SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
In yet another laser beam incident, crew on a flight carrying Pope Francis reported a laser beam sighting to air traffic control in Mexico City:
Alitalia flight AZ4000 was travelling from Havana with the Pope on board, and was preparing to land when the laser was spotted.
No crew or passengers were injured by the beam, the airline added.[...] "This is yet another incident that shows how serious and widespread the issue of laser attacks on aircraft is," said Jim McAuslan, General Secretary of the British Airline Pilots Association (Balpa), in response to the case involving the Pope's plane. "Modern lasers have the power to blind and the potential to dazzle and distract pilots during critical phases of flight," he told the BBC. "Shining a laser at an aircraft is illegal and dangerous and puts all those on board and on the ground nearby at completely unnecessary risk."
Aboard the plane headed from Rome to Mexico, the Pope said that contraception may be the "lesser evil" for women at risk of catching the Zika virus. In comments made on the ground, he chastised Republican Presidential candidate Donald Trump for his plan to build a wall on the Mexican border.
In another story from the UK laser crime beat, Englishman Philip Houghton has been sentenced to 20 weeks in prison for admitting to shining a laser pen at a Humberside Police helicopter that was investigating a shooting.
(Score: 4, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 19 2016, @11:57AM
You guys need to get better at clickbait. The article should have been titled:
Donald Trump Develops Death Ray, Tries To Assassinate Pope After Disparaging Remarks
(Score: 4, Funny) by takyon on Friday February 19 2016, @12:42PM
I'm pioneering a new form of bait where you have to read the whole TFS.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Friday February 19 2016, @07:21PM
Comprehension-Bait. Damn you! You tricked me into learning something!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 19 2016, @05:36PM
I'm glad Don has the guts to say what he thinks instead of worrying about what people think. It is indeed refreshing. We see the good, bad, and ugly of Don as-is. The Vatican is walled in, so Don was right to call them hypocrites when they criticized his wall plan.
I don't think he'd make a good prez, but as a commentator he fills a useful and needed role, even if it's sometimes cringe-worthy commentary.
(Score: 2) by fido_dogstoyevsky on Saturday February 20 2016, @01:55AM
I don't think he'd make a good prez, but as a commentator he fills a useful and needed role, even if it's sometimes cringe-worthy commentary.
So - a good court jester but a bad king?
It's NOT a conspiracy... it's a plot.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 19 2016, @12:03PM
OMG is he OK? sigh
(Score: 2) by takyon on Friday February 19 2016, @12:51PM
Let's see what he's tweeting! [twitter.com]
Looks like he's fine.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 4, Insightful) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Friday February 19 2016, @12:36PM
> In comments made on the ground, he chastised Republican Presidential candidate Donald Trump for his plan to build a wall on the Mexican border.
He went one better than that. He actually said that anybody saying the kind of things that Trump is saying couldn't be described as a Christian. [bbc.co.uk]
Trump got all butt-hurt and responded that the Pope "doesn't have the right" to question somebody else's faith.
1 - Not religious myself so I don't really have a dog in this fight, but it's fun to watch from the sidelines.
2 - Not exactly a fan of Popes in general, but I'd pick this guy over Trump any day.
3 - Again, not into this whole religion thing, but surely if *any* mortal human gets to say who is and isn't christian, it's the mutherfreaking pope.
4 - I'm sure Mr Trump misspoke. I'm sure what he meant to say was "Of course his big-hattiness has the right to question my faith, just as I have the right to disagree with him and say all the pants-on-head crazy shit that I regularly spew." Because, you know, free speech. You're not an authoritarian, constitution-wiping, free-speech-hating unAmerican asstunnel are you, Mr Trump?
(Score: 2) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Friday February 19 2016, @12:39PM
Oh yeah, nearly forgot:
5 - Trump went on to blame the Pope's remarks on Mexico. America, where the fuck did you dig this guy up from?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 19 2016, @03:16PM
In the meantime, Hillary can't make up her mind if she's a liar or not.
