lol, j/k
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/07/opinion/07fri1.html?hpw
NYT has plenty of bias against guns in their regular articles, but this is an editorial. it's supposed to be the soapbox of the individual writing it, right?
(i doubt NYT would let a gun nut get an editorial in, but, nevertheless....)
I'm more disturbed by the bit where the NYT thinks punishing people on the watch list (which is populated by people with such crimes as protesting the war) is a good idea.
Okay, just for the sake of argument let's say that even half of the people on the no-fly are dangerous.
Terrorists use bombs and other widescale attacks to commit acts of terror. Keeping them from illegally owning pistols and rifles is not going to make us safer.
BUT WE NEED MOAR GUN CONTROL!!1
\
:joshua:
It's natural to see this so soon after Arizona's recent gun law changes.
Haven't you heard? There aren't any, now.
No, that's Utah.
Arizona has the laws, but isn't going to tell you what they are. :lulz:
Someone was telling me earlier that AZ got rid of it's gun restriction laws.
You don't need a concealed carry permit anymore. The catch is, the only requirement to get the permit in the past was to take a class teaching you the gun laws (which you can still be arrested for not obeying).
Utah, on the other hand, has declared that the federal government may not enforce federal gun laws on guns made in, and that stay in, the state. (State restrictions still apply, but there aren't exactly. a lot of them).
Browning keeps its manufacturing plant here :lulz:
Oh shit. Any word on if I can get me a BMG?
Sig,
Because I would consider moving there.
I don't recall a gun thread on the principia before, I've been meaning to ask about it. The european media portrays ye yanks as casually shooting at each other on a daily basis to pass the time. Now I'd personally be heavily biased against legal gun ownership here for two reasons, I don't like the idea of the stupid being armed and because we have had record of no school shootings and the only gun deaths of the last ten years here have been drug related.
I understand its a basic right over there, what's the appeal, is it mostly a self defence issue?
"It's not power unless you can abuse it."
To be glib.
Also, it's really really fun to shoot really big guns. I'd not lightly forfeit that right.
Quote from: Sigmatic on May 09, 2010, 01:27:08 AM
"It's not power unless you can abuse it."
To be glib.
Also, it's really really fun to shoot really big guns. I'd not lightly forfeit that right.
When I was a kid I used to shoot stuff with my grandfather. I don't remember being that into it to be honest but he loved his guns.
I like it better this way. If I wanted a gun I could get one quickly enough, and the legal restrictions mean I am better armed the those around me. But then I've always preferred high powered explosives to give me a necessary advantage more so then guns.
Harder to get a hold of, at least for non-chemistry educated schlubs like me.
Quote from: Faust on May 09, 2010, 01:09:19 AM
I understand its a basic right over there, what's the appeal, is it mostly a self defence issue?
Self-defense is the probably main thing in my opinion. The police can't be everywhere, and usually by the time they get there the crime has already happened, so ultimate responsibility for your defense falls on you. Guns are an equalizer -- they allow a little old lady to fend off a 250 lb mugger.
Gun deaths aren't worse than other kinds of deaths. If someone wants to commit a violent crime, they will do so whether or not they have access to guns, but on the other hand many crime sprees have been cut short because a would-be victim was armed.
That said, there are a lot of things I would like to see tightened up, as in I want to, as much as possible, be sure that the people who own guns are law-abiding and are proficient in the safe operation of a gun.
Quote from: Pastor-Mullah Zappathruster on May 09, 2010, 01:45:11 AM
Quote from: Faust on May 09, 2010, 01:09:19 AM
I understand its a basic right over there, what's the appeal, is it mostly a self defence issue?
Self-defense is the probably main thing in my opinion. The police can't be everywhere, and usually by the time they get there the crime has already happened, so ultimate responsibility for your defense falls on you. Guns are an equalizer -- they allow a little old lady to fend off a 250 lb mugger.
Gun deaths aren't worse than other kinds of deaths. If someone wants to commit a violent crime, they will do so whether or not they have access to guns, but on the other hand many crime sprees have been cut short because a would-be victim was armed.
That said, there are a lot of things I would like to see tightened up, as in I want to, as much as possible, be sure that the people who own guns are law-abiding and are proficient in the safe operation of a gun.
