Watch the skies
August 28, 2015 2:51 PM   Subscribe

North Dakota becomes the first state to legalize weaponized drones. "Less than lethal” weapons like rubber bullets, pepper spray, tear gas, sound cannons, and Tasers are now permitted on drones, thanks to the actions of a lobbyist representing law enforcement.

Drones previously.
posted by Johnny Wallflower (75 comments total) 11 users marked this as a favorite
 
This seems like the beginning of something really terrifying.
posted by The Card Cheat at 2:56 PM on August 28, 2015 [33 favorites]


Because no one's ever died from being tazed before.
posted by You Should See the Other Guy at 3:02 PM on August 28, 2015


It's like they don't want me to go there.
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 3:03 PM on August 28, 2015 [6 favorites]


“[Frazier] spoke openly about the potential use of unmanned systems in North Dakota,” at the conference, Nelson said. “The list included the deployment of a hovering drone that was ‘Not audible or visible to people below in order to collect real time intelligence video.’”

Wow. Talk about reimporting the tactics of the War on Terror(R) to prop up local industry and gather real time intelligence on cattle disputes and small-time pot grows.

Let the proponents of these panopticon proposals be the first to have their lives monitored 24/7. After all, if you have nothing to hide....fuck I can't even finish it.
posted by Existential Dread at 3:06 PM on August 28, 2015 [11 favorites]


US law enforcement primarily seems interested in beating people up in the laziest way possible. Stick beating too much work for your arms? Try the tazer. You still have to use your legs? Here's a robot.
posted by Artw at 3:08 PM on August 28, 2015 [27 favorites]


Meh. If I was going to protest in ND I'd just bring signal jammers along with the rest of the kit. It's not like the FCC is going to be there and able to pinpoint someone out of a large crowd.
posted by Talez at 3:08 PM on August 28, 2015 [3 favorites]


I'm heading along to the next thread where there is a cat, happy excited baby and no drones.
posted by parki at 3:08 PM on August 28, 2015 [16 favorites]


If a weaponized drone is over my property why can't I down it to protect myself?
posted by Splunge at 3:11 PM on August 28, 2015 [3 favorites]


I while ago, I was talking to my partner, arguing against her feeling that the anger and frustration of the general populace boiling over was eventually going to go some place nasty the status quo couldn't contain. I grabbed a bar napkin and wrote TEAR GAS TASER QUADCOPTERS and said something like "In five years time they'll just drop a ton of these on wherever the Ferguson protests of the day are."

We had this conversation maybe a month ago. I'm sad to say that I've yet to be shocked by any of the developments arising from the, ah, "law-and-order security state," but I'm pretty shocked how quickly they've come to pass. Five years might be wishful thinking.
posted by absalom at 3:19 PM on August 28, 2015 [6 favorites]


Won't this end up in criminals and/or bored kids gaining control of the drones and then using them for their own purposes?
posted by any portmanteau in a storm at 3:22 PM on August 28, 2015 [1 favorite]


That's too close for my comfort. Working on a towel cannon.
posted by louche mustachio at 3:23 PM on August 28, 2015 [7 favorites]


The quadcopters wouldn't even have to fire tear gas canisters, they could just emit a cloud of it whilst flying into crowds of protestors.
posted by Artw at 3:23 PM on August 28, 2015


Won't this end up in criminals and/or bored kids gaining control of the drones and then using them for their own purposes?


Pretty much every vide game says yes.
posted by Artw at 3:24 PM on August 28, 2015 [5 favorites]


If a weaponized drone is over my property why can't I down it to protect myself?

You can. Fly your own drone with an EMP.
posted by parliboy at 3:24 PM on August 28, 2015


Has the FAA issued a Certificate of Authorization or Waiver for any sublethally weaponized drones?
posted by the Real Dan at 3:25 PM on August 28, 2015 [1 favorite]




The quadcopters wouldn't even have to fire tear gas canisters, they could just emit a cloud of it whilst flying into crowds of protestors.

Sure. We can throw some of those awful sonic weapons on em, too.
posted by absalom at 3:30 PM on August 28, 2015


I wouldn't feel any compunction about violently incapacitating a police robot if it was misbehaving, unlike with a human officer.
posted by clockzero at 3:32 PM on August 28, 2015


They'd probably shoot you for that though.
posted by Artw at 3:35 PM on August 28, 2015 [2 favorites]


In five years time they'll just drop a fleet of these on the next Ferguson protests.