(Score: 2) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Friday February 19 2016, @03:41PM
Well, she's a politician isn't she? That should answer any question about whether or not she's a liar.
(Score: 1, Troll) by VLM on Friday February 19 2016, @01:00PM
Again, not into this whole religion thing, but surely if *any* mortal human gets to say who is and isn't christian, it's the mutherfreaking pope.
He's kind of in hot water for how did this guy get in charge, WRT to him not even being Catholic. He's kind of a leftie political activist who moonlights in religion. I mean why be a Catholic if the pope today is basically a unitarian universalist. Not that there's anything wrong with the UU, other than pretending you aren't one when you are, or pretending the two groups are separate when they're rapidly doing some unification. So what is a standard politician response to someone questioning your authority, why, question someone elses! So its not me who's not catholic, its trump who's not christian.
Online there's a pix making the rounds of the city walls at the Vatican with the Pope's headline.
Luckily for Trump, its been an American tradition for decades to ignore what the pope says, and the over 70 crowd supposedly likes Hillary anyway so it doesn't matter.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 19 2016, @01:18PM
I'm pretty sure they checked that he is, indeed, Catholic. Note that for deciding whether he is Catholic, the only thing that has to be checked is whether he was baptised by a Catholic priest. If that is the case, according to the rules of the church he is Catholic, no matter what he thinks, says, believes or does. I think even if you get excommunicated, you don't stop being Catholic, you just lose the right to take part in the rituals.
(Score: 2) by CortoMaltese on Friday February 19 2016, @02:57PM
You are indeed correct, "excommunication does not expel the person from the Catholic Church, but simply forbids the excommunicated person from engaging in certain activities..."
If you want the opinion of a Catholic, in words of G.K Chesterton “The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting. It has been found difficult and left untried.”,
I'm of the opinion that Francis isn't any more to the left than JPII, only that American media always focused on the anti-communist side of JPII and ignored well everything else:
"The goods of this world are originally meant for all. The right to private property is valid and necessary, but it does not nullify the value of this principle. Private property, in fact, is under a ‘social mortgage’, which means that it has an intrinsically social function, based upon and justified precisely by the principle of the universal destination of goods."
"We are therefore faced with a serious problem of unequal distribution of the means of subsistence originally meant for everybody, and thus also an unequal distribution of the benefits deriving from them"
Even pope Leo XIII Wrote in 1891:
"The richer class have many ways of shielding themselves, and stand less in need of help from the State; whereas the mass of the poor have no resources of their own to fall back upon, and must chiefly depend upon the assistance of the State. And it is for this reason that wage-earners, since they mostly belong in the mass of the needy, should be specially cared for and protected by the government"
(Score: 2) by subs on Friday February 19 2016, @02:28PM
WRT to him not even being Catholic
Citation needed.
(Score: 4, Informative) by Thexalon on Friday February 19 2016, @02:49PM
The Pope has never been primarily a left-wing activist type. His jobs prior to becoming a priest were:
- Club bouncer
- Chemist
He was actually less political than, say, John Paul II prior to his papacy.
What is true is that he sees a role for the Catholic Church as being in significant part a charity organization. There are two reasons for that:
1. Most reasonable interpretations of "Love thy neighbor" imply that you should make sure that the people around you have food, clothing, and shelter. The Catholic Church has by and large taken that to heart throughout much of its history.
2. Throughout South America and much of Africa, the Catholic Church is the largest source of charitable aid around. They often take on that role because the governments are either oppressive dictatorships (e.g. Argentina and Chile under their military governments) or simply incapable of bringing the resources to bear (e.g. Haiti).
Also, all of his rhetoric about left-wing economics is also rooted in Christianity: When you're following a guy who supposedly said things like "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God." and beat up bankers, that leads you to a fairly left-wing economic platform.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by fadrian on Friday February 19 2016, @06:14PM
Hey dummy, the walls around the Vatican were built ca. 800 AD. I doubt anyone's going to tear down a historical structure to make a political point. Plus, the portals to the wall have been unguarded and allow all to pass freely for at least the last couple hundred years.
