Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Orange Floyd's "The Wall"

Orange Floyd's "The Wall"
Thread Tools
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 26, 2017, 12:07 PM
 
Looks like we're moving forward with this bad boy, or some form it that isn't metaphorical. Mexico isn't paying for it up front and the likelihood of extracting future payment is proportional to how much trust Trump basically saying 'Trust me'.

Should we build this thing if we're paying my for it?
It's probably cheap compared to other shit in the budget but if it's added should it be revenue neutral?
Will it actually be effective at stopping immigration? Drug smuggling?
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 26, 2017, 01:02 PM
 
To some extent.

It will make the path of least resistance more challenging, so it will curb the people who don't have the resources to overcome it.

It will put a much bigger dent in the "best" type of illegal immigrant (cheap labor) than it will in the cartels.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 26, 2017, 01:13 PM
 
I'd have to agree that it would slow or prevent the most vanilla of illegal movement. I also think that's the least interesting or important aspect of the entire debate.
     
Doc HM
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: UKland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 26, 2017, 03:27 PM
 
and he basically uninvited the Mexican leader via twitter while sounding like a hurt mafia don.
This space for Hire! Reasonable rates. Reach an audience of literally dozens!
     
Paco500
Professional Poster
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 26, 2017, 03:40 PM
 
It will work great as there are no ladders or ropes in Mexico. It's an excellent plan.
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 26, 2017, 08:12 PM
 
The cartels will bribe workmen to add tunnels and secret doors. Trump will probably end up getting a cut from everyone who sneaks through.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 26, 2017, 09:18 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
To some extent.

It will make the path of least resistance more challenging, so it will curb the people who don't have the resources to overcome it.
I don't see how a wall will make a significant dent in the long term. Even now there are tons of tunnels beneath the border, and they are used for smuggling. A wall isn't capable of protecting against that in any way, shape or form. Moreover, the wall will only be effective if the US staffs up significantly on border guards: the border is several thousand kilometers in length, so you need thousands of people manning it. If you employ too little, then it won't be effective. With such a large border, migration is like a bucket with holes: if you plug one hole, then the water will find its way through other holes.

The best anti-migration policies are to support policies which improve the economy of the countries of origin. The European Union has more than two decades of experience with that, and it is the reason conservative politicians in Europe were very eager to spend hundreds of millions of Euros even to non-member countries (e. g. Romania and Bulgaria before they became members). I think if Trump spent the money he needs to allocate for the wall in economic development in Mexico and South America, that'd be much more impactful than the wall.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 27, 2017, 05:59 AM
 
That would require vision.

Trump is just looking for something he can plaster his name on for eternity. He can't paint the white house gold or add his smug face to mt. Rushmore, so he needs his own monument. Thats all it would be.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 27, 2017, 06:45 AM
 
Add in armed drones, cameras and such and allow the Fed's to be more aggressive, and it just might put a big dent in the problem.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 27, 2017, 07:38 AM
 
Originally Posted by Doc HM View Post
and he basically uninvited the Mexican leader via twitter while sounding like a hurt mafia don.
Pretty sure you got that backwards.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 27, 2017, 08:10 AM
 
Bill Clinton = Trump

"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 27, 2017, 08:47 AM
 
Apple juice = the new orange juice?
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 27, 2017, 08:56 AM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
Add in armed drones, cameras and such and allow the Fed's to be more aggressive, and it just might put a big dent in the problem.
Or, much more likely, it'll have no long-term effect but huge long-term costs. If people want to cross such a huge border, a wall won't do a thing.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Paco500
Professional Poster
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 27, 2017, 10:33 AM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
Bill Clinton = Trump

I must be as big an idiot as you keep saying, because I've watched this twice and missed where said anything about a wall or making Mexico pay for it.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 27, 2017, 02:00 PM
 
How does a 20% tax on Mexican imports sit with my fellow Americans?
     
andi*pandi
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jan 27, 2017, 02:16 PM
 
It sounds an awful lot like we'll be paying for it, Dakar!
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 27, 2017, 04:47 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
I don't see how a wall will make a significant dent in the long term. Even now there are tons of tunnels beneath the border, and they are used for smuggling. A wall isn't capable of protecting against that in any way, shape or form. Moreover, the wall will only be effective if the US staffs up significantly on border guards: the border is several thousand kilometers in length, so you need thousands of people manning it. If you employ too little, then it won't be effective. With such a large border, migration is like a bucket with holes: if you plug one hole, then the water will find its way through other holes.
The bucket analogy is close, but not quite right because gravity isn't pulling on the migration pool equally. If tunnels are the only way through (as a hypothetical example for the sake of argument), the only people who get through are those who can afford to pay the smugglers.