You know, that's a fantastic starting point for a software that could be very valuable in the coming drone age - a platform that allows control of a swarm, allowing you to move them in coordinated unison rather than needing to have 50-to-a-few-hundred individual controllers all trying to pilot in unison without clipping each other and rendering the force ineffective.
posted by allkindsoftime at 3:35 PM on August 28, 2015 [4 favorites]


Won't this end up in criminals and/or bored kids gaining control of the drones and then using them for their own purposes?

Without foreknowledge of the exact model and firmware revision of the drone they'll be attempting to control, how precisely would you propose they do that?

Which is not to say it is impossible, it's just point-at-a-laptop-and-I'll-hack-it unlikely - that shit doesn't happen outside of Hollywood or network penetration contests at security conventions where the participants come armed with many new exploits for broad ranges of devices, which they typically spent months developing. Taking down an even half-assedly hardened target takes at least a few days - more likely weeks - of concentrated research. If you know precisely what your target is.

Against a completely unknown target with an opportunity window measured in minutes? This being North Dakota, well...maybe don't bet the farm on it.
posted by Ryvar at 3:36 PM on August 28, 2015 [1 favorite]


allkindsoftime: On it.
posted by absalom at 3:39 PM on August 28, 2015


Assuming the people running the drones listen to any halfway competent infosec person, no kids won't be hacking them. Like Ryvar says, not only is the time to attack measured in minutes, but if they're using even halfway decent encryption on the control signal than taking them over isn't really in the cards.

Jamming the control signal, sure. EMP to take them down, maybe but EMP bombs aren't exactly crowd friendly.
posted by sotonohito at 3:43 PM on August 28, 2015


Without foreknowledge of the exact model and firmware revision of the drone they'll be attempting to control, how precisely would you propose they do that?

This isn't rocket science. You don't need to be that precise. You just need to throw shit at the wall and see what sticks. Failing that, just jam the EM spectrum close to the drone, down it, and walk away with it.
posted by Talez at 3:50 PM on August 28, 2015


Battlebots tried to warn us of the coming drones arms race. But did we listen? No, we did not.

Not sure where a drone indiscriminately spraying tear gas into a crowd falls under "To protect and serve," but that phrase has no place in the military-industrial-law-enforcement complex.
posted by fifteen schnitzengruben is my limit at 3:51 PM on August 28, 2015 [1 favorite]


I foresee a resurgence in the popularity of the slingshot.
posted by dazed_one at 3:53 PM on August 28, 2015 [4 favorites]


There has got to be some irony in a flyover state being the first one to legalize weaponized drones.

Or maybe something about how "liberty eroding at the fringes" actually refers to the heartland of America.
posted by Johann Georg Faust at 3:56 PM on August 28, 2015 [1 favorite]


I don't really see the usefulness in crowd control here that everyone else is seeing. Your "user" (here, riot police) is already relatively remote from a crowd when they fire teargas, and blanketing a large area is already no great effort. Why even bother with a swarm of failure-prone robots?

Targeted assassinations, on the other hand? Yeah, I can see that. Fly into a building, transmit video over a wireless link to confirm your target, detonate. More selective than just dropping a Hellfire on a building (which you can't even really do in the US outside of Philadelphia), but less risky then sending your trained killers... er, police, in there personally to shoot them in the face or whatever.
posted by indubitable at 4:04 PM on August 28, 2015


Now seems like a good time to share this -- a couple of Dutch artists recently celebrated George Orwell's birthday by putting party hats on security cameras.
posted by selfmedicating at 4:13 PM on August 28, 2015 [10 favorites]


The sheriff and lobbyists assured lawmakers that drones would only be used in non-criminal situations, like the search for a missing person or to photograph an accident scene.

Yeah, right. Then why do they need tear gas dispensers? And why the huge discrepancy in the reported number of flights? According to a 2011 LA Times article they're so cozy with GFAFB they can call up a Predator whenever they like. Posse Comitatus, anyone?
posted by RobotVoodooPower at 4:32 PM on August 28, 2015 [3 favorites]


Johann Georg Faust I think it may be more intentional than ironic. North Dakota is a tiny, extremely conservative, state where its easy to push something like this through. Once its been in place in North Dakota for a while it can more easily spread to other places because, hey, it must have worked in North Dakota or they wouldn't have done it, right?
posted by sotonohito at 4:54 PM on August 28, 2015 [3 favorites]


North Dakota becomes the first state to legalize weaponized drones.