But has it not also increased the crime rate significantly by allowing more dangerous crime to be perpetrated by the impulsive? That's probably not a fair thing to link to it. Your population is huge compared to over here and there is a completely different social mentality as well.
That's true. Our values tend to 'fit' gun ownership. We value self-defense quite highly, and generally speaking on an individual basis, we're fond of our freedoms regardless of whether those freedoms help or harm us in the big picture.
Quote from: Sigmatic on May 09, 2010, 01:55:43 AM
That's true. Our values tend to 'fit' gun ownership. We value self-defense quite highly, and generally speaking on an individual basis, we're fond of our freedoms regardless of whether those freedoms help or harm us in the big picture.
Here we have a guilt culture. Low violent crime so less need of self defence. High drug problem. You know the friend everyone has who has a conflict between really old fashioned religious repression, and the need to do stuff like heavy drugs, that's basically Ireland. I'm surprised guns weren't legalised here considering their symbolic connotations with kicking the brits out.
Quote from: Sigmatic on May 09, 2010, 12:56:06 AM
Oh shit. Any word on if I can get me a BMG?
Sig,
Because I would consider moving there.
Browning would have to make new ones, guns manufactured before the law don't count as far as I can tell (requires a made in Utah symbol added to the serial number at time of manufacture), but I think it'd be allowed if the fed doesn't win the inevitable SCOTUS case over this.
But how are you gonna afford to shoot a BMG? What I want is a nice fully automatic .22. Not really useful for anything but target practice, but hey, 20 bucks buys 400 rounds. :D
Quote from: Requia ☣ on May 09, 2010, 02:46:20 AM
Quote from: Sigmatic on May 09, 2010, 12:56:06 AM
Oh shit. Any word on if I can get me a BMG?
Sig,
Because I would consider moving there.
Browning would have to make new ones, guns manufactured before the law don't count as far as I can tell (requires a made in Utah symbol added to the serial number at time of manufacture), but I think it'd be allowed if the fed doesn't win the inevitable SCOTUS case over this.
But how are you gonna afford to shoot a BMG? What I want is a nice fully automatic .22. Not really useful for anything but target practice, but hey, 20 bucks buys 400 rounds. :D
assuming the law in Utah is like the one in Montana that asserts exemption from interstate commerce based gun control if it is made in and stays in the state, then they still do not allow any firearm that fires more than one projectile with a single pull of the trigger (i.e. machine gun).
if you want .50 BMG, but don't care about fully automatic, then you don't have a problem anyways. long range precision shoots are kinda like machining. a lot of setup, and then a quick action, then analysis of the event. you don't burn through an ass load of ammo, if you're doing it right.
as far as the automatic .22lr, the exemplar of that category is the American 180, originally marketed for prison guards. prices are currently hovering a little under 9,000. if you want to know details of how to purchase class III weapons, i can PM you. :)
I know how to do it, I just don't want to pay nine grand for something that's only worth a fraction of that just because the feds won't let us have new weapons.
Quote from: Requia ☣ on May 09, 2010, 03:43:14 AM
I know how to do it, I just don't want to pay nine grand for something that's only worth a fraction of that just because the feds won't let us have new weapons.
well, you're really just paying for the tax stamp. and those are worth what the market says, i guess.
there are less expensive ways of going 22lr auto. i believe there are 22 conversion kits for the ingrams. that'd knock it down to under three grand if you shop around a bit...
I'm still waiting for the Montana law to be tested with some NFA that
is allowed under the new law.
last i heard they're looking for someone with a squeaky clean record to give it a go making cans or sbr's or something.
Ok you're right, the Utah law only applies to semi automatics, shows me for trusting the newspapers.
This seems really pointless. The only federal restriction that this law would actually lift that I can think of would be a short barreled rifle, and those you can get with a new tax stamp.
As for the tax stamp, the stamp is only 200, the reason automatics are so expensive is they won't let any new ones enter the market (see the Hughes ammendment), which means artificial scarcity drives up the prices.
I would get my gold wire rimmed glasses, buckle down, and do accounting just to fund the ammo.
Firing stuff like that gives me a chubby.
Quote from: Faust on May 09, 2010, 01:09:19 AM
I don't recall a gun thread on the principia before, I've been meaning to ask about it. The european media portrays ye yanks as casually shooting at each other on a daily basis to pass the time. Now I'd personally be heavily biased against legal gun ownership here for two reasons, I don't like the idea of the stupid being armed and because we have had record of no school shootings and the only gun deaths of the last ten years here have been drug related.
