Laser beams being aimed at airliners?

On Wed, 5 Jan 2005 16:19:06 -0600, "Gig Giacona"
wrote in
::

And these are your cites for to back up the statement that there are systems
in place in all metro areas to triangulate gunshots?

Here's what I said:

"These days, in the metropolitan areas there are microphones on
every traffic-controlled intersection that can be used to
triangulate the report of the weapon to determine its location."

I didn't say "all metro areas." You inferred that.

My use of the absolute 'every' should have given you a clue, that
there was some hyperbole here.

In English the modifying adjective precedes the noun it modifies
(unlike some other languages). I made no reference to 'all' nor
'every' metro area. The absolute (every) that I used referred to
'intersections'.

But it's obvious you're not concerned that these systems are now in
place around the nation. Your's just looking to make me wrong, or
else you would have addressed the issue of "Big Brother" eavesdropping
on the urban proletariat instead of pressing your point.

THey are, on the other
hand, pretty damn good cites to prove you were wrong since they all are
talking about a pilot program taking place in a few high crime locations in
a couple of cities.

A 'couple' is usually two. I count more than a couple: Chicago, Los
Angeles, Dallas, San Diego, Redwood City ...

If you had bothered to look here
http://www.shotspotter.com/customers.shtml , you'd have known that one
ShotSpotter has systems currently operating in:

Redwood City, CA
Willowbrook, CA
City of Industry, CA
Glendale, AZ
Charleston, NC

There's more information he
http://www.safetydynamics.net/recent_press.htm
http://www.informationweek.com/showA...icleID=6500206

Although this technology may aid law enforcement, I find it a bit too
Orwellian for my taste.

Welcome to the 21st century. :-(

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
wrote in:

And these are your cites for to back up the statement that there are
systems
in place in all metro areas to triangulate gunshots?

Here's what I said:

Give it up. Your claim was that the technology you misrepresented (if only
a bit) would be a deterrent to, or a means of apprehending, people shooting
at planes. With very rare exception, like nearly zero, it isn't.

moo