Your retarded "Trump"eting annoys me.
That is all.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 20 2016, @02:13AM
> He's kind of a leftie political activist who moonlights in religion.
Sounds rather like Jesus doesn't it?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 19 2016, @03:08PM
The Pope fell into Trump's trap. Trump needed a diversion after the disastrous debate where he blamed 9/11 on Bush 43 and pretty much let Clinton off the hook for same, which is a major violation of GOP scripture. And the Pope isn't all that popular in the South.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 19 2016, @05:30PM
I can't believe I'm defending Trump here, but really?
Regarding 3: In America, Roman Catholicism (the only denomination of Christianity that recognizes the pope's authority) is a minority sect. The Catholics, like every other denomination, have their own definition of Christianity and believe it's the one true definition. Not only do members of other denomination see the Pope as not in a position of authority, but they also see him not even using the right definition.
Regarding 4: There's a difference between legal rights and moral rights. If we assume he meant "no moral right", we get an unremarkable statement of religious dissension; if we assume he meant "no legal right", it's a rejection of the first amendment. You've presented no evidence supporting the more outrageous interpretation, and I'm unwilling to jump to that conclusion without it. The jackass makes plenty of incendiary statements without us having to twist the ones that aren't.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Friday February 19 2016, @12:45PM
We're going to ban all lasers until we can figure out what the hell is going on!
2016 would be a good year to pick up your lasers, before it's too late.
Aim them at the mosquitoes.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 19 2016, @01:49PM
"Aim them at the mosquitoes."
This is fun. After a while they drop to the floor. It also takes a little skill to keep the laser targeted on them.
I guess I need a bigger laser so I hit them once and there down.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 19 2016, @12:50PM
A "laser was sighted". Not "a laser shined into the cockpit" or "pilots eye was hit by", but simply a laser was sighted.
If anyone was previously in doubt that this is not about safety, this should clear it up.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Friday February 19 2016, @12:53PM
But if a laser was sighted from the plane, that means photons from the beam SCATTERED and reached THE EYES OF THE CREW!
This isn't just a laser incident, it's a laser attack!
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by Gravis on Friday February 19 2016, @01:34PM
that's not a laser attack. THIS [youtube.com] is a laser attack! [youtube.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 19 2016, @01:15PM
Seriously, how did they "spot" this laser while they were preparing to land?
And given that it isn't exactly easy to keep a beam aimed at a moving target a mile in the sky and at an angle that would even enter a cockpit, does this mean we we really have 1000 Beavis and Butthead type assholes just sitting around everywhere pointing lasers at airplains?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 19 2016, @01:24PM
or you could have just one asshole, with a pair of good binoculars, sitting at the end of the runway, so the plane would practically sit still for them when it's landing.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by takyon on Friday February 19 2016, @01:30PM
Given that these planes usually seem to be hit during takeoff and landing, as the other AC said, it's not as hard as you think.
As for 1,000 Buttheads, it does seem to be very common if you look at the stats. There are some in the previous article [soylentnews.org]. If you want to see what one of these Butthead types look like, look no further than here [bbc.com].
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 19 2016, @01:36PM
It isn't like you can see your laser spot reflecting back on the plane, so why the hell do people even do this? What is the jolly factor here besides just being a dick?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 19 2016, @04:52PM
It is seen as a method of celebration in some cultures, so could have something to do with that. Or they just want to see how far it reaches and don't realize there is a problem.
http://www.buzzfeed.com/appel/egypts-green-laser-pointer-revolution-7u1x [buzzfeed.com]
The fact they may be used as cheap weapons during a revolt explains why we are getting hyperbolic news coverage on this issue, to try to ban them. Not that I think shining lasers at aircraft is acceptable, but has a public education campaign on what it looks like to the pilots even been tried?