I understand its a basic right over there, what's the appeal, is it mostly a self defence issue?
It's a check against the government (among other things) and it's part of our constitution. If the government ever begins to abuse the citizens, the citizens can forcibly remove the government if necessary. Granted, if there was going to be a violent overthrow 1) the government wouldn't give a shit about the constitution and 2) the citizens wouldn't give a shit what the government says is legal.
A lot of people argue against guns, but the thing is where guns are strictly controlled crime always seems to go up and where they are not as restricted, crime tends to be lower. Yes, it would reduce gun deaths if there were no guns, but there are guns, lots of them. If you take away the guns, people just move on to other things like knives, screwdrivers, etc. like they do in Britain.
I do not believe violence and guns are related, if a society is violent and it has guns then it will use them. If it's violent and doesn't have guns, then they'll use something else. The only people who are affected by gun laws are the ones who care about what the law says which are not the people you should be worried about.
Big bore rifles are fun but for a real good time switch to muzzle loaders.
i farted around with muzzle loaders once for extended hunting season benefits, plus it's just kinda neat. But in the end they're a messy painintheass... for my part, i'll take the breech loaded cartridge any day.
with your muzzle loaders, do you compete, or hunt, or what?
(apparently, they're also good for killing pederasts, too, remember? :) )
Quote from: Iptuous on May 10, 2010, 04:30:06 PM
i farted around with muzzle loaders once for extended hunting season benefits, plus it's just kinda neat. But in the end they're a messy painintheass... for my part, i'll take the breech loaded cartridge any day.
with your muzzle loaders, do you compete, or hunt, or what?
(apparently, they're also good for killing pederasts, too, remember? :) )
I had a Pennsylvania Long Rifle and I hunted with it and just shot it for fun..45 cal. It was great for fall deer hunting.
slick.
i've never shot one of those.
was it the type with the really low rake on the stock?
if you're into the old timey firearms, have you ever tried Cowboy Action Shooting? It's great. it's like LARPing with firearms... (in that you get to dress up stupid, and there is competition)
Quote from: Iptuous on May 10, 2010, 04:40:36 PM
slick.
i've never shot one of those.
was it the type with the really low rake on the stock?
if you're into the old timey firearms, have you ever tried Cowboy Action Shooting? It's great. it's like LARPing with firearms... (in that you get to dress up stupid, and there is competition)
Or march in a kilt with a black powder loaded with powder and wadding and shoot it in the middle of town. :lol:
Sounds like a fine way to get shot.
Quote from: Vladimir Poopin on May 10, 2010, 06:42:42 AM
It's a check against the government (among other things) and it's part of our constitution. If the government ever begins to abuse the citizens, the citizens can forcibly remove the government if necessary.
I'm not a big gun control guy, however the idea that the government could be forcibly removed with the weapons most citizens have seems highly unlikely.
The military has more firepower, organization, mobility, surveillance and communication.
A guerrilla resistance would be a limited and sporadic effort—never enough to topple the national military.
I think the only way to "forcibly remove" the government is through a military coup, like in Thailand not too long ago.
Quote from: Ne+@uNGr0+ on May 19, 2010, 09:44:14 AM
...
A guerrilla resistance would be a limited and sporadic effort—never enough to topple the national military.
I think the only way to "forcibly remove" the government is through a military coup, like in Thailand not too long ago.
Do you think that the one might have an impact on the other?
that is to say, do you think a coup might be more likely if there is armed resistance among the population that they are nominally meant to protect? i seems that there would be an element of a military force that might go along with the subjugation of the populace if it passively accepts it, but would be likely to support a coup if they are having to defend themselves against kinsmen...
personally, i think you are underestimating the efficacy that a guerrilla resistance could bring to bear in the states, but i don't know if there's really any way to come to a really good idea of how that would play out...
Quote from: Ne+@uNGr0+ on May 19, 2010, 09:44:14 AM
Quote from: Vladimir Poopin on May 10, 2010, 06:42:42 AM
It's a check against the government (among other things) and it's part of our constitution. If the government ever begins to abuse the citizens, the citizens can forcibly remove the government if necessary.
I'm not a big gun control guy, however the idea that the government could be forcibly removed with the weapons most citizens have seems highly unlikely.
