ridge/Cheney/Bush et al. have their heads up their butts.

    Are there bad people in the world? Yup. Do some of them hate Americans? Yup. Are some of them planning to do bad things to the US? Yup. Is the free world in danger of being destroyed by these yokels? Nope. Should we go get them? Yup. Should we mobilize many many billions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of troops and our military's finest and best to isolated whackos dispersed around the globe in various loosely confederated pockets of extremism? Nope. This is a job for CIA snipers, not heavy bombers and tanks. There are other dangers to the homeland besides whacky religious fundamentalists from abroad. Like AIDS. Like social security. Like child welfare. Like the economy. Like our own heavy handed police-state thugs like Ashcroft. The US needs new management badly.

  • by mindlessrabble ( 210490 ) on Thursday February 20, 2003 @12:09PM (#5344092)
    Between the Patriot Act, Digital Millenium Copyright Act and the recent MicroSoft purchase of the justice system; is there room for innovation in the US?

    Will we see innovation move offshore (along with the jobs) to places like Europe and Asia.

    The new restrictions will insure that those currently on top, stay on top; but they may also insure that all of us go down.
  • by nurb432 ( 527695 ) on Thursday February 20, 2003 @12:10PM (#5344096) Homepage Journal
    They use nitro fuel, which is already under some restrictions, with more to follow..

    I guess hobby's are dangerous..

    Information is dangerous, independent thought must be abolished too.

  • by myrashka ( 452794 ) on Thursday February 20, 2003 @12:10PM (#5344099)
    Folks - this seems to me a temporary move until the powers that be at UPS find a way to do the following:

    a) comply with the law
    b) cover the costs of complying with that law
    c) make a profit on the ironic side effects of that law

    So just think - soon, the UPS will be offering a special "hazmat" transport service that transports items like these. The downside - it'll cost more...and thus the items transported will cost more. The question is, are there enough people doing model rocketry (and other similarly affected cargo) to make a profit?

    Lawmakers think they have good intentions at heart - and while I think the laws they are recently proposing/passing are extreme reactions to an extreme event, some of them do make sense to respond to the demands of increased security. It's a tough balance - and sometimes, rather than making the laws more specific, it's better for ingenious Americans to find a way to make a profit...and provide a valuable service - while allowing the Government to do their job - protect us.

    That being said - I oppose many parts of the Patriot and Homeland Security Acts - simply because there's no way to bypass an individual's privacy and liberties...something both of these acts threaten to do....
  • Re:What? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by nothingtodo ( 641861 ) on Thursday February 20, 2003 @12:39PM (#5344407) Homepage
    I really doubt someone wanting to do trouble would use a model rocket of all things. If you go with the typical stock you get from a hobby shop, you are limited to 16 ounces of payload (IIRC) and maybe 3000 feet or so.
  • by Infonaut ( 96956 ) <infonaut@gmail.com> on Thursday February 20, 2003 @01:01PM (#5344621) Homepage Journal
    America has turned into a nation of fucking whimps. It seems these days that there's nothing that can't provoke us into paroxyms of fear. I saw the cover of Newsweek magazine at the checkout stand yesterday, and the cover story was about anxiety. The graphic was a faux-cutaway of a man's brain, and the two big looming "anxieties" were pictures of Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden.

    Give me a break. Why not show a picture of a Chevy Cavalier? The odds are far greater that the car will run your ass over in the parking lot, than that any terrorist-related act will impact you.

    Does anyone actually take Tom Ridge seriously? Tape up your windows and keep a first aid kit at hand? That reminds me of the "nuclear attack" drill in the Army: Lie down in the the lowest spot you can find and cover your eyes.

    Canada has more guns per person than the United States, but they have less than 50 gun-related deaths per year. Why is that? It's because the Canadians don't live in fear. Yoda had it right, fear *does* lead to hate, and to violence as well.

    The European countries, primarily Britain, Germany, and Italy, have faced their share of terrorism over the years. None of those countries became police states.

    We're all blissfully driving our SUVs around, fat, dumb and happy, and wondering why so many people think of us as spoiled, scared, pathetic, naiive idiots. In a similar fashion, our children will grow up and wonder why everyone else around the world laughs at us when we call ourselves the "land of the free and the home of the brave."

    Before you jump to conclusions, I was an infantry officer in the US Army, I'm not a liberal, and I don't eat granola for breakfast. I'm just sick of watching this country slide further into slack-jawed idiocy.

  • Re:+1 Insightful (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Niles_Stonne ( 105949 ) on Thursday February 20, 2003 @01:14PM (#5344764) Homepage
    I have to respect you for your dedication. I was unfortunately not as dedicated to my physique and am now trying to turn myself around. It is definitely hard work to do it.

    I think part of the reasons for the differences in payment is just how noticeable the activity is. Someone throwing a Football 100 yards is an impressive, and obvious, feat. It can be seen and any Joe (or Jane) can try to do it. A lot of science on the other hand is so obscure that there is very little obvious change. The concepts of the science isn't understood by the vast majority of the population, and very few people have the ability to reproduce any of it.