(Score: 2) by Gravis on Friday February 19 2016, @01:36PM
seriously. why does this shit still make the news when there are laser protective glasses [laserpointersafety.com]?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by takyon on Friday February 19 2016, @02:08PM
All the passengers are going to wear laser protective glasses (which only reduce, not eliminate risk)?
It's not news that you got shot, you weren't wearing a bulletproof vest!
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by Gravis on Friday February 19 2016, @02:35PM
actually, it's the opposite. it's not news if you get shot and easily survive since you were wearing a bulletproof vest. however, it is news if you get shot and die. i'm saying if you are wearing these glasses, getting hit by a laser isn't news. that doesn't make the actions of the offender any less illegal, it's just not newsworthy. frankly, we should have autonomous airplanes and lasing a plane isn't a big deal if you design the sensors with that in mind.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by nitehawk214 on Friday February 19 2016, @03:13PM
I don't know what warzone you live in, but when someone is shot around here, survival or not, vest or not, it is newsworthy.
"Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
(Score: 2) by Gravis on Friday February 19 2016, @02:37PM
All the passengers are going to wear laser protective glasses (which only reduce, not eliminate risk)?
the passengers aren't the ones flying the plane. they can just close their window shade.
(Score: 2) by Dunbal on Friday February 19 2016, @03:20PM
So can the pilots. That's what IFR means.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 19 2016, @05:32PM
You mean IFR means blind landings??
(Score: 2) by Dunbal on Friday February 19 2016, @06:55PM
For a tiny tiny part between DH and the runway, you need to be able to see the runway. And that is almost the only time an IFR pilot needs to look out the window. Congrats on focusing on just that. But be careful technology changes all the time [youtube.com].
(Score: 2) by takyon on Friday February 19 2016, @05:22PM
Note: In case of laser incident, close window shade to protect remaining eye!
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 19 2016, @05:38PM
seriously. Your solution is to have all pilots wear laser protective glasses to fly a plane? Have you ever worn laser protective glasses (I work in laboratories with lasers)? And what glasses are you going to have them wear? Ones that block green? What about those new, obnoxious blue laser pointers? What about the red laser pointers? The most effective protection would be to have them wear opaque glasses that blind people wear. That will fix the problem!
(Score: 2) by Tork on Friday February 19 2016, @08:33PM
seriously. why does this shit still make the news when there are laser protective glasses?
Because 'this shit' is the result of people who should know better ruining it for everybody. No, you don't actually want to live in a society where everything is okay as long as technology hasn't physically prevented you from being up to no good.
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 2) by Gravis on Friday February 19 2016, @10:00PM
No, you don't actually want to live in a society where everything is okay as long as technology hasn't physically prevented you from being up to no good.
i'm not saying it should be reported to the authorities or that the legality should be changed. i'm asking why is it news.
(Score: 2) by Gravis on Friday February 19 2016, @10:01PM
should not be reported*
(Score: 2) by requerdanos on Friday February 19 2016, @02:38PM
First off: I completely accept without reservation that the shining of a ground-based laser into the cockpit of a flying aircraft can be a serious safety issue, which given that that safety issue is created up in the air, puts at risk life and limb of passengers and crew, as does any safety issue at that altitude.
That said, let's think about this. Now Jim McAuslan, General Sec'y of the British Airline Pilots Assn. didn't think about it, apparently, but let's us do it now.
We have on the one hand,
Okay. "Crew reported laser beam sighting." Good so far...
Now. "Serious, widespread laser attacks on aircraft."
I would posit here that what's serious and widespread is the mis-characterization of laser safety incidents like this one. The same guy is calling, in the name of the Pilots Association, for lasers to be legally considered offensive weapons [bbc.co.uk].
There is a certain amount of perverse sense here, in that if people were attacking and shooting planes down with lasers, as McAuslan seems to be claiming, then by all means the laser weapons shooting down the planes would be offensive weapons by definition.