The military has more firepower, organization, mobility, surveillance and communication.
A guerrilla resistance would be a limited and sporadic effort—never enough to topple the national military.
I think the only way to "forcibly remove" the government is through a military coup, like in Thailand not too long ago.
I think you are seriously underestimating the effect guerrilla tactics can have on the government. We had vastly superior technology than Ho Chih Minh's forces and we lost Vietnam. Iraq and Afghanistan are still not controlled and we're leaving Iraq. A sustained insurgency in the U.S. would have a devastating effect. I do not believe we have the military force to violently suppress the citizens and even if we did, I believe much of the military would side with the people, so would police. They're all sworn by oath to protect the constitution and while many of them probably don't completely understand their oath, many of them do. If we ever had a president declare himself king, it just wouldn't work.
That said, I don't think we're ever going to have to deal with an armed insurgency given how our government works. Despite all of our problems and despite all the bitching and all of the idiocy we have in our government, we can vote them out of office. They can be arrested if they break laws. It doesn't work 100% of the time, but it works enough to keep things from turning into a police state or a dictatorship. Before anyone starts spouting off about how we are living in a police state let me say this first: If you really think this is a police state, you're a fucking idiot. Does our government need improvement? Hell yes, but it's a far cry from being a police state and the 2nd amendment is a big part of what keeps it from getting there.
Our government is fragmented, our police system is fragmented. It's built like that on purpose. If we ever had something like this happen and things really broke down I don't think it would be one government vs. the general populace: I think it would be a series of competing factions, we might end up as a bunch of nation states.
Failure to 'win' a rebellion doesn't always mean the rebellion doesn't accomplish its goals. The whiskey tax rebellion was put down hard, but they never exactly collected a lot of the taxes.
Has there been a guerrilla resistance that was effective outside the context of heavy jungle though?
The US doesn't have as much dense natural cover. Temperate rainforest is a very different than tropical rainforest.
Er... yes, we call it the revolutionary war. At least on this side of the pond. It wasn't very guerrilla compared to what we think about in Afghanistan or Vietnam I guess, but it fits the main themes of A) Using tactics that a more established force wouldn't consider and B) Victory not because the British couldn't have held the colonies, but because the British weren't willing to put the resources into it.
Also, Afghanistan, when they kicked the Russians out.
Important to remember that the eastern United states was almost completely forest in the 1700s, and big trees provide lots of cover.
The Afgans, similarly, had mountains and caves.
We don't have jungles, or mountain caves, but we do have downtown.
What'll it be, general? Do we march down main street while they pick us off from the towers, or perhaps we can drop our troops on top of buildings and hope for the best? Perhaps a jaunt through the sewers, hmm?
Or maybe we could just reduce these billions of dollars worth of structures to smithereens. That sounds like a winner.
Quote from: Ne+@uNGr0+ on May 19, 2010, 09:38:45 PM
Has there been a guerrilla resistance that was effective outside the context of heavy jungle though?
The US doesn't have as much dense natural cover. Temperate rainforest is a very different than tropical rainforest.
Yes there have been many and the US has lots of cover judging by the parts of it that I have seen, however cover is not necessary for an insurgency. What makes an insurgency so difficult to deal with is that you do not know who your enemies are and if you just start targeting the entire population then all you do is make more enemies for yourself. Places like Vietnam have a much more diverse environment than people think. It's not all dense jungle, in fact, most of it is not.
Quote from: Iptuous on May 19, 2010, 01:28:36 PMpersonally, i think you are underestimating the efficacy that a guerrilla resistance could bring to bear in the states, but i don't know if there's really any way to come to a really good idea of how that would play out...
You know, one thing I never see talked about for these hypotheticals is communications networks. How do you communicate? Phone and internet is out, that's able to be controlled by the gov't. Air wave frequencies are easy to intercept as well. You'd have to have a way to organize a lot of people over sizable distances.
Oh, and supplies, supplies are very important. Not just weapons and ammunition, but food, medicine, and clothing. These materials are something we rely upon the gov't for a lot more than the typical person realizes.
Quote from: Vene on May 19, 2010, 11:56:33 PM
Quote from: Iptuous on May 19, 2010, 01:28:36 PMpersonally, i think you are underestimating the efficacy that a guerrilla resistance could bring to bear in the states, but i don't know if there's really any way to come to a really good idea of how that would play out...