This effectively clips a group who couldn't afford to pay a smuggler but could just walk across before the wall was built.

Drones will ultimately render the resource issues defending the wall irrelevant.
     
Paco500
Professional Poster
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 27, 2017, 05:33 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Drones will ultimately render the resource issues defending the wall irrelevant.
What is it exactly you think these drones are going to do? You walk up to the wall, a drone spots you, it's tells someone, hours later that person arrives and you have already climbed the wall and are long gone.

Unless of course, in addition to spending billions on a wall and untold millions on drones, you are suggesting even more millions to staff the >1000 miles of wall being proposed.

And if you are spending all that money on drones and people, why do we need the wall?
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 27, 2017, 09:47 PM
 
Originally Posted by Paco500 View Post
What is it exactly you think these drones are going to do?
Umm... follow people.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 27, 2017, 09:56 PM
 
Shoot radioactive dye markers, too. They're cheap and indelible for up to 12 months, allowing security to more easily track down illegal aliens who try to scale the wall.

Also "hours"? With the stations only 10 miles apart, I'd imagine it will only take 20-30 minutes (at most) to check potential breaches, after analyzing the situation over CCTV.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 27, 2017, 11:51 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Umm... follow people.
At the end of the day, you need actual people to apprehend people who crossed the border illegally. Drones don't really solve that problem, they just provide a sense that something is done. Drones need to be manned, they can be hacked or shot down, and you need hundreds of them. The proper question to ask in my opinion is whether these 15-20 billion dollars for the construction and the billions of dollars for manning a wall are the best way to spend your money. Put more succinctly, if you want to allocate tens of billions of dollars for immigration enforcement, what is the best way? To me a wall is a giant paperweight that won't put a dent in it. For instance, we know that certain industries rely on immigrants as a source of cheap labor, farming and the meat packing industry come to mind. That doesn't seem to be an avenue immigration law enforcement focuses on.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 28, 2017, 12:36 AM
 
I'm an open borders guy, so of course I think it's a bad use of resources.

However, the question at hand isn't my political leanings, it's whether patrolling a bajillion mile long border is feasible.

Drones most certainly do not need to be manned, which is why they scare the shit out of me.

As for hacking a hole in our drone curtain, I'd be more worried about the Chinese than the Mexicans.
     
Paco500
Professional Poster
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 28, 2017, 02:15 AM
 
It seems to me that all the responses to my point don't address the realities that A: They would drive up the cost even more, and not by a small measure, and B: Would be almost, if not just, as effective without the wall.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 28, 2017, 04:33 AM
 
@subego
I'm also opposed to the wall also on a philosophical level, so it's odd for me to argue these minutiae. Drones will have to be supervised one way or another. But of course we weren't very precise: when you say drones, do you mean Reaper drones or small hex copters. The latter are really easy to hack. In any case, if we agree on the pointlessness of the wall, then these discussions will be moot. We should use our time more productively.

@Paco
Perhaps I got sucked into a rabbit hole. Your points are well-taken. The money spent on the wall could certainly be used in ways that directly benefit Americans. Flint and many other towns like it still don't have clean tap water, their pipe system hasn't been replaced.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 28, 2017, 12:56 PM
 
Originally Posted by Paco500 View Post
It seems to me that all the responses to my point don't address the realities that A: They would drive up the cost even more, and not by a small measure, and B: Would be almost, if not just, as effective without the wall.
Both in tandem are more effective than either one alone.

With both, the drones patrol a route coinciding with where people get delayed.