One little problem, and some of you may see where I am going with this...
It's not "laser weapons shooting down planes," but rather "jerks shining planes with laser pointers." Now, while this does have an adverse affect on safety, and is therefore very serious, the problem is that lying and saying that the planes are under serious and widespread attack by laser weapons not only is intellectually annoying in the extreme, but shows very little respect for the actual problem. Do we really need to lie about what's happening, instead of just admitting that shining lasers at planes is a safety risk already punishable under law (in various countries/jurisdictions), and a stupid, dangerous, and threatening thing to do? I would have thought that this question would be rhetorical until McAuslan demonstrated otherwise.
(Score: 2) by gidds on Friday February 19 2016, @04:20PM
As reported in a recent Soylent story [soylentnews.org] ('storylent'? 'soy'?):
Doesn't that count as widespread?
Even the use of the word 'attacks' seems understandable to me, as that may be the effect in the cockpit, whatever the perpetrator's intent. (Ignorance is no excuse when it comes to reckless actions.)
Mind you, I don't see the need for aircraft-specific laws on this; wouldn't it be just as dangerous to shine laser beams into cars, lorries, and other vehicles? Or anywhere there's a good chance of people's vision being harmed or where being temporarily blinded might be dangerous? A well-worded general law, covering all these, would seem more appropriate. (After all, we don't class cars as offensive weapons; we just legislate against their more dangerous uses.)
In any case, I expect a few high-profile convictions may go a long way to raising awareness, and reducing the number of jerks who do this sort of thing without realising the consequences.
[sig redacted]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 19 2016, @07:04PM
There are aircraft specific laws about tons of stuff less dangerous than lasers. Tickling, sneezing, ice cream, etc:
http://www.fly-buy.me/2012/07/aviation-law-gone-awry.html [fly-buy.me]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 19 2016, @09:38PM
Are any of these true? Or are they true by nature that they've been in fortune files and usenet for decades? I took one at random, the burping prohibition in Halstead, and I can't find any actual law anywhere, just the same lists that you put up.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 20 2016, @12:50AM
Is it safe to assume they are fake then? Apparently it is illegal to post the actual laws online so people can check:
http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-mh-state-of-georgia-copyright-wall-20150727-column.html [latimes.com]
(Score: 2) by requerdanos on Saturday February 20 2016, @01:44PM
I do see some grey area here where perhaps the word "attacks" could be metaphorically applied to shining lights as in this instance, and the light-shining is certainly widespread, and is certainly a problem--no arguments there, really.
What I was trying to get across is that McAuslan is specifically claiming attacks by offensive weapons. Plenty of British and other planes have been attacked in a widespread manner by offensive weapons during the last hundred years, notably during two pretty involved wars. The comparison of that to blinking lights doesn't hold up, however risky the blinking lights may be.
I believe it would be better to work the problem from the angle of dangerous behavior on the part of laser-outlaw miscreants, rather than to claim widespread attacks on aircraft by offensive weapons, because I think the latter falsely lumps laser pointers in with anti-aircraft missiles, armed enemy aircraft, and the like.
I think that McAuslan is using this sort of language to overstate the problem in emotional terms.
Genuinely, I think the problem is bad enough without doing that. Anyone who endangers the lives and safety of others in such a way by deliberately (or otherwise) interfering with aircraft operations with a laser (or by whatever means) deserves the really stiff punishment coming to him.
(Score: 2) by snufu on Friday February 19 2016, @03:48PM
this suspect [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 4, Insightful) by goody on Friday February 19 2016, @06:10PM
The next president should do something about lasers. It's unprecedented in the 240 year history of the US for a sitting president to take action against lasers in the last year of his term. Totally unprecedented, and furthermore action against lasers is not in the Constitution.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 20 2016, @02:21AM
It's only the judiciary who are obliged to follow precedent, and the President isn't a judge.