You know, one thing I never see talked about for these hypotheticals is communications networks. How do you communicate? Phone and internet is out, that's able to be controlled by the gov't. Air wave frequencies are easy to intercept as well. You'd have to have a way to organize a lot of people over sizable distances.
Oh, and supplies, supplies are very important. Not just weapons and ammunition, but food, medicine, and clothing. These materials are something we rely upon the gov't for a lot more than the typical person realizes.
i'm a ham, and know others that are into preparation that are hams.
interception is a concern that has been discussed and is considered 'addressed' by some of us. communication is definitely an issue that should be considered, though.
supplies certainly
are important.
food is number one, and i would argue that having a sizable supply of nonperishable foods in storage is a good idea even if you
don't believe that we will be facing widespread catastrophe in our lifetimes. the Just in time delivery system of our food supplies is certainly efficient, but if there is a systems disruption (like natural disaster) i don't want to be dependent on some institutional charity. i want to be the one providing for friends and family that may be overly dependent upon the local wally world.
medicine is also something that should be addressed. i believe it is wise to, at least, have some basic antibiotics on hand as well as first aid supplies and the knowledge of how to use it properly. (these skills are something that i need to work on. clothing i haven't really considered as too much of a survival item, but i can see, in an extended situation, that it might become an issue. my wife sews, so that might mitigate it a bit...
there's TONS of things that you would need to 'be an island'. i don't think it's really possible without severely reducing you standard of living.
you assess what you think are the most likely situations you will face, and prepare accordingly as best you can.
The great thing about insurgency tactics, though, is that they can operate fairly well on autonomy and word of mouth. Since it lacks supply lines or organized masses of personnel, the need for constant chatter is diminished.
Quote from: Iptuous on May 20, 2010, 12:15:35 AMmedicine is also something that should be addressed. i believe it is wise to, at least, have some basic antibiotics on hand as well as first aid supplies and the knowledge of how to use it properly.
Antibiotics require a diagnosis, which requires a lab (using the wrong one can actually be, um, dangerous). There's also the issue of it expiring and medication that requires refrigeration. Although, admittedly, most meds don't need to be kept cold and expiration is a very long term concern.
Quote(these skills are something that i need to work on. clothing i haven't really considered as too much of a survival item, but i can see, in an extended situation, that it might become an issue. my wife sews, so that might mitigate it a bit...
Clothing very quickly becomes a survival item here in the northern states. Also, boots.
Quote from: Vene on May 20, 2010, 12:45:52 AM
Antibiotics require a diagnosis, which requires a lab (using the wrong one can actually be, um, dangerous). There's also the issue of it expiring and medication that requires refrigeration. Although, admittedly, most meds don't need to be kept cold and expiration is a very long term concern.
really?
you go to a doc and the diagnosis is not quite clear, they will often prescribe a systemic antibiotic based on pretty rudimentary analysis of symptoms.
you're right about the expiration, though. the guy i know that stocks the meds has to cycle his out more than i would have guessed.
Quote from: Vene on May 20, 2010, 12:45:52 AM
Clothing very quickly becomes a survival item here in the northern states. Also, boots.
a working pool is a bigger survival item here in TX.
:D
It depends on the med, some are safer than others. Some are, um, nasty fuckers. This is a lesser concern, but still one that needs to be addressed, but allergies, you need to know who in your organization has them and to what.
FOOD: It's an investment that you can eat. Buy rations, eat them just before they expire. It's impossible to waste your money on them and some of them are quite good.
Quote from: Ne+@uNGr0+ on May 19, 2010, 09:38:45 PM
Has there been a guerrilla resistance that was effective outside the context of heavy jungle though?
The US doesn't have as much dense natural cover. Temperate rainforest is a very different than tropical rainforest.
Afghanistan vs Russia.
Quote from: Vene on May 19, 2010, 11:56:33 PM
Quote from: Iptuous on May 19, 2010, 01:28:36 PMpersonally, i think you are underestimating the efficacy that a guerrilla resistance could bring to bear in the states, but i don't know if there's really any way to come to a really good idea of how that would play out...
You know, one thing I never see talked about for these hypotheticals is communications networks. How do you communicate? Phone and internet is out, that's able to be controlled by the gov't. Air wave frequencies are easy to intercept as well. You'd have to have a way to organize a lot of people over sizable distances.