As for cost, it gets cheaper with every passing day. It's only a matter of time before it's considered cost effective.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 28, 2017, 01:20 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
@subego
I'm also opposed to the wall also on a philosophical level, so it's odd for me to argue these minutiae. Drones will have to be supervised one way or another. But of course we weren't very precise: when you say drones, do you mean Reaper drones or small hex copters. The latter are really easy to hack. In any case, if we agree on the pointlessness of the wall, then these discussions will be moot. We should use our time more productively.
Drones will have to be supervised, but it isn't anything even remotely resembling a 1-to-1 ratio.

I'd have both bear drones and twink drones. None dare question my progressiveness.

I'm going to need a cite the hackability of drones is related to size rather than the communication protocol.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 28, 2017, 05:03 PM
 
I'm wondering whether all of the fiscal conservatives that have cried for years about our debt and deficit will ask for a cost/benefit analysis when it comes to analyzing the costs of this wall?
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 29, 2017, 07:00 AM
 
When doing the analysis, don't forget to jack up the prices of goods to reflect the cheap labor pool drying up.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 29, 2017, 07:05 AM
 
Quick note about hacking drones...

Unless there's some new technology I'm unaware of, hacking a drone involves spitting out so much RF you may as well paint a bullseye on top of your skull.
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 29, 2017, 01:11 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
Bill Clinton = Trump

Originally Posted by Paco500 View Post
I must be as big an idiot as you keep saying, because I've watched this twice and missed where said anything about a wall or making Mexico pay for it.
No, he was talking tough on illegal-- undocumented employees.

Obama was for the wall before he was against it.

This is the law Trump's EO is jumpstarting.
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 29, 2017, 01:14 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Quick note about hacking drones...

Unless there's some new technology I'm unaware of, hacking a drone involves spitting out so much RF you may as well paint a bullseye on top of your skull.
Can't you catch it in a net, jam it, then hack it later?
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 29, 2017, 02:08 PM
 
Aren't we discussing taking command of one in-flight?

I'm assuming the person doing it already knows how. They have to talk with it, which is the equivalent of going "look at meeeee... I'm over heeeere!!!"
     
Paco500
Professional Poster
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 29, 2017, 04:35 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
No, he was talking tough on illegal-- undocumented employees.
Which is a very different thing.

Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
Obama was for the wall before he was against it.

This is the law Trump's EO is jumpstarting.
Again, after multiple viewings, I heard nothing about a wall or making Mexico pay for it. What's wrong with my hearing?
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 29, 2017, 06:38 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Aren't we discussing taking command of one in-flight?
If you want to hack regular drones used for fun and filming, that turns out to be very easy because drone vendors apparently haven't heard of security. But even $35k drones used by the police (and which might be used to control the border) can be hacked from a mile away with $40 worth of electronics and a laptop (see also here for the talk). I'm not claiming Mexican smugglers will be able to hack a Reaper drone, but other drones are eminently hackable.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 30, 2017, 10:58 AM
 
The reason that police drone is hackable is because the police haven't heard of security either. The communication protocol on the drone in question isn't encrypted.

I also posit if this person wants to do it at usable ranges, they're going to light up like a radar array.
     
andi*pandi
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jan 30, 2017, 11:27 AM
 
How hard would it be to tag a bunch of rabbits (or other fast critters) with the dye, release them at the border, and completely confuse the drones? (how unsafe is that dye?)
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 30, 2017, 11:31 AM
 
Are these rabbits trained to run like people?

Either way, I wouldn't go testing it on animals. What are you? Sick?
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 30, 2017, 11:54 AM
 
For those keeping score at home, these are some of the choice arguments provided against border drones thus far.

Drones can't function without pilots.
You can just run away from a drone.
Drones with no security are hackable.
Decoy rabbits.

C'mon... bring me some A-game.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 30, 2017, 11:56 AM
 
Here, I've got one: they won't be able to function properly because the airspace will be cluttered with Amazon and cartel drones making deliveries.

(I haven't been following but this discussion looks boring as ****. And pointless.)
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 30, 2017, 12:03 PM
 
Well, thank you for playing then.
     
andi*pandi
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jan 30, 2017, 12:38 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Are these rabbits trained to run like people?