    Some activities like Dean Kamen's FIRST [usfirst.org] (For Inspiration and Recognition of Science and Technology) attempt to fix this by introducing children and young adults to some of the more exciting areas of science and technology (namely robotic competition), but it is still much more of a niche audience than most sports. Other things like "BattleBots", "Junkyard Wars"("Scrapheap Challenge"), and "Full Metal Challenge" are also helping. We finally have Science and Technology based social things that may produce heros.

  • Re:What? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Melantha_Bacchae ( 232402 ) on Thursday February 20, 2003 @01:14PM (#5344766)
    misterhaan wrote:

    > why is it that so many people believe that we need to be
    > any more careful now than we needed to be a year and a
    > half ago? i most certainly say that we do not!

    There is nothing wrong with ordinary people being reasonably careful and observant. If everyone drove like that, it would save a lot of lives. The problem is being fearful. People who build a plastic bubble around their homes out of plastic sheeting and duct tape are being fearful, not careful.

    Being fearful only helps a terrorist control you. Please note that "terrorist" has nothing to do with blowing up things, but rather using terror to control people (either blowing things up, or telling people some evil "terrorist" might blow them up). Oppressive governments almost always rule by fear.

    > it was great to see the way the nation reacted by coming
    > together and helping each other out in the days following
    > the attack,

    America is great not because of its bombs or military, but because of the compassion and courage of its people. On September 11, 2001, terrorists killed thousands, but compassion and courage saved tens of thousands.

    > we have been dishonoring the memories of those who
    > lost their lives for no good reason

    And the lives lost for the best of reasons, to save others. Don't forget Flight 93. Or the firefighters.

    > by slowly whittling away the freedoms that made the usa
    > something we could be proud of, and by breeding fears
    > of another attack.

    There *was* another terror attack, just this weekend, in Chicago. Only no Al Qaeda members were involved. Yes, the moronic security guard that sprayed the crowd with pepper spray is responsible, as is the owner of the club that violated every fire code in the book. But the government and the media are also responsible for the fear they have been breeding with their stupid terror alerts (based on lies to begin with). Terror and panic killed those poor people, and turned that club into the same horror that the World Trade Center became. Department of Homeland Insecurity: this is the fruit of your color-coded crying of "Wolf!".

    > the plain simple truth is: terrorism most likely will not
    > affect you!

    As long as you define "terrorism" as a real Al Qaeda attack (blowing up stuff, hijacking planes, assassinations, etc.) you are quite right. The average American is far more likely to die from auto accidents or medical malpractice.

    Al Qaeda are at heart bullies and thugs. Bullies don't bother those who stand up to them, and ever since Flight 93 and the capture of the shoe-bomber, Al Qaeda has seemed reluctant, even too chicken, to bother with airborne attacks in the US itself. Airplane hijacking has ceased to work with Flight 93, so Al Qaeda appears (from my personal observations of the news) to have moved on to other kinds of attacks outside the US.

    The fear of terrorist attacks is a concern for the average American. If fear is getting to you (you feel an irrational desire to buy lots of duct tape and/or have nightmares about attacks), you need to do something about it. Start by turning off CNN (or whatever sensationalist news source you watch) and get your news from places that are less sensationalist, and more balanced. Combat your fear with facts. And if you still have problems, you might want to get some professional help. Living in constant fear is not good for you, even if it never gets to the point of giving you a heart attack.

    > remember that most of the threats we're supposed to be
    > cowering in fear over aren't really that bad, don't affect a
    > very large area, and are very unlikely to affect you
    > directly.
    >
    > thank you.

    No, thank you for doing your part to calm people. :)

    "The path of peace is yours to discover for eternity."
    Japanese version of "Mothra" (1961)
  • Forget Delivery.. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by enigmabomb ( 459926 ) on Thursday February 20, 2003 @01:52PM (#5345091) Homepage
    I fly model planes as a hobby. Quite frankly, even for dangerous than a rocket, is a plane. For 150 dollars I have can put a plane in the air with a camera that can take pictures, clear pictures, from several hundred feet in the air. Did I mention it only costs a few bucks to put LEDS on it and fly it at night? Banning model rockets is silly, They won't lift much reliably.

    -enigmabomb-
  • by klparrot ( 549422 ) <klparrot@hotmaTIGERil.com minus cat> on Thursday February 20, 2003 @02:50PM (#5345641)
    If an Arab guy came into my hobby shop, bought some model rockets, and asked me where he could buy 3,000 smoke detectors, I'd be getting his license plates and calling the FBI.

    I would hope that you'd call the FBI regardless of whether the guy was of Arab descent.

UNIX is hot. It's more than hot. It's steaming. It's quicksilver lightning with a laserbeam kicker. -- Michael Jay Tucker

Working...