Oh, and supplies, supplies are very important. Not just weapons and ammunition, but food, medicine, and clothing. These materials are something we rely upon the gov't for a lot more than the typical person realizes.
Use the government controlled channels of communication but talk in code.
unless they take down the entire internet, it's not that hard to encrypt your messages properly. in fact it's stupidly easy and yet nobody does it. but then, neither have I. one day I will make myself a GPG keypair, honest.
oh and even if internet's gone, computers might still work. a micro SD is way easier to hide, encrypt and transport than the corresponding file cabinet of folders and papers it contains.
Quote from: Vladimir Poopin on May 20, 2010, 07:49:47 AM
FOOD: It's an investment that you can eat. Buy rations, eat them just before they expire. It's impossible to waste your money on them and some of them are quite good.
rations?
like MRE type stuff? bleh....
Eat what you buy, and buy what you eat for the most part. just have a larger pantry full.
for long term storage there is freeze dried food that is not bad with a stated shelf life of 30 years, but i wouldn't really call it 'rations'.
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on May 20, 2010, 08:15:31 AM
Use the government controlled channels of communication but talk in code.
with ham radio, this is explicitly forbidden, so it would have to be innocuous sounding. doesn't preclude it, just saying that it's not officially allowed.... if you couch code words in normal sounding chit chat, you could get predetermined messages across, but you couldn't really carry on an extensive coded conversation without a significant effort.
of course, you could encrypt messages in data like steganographic images or something...
Quote from: Iptuous on May 20, 2010, 01:21:49 PM
with ham radio, this is explicitly forbidden,
what, really?
how or why?
Quote from: Triple Zero on May 20, 2010, 01:28:59 PM
Quote from: Iptuous on May 20, 2010, 01:21:49 PM
with ham radio, this is explicitly forbidden,
what, really?
how or why?
its the law. (or FCC regulation, at least...)
i don't know exactly why, other than some abstract security concerns....
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on May 20, 2010, 08:13:42 AM
Quote from: Ne+@uNGr0+ on May 19, 2010, 09:38:45 PM
Has there been a guerrilla resistance that was effective outside the context of heavy jungle though?
The US doesn't have as much dense natural cover. Temperate rainforest is a very different than tropical rainforest.
Afghanistan vs Russia.
I really, really REALLY recommend this movie: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Beast_of_War
... for anyone who wants an idea of what fighting a guerrilla resistance in afganistan means, and why the Afgans have so much experience protecting their terrain from mechanized warfare (i.e. Russia).
Quote from: Telarus on May 20, 2010, 04:02:34 PM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on May 20, 2010, 08:13:42 AM
Quote from: Ne+@uNGr0+ on May 19, 2010, 09:38:45 PM
Has there been a guerrilla resistance that was effective outside the context of heavy jungle though?
The US doesn't have as much dense natural cover. Temperate rainforest is a very different than tropical rainforest.
Afghanistan vs Russia.
I really, really REALLY recommend this movie: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Beast_of_War
... for anyone who wants an idea of what fighting a guerrilla resistance in afganistan means, and why the Afgans have so much experience protecting their terrain from mechanized warfare (i.e. Russia).
I'll check it out.
Admittedly, I'm not much of a war nerd, but it sounds enlightening.
Quote from: Iptuous on May 20, 2010, 01:21:49 PM
Quote from: Vladimir Poopin on May 20, 2010, 07:49:47 AM
FOOD: It's an investment that you can eat. Buy rations, eat them just before they expire. It's impossible to waste your money on them and some of them are quite good.
rations?
like MRE type stuff? bleh....
Eat what you buy, and buy what you eat for the most part. just have a larger pantry full.
for long term storage there is freeze dried food that is not bad with a stated shelf life of 30 years, but i wouldn't really call it 'rations'.
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on May 20, 2010, 08:15:31 AM
Use the government controlled channels of communication but talk in code.
with ham radio, this is explicitly forbidden, so it would have to be innocuous sounding. doesn't preclude it, just saying that it's not officially allowed.... if you couch code words in normal sounding chit chat, you could get predetermined messages across, but you couldn't really carry on an extensive coded conversation without a significant effort.
of course, you could encrypt messages in data like steganographic images or something...