Either way, I wouldn't go testing it on animals. What are you? Sick?
are drones trained to tell the difference, or just follow the radioactivity? I'm picturing the drones all piled up outside a rabbit hole. which way did he go?
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 30, 2017, 12:51 PM
 
The 100% serious, non-snarky answer is it's just like computer security. If a hacker finds an exploit, they get to take advantage until it's patched.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 30, 2017, 01:03 PM
 
Originally Posted by andi*pandi View Post
I'm picturing the drones all piled up outside a rabbit hole. which way did he go?
It would quite likely end up something like Watership Down with teeny-tiny MAGA hats.
     
andi*pandi
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jan 30, 2017, 04:00 PM
 
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 30, 2017, 06:36 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
The reason that police drone is hackable is because the police haven't heard of security either. The communication protocol on the drone in question isn't encrypted.
Yes, as are all cheaper drones as well. And it stands to reason that those are some of the drones that will be used to secure the wall. If you just want to interfere with drones, you don't actually need to break encryption, by the way, you just need to interfere with the signal between the drone operator and the drone. Once drones lose connection, they usually revert to safe mode and return to their starting point or land where they are. Also, jamming a drone is much easier than hacking it, keep that in mind.
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I also posit if this person wants to do it at usable ranges, they're going to light up like a radar array.
As per the headline, with the $40 equipment, you can hack it from a mile away. Is that enough usable range?
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 30, 2017, 08:53 PM
 
Originally Posted by andi*pandi View Post
Now this is A-game.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 30, 2017, 09:52 PM
 
Originally Posted by andi*pandi View Post
How hard would it be to tag a bunch of rabbits (or other fast critters) with the dye, release them at the border, and completely confuse the drones? (how unsafe is that dye?)
That's precious. No, Homeland Security can walk up to someone they suspect s here illegally, and without even needing to do anything invasive, merely wave a meter, they can tell if a person has been hit with a marker. Then they take them in, process them, and return them back to their country of origin (probably Mexico).

"But what if they got the dye by another means!" Then they're a bank robber who was given a dye pack, because that's the only other way they would have that substance on them.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 31, 2017, 07:22 AM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
Yes, as are all cheaper drones as well. And it stands to reason that those are some of the drones that will be used to secure the wall. If you just want to interfere with drones, you don't actually need to break encryption, by the way, you just need to interfere with the signal between the drone operator and the drone. Once drones lose connection, they usually revert to safe mode and return to their starting point or land where they are. Also, jamming a drone is much easier than hacking it, keep that in mind.

As per the headline, with the $40 equipment, you can hack it from a mile away. Is that enough usable range?
A mile is less useful than one would think. What good is hacking a single drone out of an entire fleet? The headline doesn't include the cost of the transmitter... think maybe that costs more than $40? Off-the-shelf drones have vulnerabilities... am I suggesting that's what gets used? Off-the-shelf drones aren't programmed to deal with hostile attacks... the ones we insure border security to won't either? Drones start dropping off the grid in sector 7... do I say "**** it" and go home, or perhaps vector resources in that direction?

Bring me A-game.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 31, 2017, 08:44 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
A mile is less useful than one would think. What good is hacking a single drone out of an entire fleet? The headline doesn't include the cost of the transmitter... think maybe that costs more than $40? Off-the-shelf drones have vulnerabilities... am I suggesting that's what gets used? Off-the-shelf drones aren't programmed to deal with hostile attacks... the ones we insure border security to won't either? Drones start dropping off the grid in sector 7... do I say "**** it" and go home, or perhaps vector resources in that direction?
That brings us back to the initial point: the border is 3,200 km long. Even if you send people in to check out why the drone is dead or no longer functional, what good does it do you if it takes you 2 hours to get there?
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Bring me A-game.
The info is in the links I have provided. You can find tons of other ways to disturb drones, you can jam the GPS & GLONAS signals (according to the talk I've linked to small jammers costs $25). Alternatively, you could use your own drone to kill another drone. At the end of the day, you need a metric eff ton of people to effectively secure the border. Drones will be a tool that may support you, but it won't magically change that. How much time are you willing to allow to pass between detecting something or someone suspicious and getting people there? 10 minutes? 20? 30? 1 hour? Even the finite range of the drones may be an issue here, regular drones (≠ Reaper and military grade stuff) are meant to be used in line of sight. Just think about the manpower, it's a ludicrous proposition.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
andi*pandi
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jan 31, 2017, 08:52 AM
 
how impervious to shotgun shells are drones?
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:48 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,