I actually meant communicating on the phone and internet. There's a lot more traffic there than on HAM, so it'd be that much less likely to be intercepted and analyzed.
Quote from: Iptuous on May 20, 2010, 01:31:46 PM
Quote from: Triple Zero on May 20, 2010, 01:28:59 PM
Quote from: Iptuous on May 20, 2010, 01:21:49 PM
with ham radio, this is explicitly forbidden,
what, really?
how or why?
its the law. (or FCC regulation, at least...)
i don't know exactly why, other than some abstract security concerns....
I bet that if you have an old <not-very-much> baud modem, it'd be easy enough to hook it into the ham and broadcast a piece of binary data, right?
Sure, that may not be legal either, esp if it's encrypted data, but transmitting a few 10kb's should not take more than a couple of seconds, so who's gonna track you down?
That's been done actually. There are specific standards for it and everything.
oh yeah.
there's ham repeater networks for data. there's people sending digital video, pictures, teletype kinda data, all kinds of ad hoc shit...
there's even BBS type setups.
you go on some bands and you just hear tons of bleep-bloop-hiss, and it's people talking back and forth. and you can pack a good amount of shit in smaller bandwidth.
there's bands specifically set aside for it.
you should check out ham. you'd probably like it. it's not your grandfather's hobby anymore. i don't know about over there, but here, it's ridiculously easy to get the entry level license, which allows you to do a pretty decent amount.
you can get a handheld receiver (looks like a walkie talkie) for pretty cheap. i've got a Yaesu VX-7, which is pretty small, waterproofish, not too expensive, good reception. it's fun.
So uh it's illegal to speak words in code over the ham radio, but it's just fine to send binary data?? :lulz:
And I'll look into it, indeed it sounds interesting. I'll probably get to deal with the whole Dutch Pirate Radio scene ... which is not as awesome as it sounds ... not at ALL. They hijack local radio frequencies and play EXCLUSIVELY and only Dutch schlager and party-schlager music. Which is the musical equivalent of the "crying boy" painting :x ... (ok actually it's kinda funny when you hit a pirate station while driving, cause the music is so stupid and you're bored from driving and in a silly mood, and the DJs speak in unintelligible dialect, and the little song-info-text on the display is showing weird messages glimpses of some scene where people call eachother by their first names ...) It's really, really weird, actually. In fact it would be pretty damn awesome cool if only the music wasn't so horrifyingly bad.
Also this whole "license" business intrigues me. How come you need a license for this stuff? Also who's going to check that you have one? Aren't you allowed to operate a ham radio, or just not own one?
And fuck yeah, if this thing allows me to transmit data to far away (how far does it go btw?) without having to rely on the Internet, that's definitely something I need to get into.
Ok transmitting data is not that hard (check out the bandwidth of me throwing this USB stick to the other side of the room! 8GB in 2 seconds!), it's the lack of latency that makes it more valuable :)
in the US (and i think it's mostly standardized across most of the civilized world, mostly) you need a license to transmit.
you can get yourself whatever radio you want, and listen to whatever you want. you just can't transmit until you have a valid callsign to identify your station with. (and there's actually nazis that monitor everyone to make sure everything is up and up. i mean hobbyists. not people paid to...)
there's a thriving data scene in the ham world. i've only scratched the surface of it. i've just got into ham last year, but it's pretty slick.
the beginning licence over here lets you use the vhf/uhf bands which are shorter range. but there's tons of repeaters out there that people operate. you find a list of repeaters that people have set up on antenna towers that retransmit at a slightly higher or lower frequency than they receive. your radio is set up to accomodate that so it monitors on one freq and transmits on the other. that way you can have the advantage of using your little HT, and not having line of sight with the other guy talking on that repeater. also, they have repeater networks. we've got some that span the continent here in the states. so even though you're talking on a cheaper radio, and only using the beginners license (it's called a 'tech' license here), you can still talk to people pretty far away.
if you get the general license, then you can use the hf bands, and bounce shit off the ionosphere, so you can talk to the other side of the globe. i don't know how much data transmission goes on in those bands, as i haven't messed with it yet.
but i don't see why it wouldn't be possible....
Pirate radio stations have gotten really clever about disguising their signal's origins; I know one who has somehow made it so that their signal transmits from an entire city block that has nothing to do with them. Not sure how they pulled that off, but they did!
There are a few ways you could do that.