It goes without saying they will not be the last, but I'm saying it.
posted by duffell at 5:01 PM on August 28, 2015 [7 favorites]


US law enforcement primarily seems interested in beating people up in the laziest way possible. Stick beating too much work for your arms? Try the tazer. You still have to use your legs? Here's a robot.

The selling point, as with the use of drones in a foreign context, is probably that it keeps personnel out of the line of fire. Police getting shot, like soldiers getting shot, tends not to look good come election time.

The sheriff and lobbyists assured lawmakers that drones would only be used in non-criminal situations, like the search for a missing person or to photograph an accident scene.

Which I guess is a considerably more convincing notion in the Dakotas, with all that empty space. In a built-up urban environment, I suspect that tracking suspects/finding missing persons is going to still require feet on the ground.

It'll spread beyond that pretty quickly. Although the flip side is that in a riot situation drones are probably going to be a pretty good target: up in the air, and therefore visible to most of the crowd, while a police line is only visible usually to the front ranks. And people are vastly less put off by property damage than by injuring, much less killing uniformed people, so I'm guessing that repair and replacement is going to be a steadily increasing budget item.
posted by AdamCSnider at 5:23 PM on August 28, 2015


It's like they don't want me to go there.

You don't want to go there. Unless you like sugar beets and fracking. Trust me on this.
posted by MikeMc at 5:25 PM on August 28, 2015 [2 favorites]


~North Dakota becomes the first state to legalize weaponized drones.

~It goes without saying they will not be the last, but I'm saying it.

Absolutely. Can you imagine how butt-hurt the legislative egos in all the other redder-than-thou states are now after being one-upped by freakin' North Dakota?
posted by Thorzdad at 5:25 PM on August 28, 2015


they're so cozy with GFAFB they can call up a Predator whenever they like. Posse Comitatus, anyone?

The drones belong to ICE, not the Air Force so no Posse Comitatus issues there.
posted by MikeMc at 5:30 PM on August 28, 2015 [1 favorite]


One important question is: how smart are the drones, and how do they act when they're cut off from central command and have to act on their own rather than being expensive RC toys?

Because while taking over drones is a task that, depending on the competence of the drone operators, ranges from difficult to essentially impossible, cutting drones off from their controllers is comparatively easy.

The cheaper civilian drones tend to either crash, or try to land automatically. Neither is advisable for a police or military drone, especially an armed one. The behavior of the big military drones, predators and so forth, when cut off from command is classified, but I'll bet the drone uses onboard navigation to try to return to its origin in order to avoid being captured. The sort of quad-copter drones the police are talking about using are probably smart enough to try to do the same, though whether or not the police think to make that the loss of control behavior is an open question.

At the moment, drones remain expensive and large. So we're looking at the ND police deploying a small number of relatively large drones. Which means they're vulnerable to anything from thrown rocks to guns to slingshots. As such, I think we'll see a blip in concern that fades away as people realize how ineffective this generation of drones is even when armed.

The scenario of a swarm of drones equipped with tear gas or tasers or what have you decending on a group of protesters is a bit far fetched. While protesters tend to avoid attacking human police officers, that sort of restraint is unlikely with drones, especially drones releasing gas or shooting people.

Given the price of drones today, and their relatively large size, a "swarm" deployed against protesters is unlikely to be very large, in the high tens of drones at the most. Which means, given today's drone technology, it won't be effective. Armed drones deployed against protests will be destroyed by protesters. The risk here is more the precedent it sets rather than any immediate risk of protests being rendered ineffective by drones.

Where things get interesting is on the more individual scale. While a crowd facing drones spitting rubber bullets, or paintballs loaded with capsicum, or tear gas, or whatever will likely destroy the drones, an individual is less likely to do so. Among other things, they lack the anonymity of being surrounded by other people.

One thing I can see is the possibility of drones being deployed in areas with high street crime as a deterrent. Send them to buzz graffiti artists, or small groups of gang members, or to hover near the drug dealer on the corner as a sort of mobile security camera.

Whether this would be effective in any sense or not I won't venture a guess, but it seems like a deployment scenario where drones won't simply be destroyed out of hand.
posted by sotonohito at 5:31 PM on August 28, 2015 [1 favorite]


Yeah, criminals hijacking weaponized drones was totally a thing at least as early as Gibson's Neuromancer. (On that note, Gibson's drones appear to be described as plain single-rotor w/ tail rotor automated helicopters, but not really explicitly. It's never implicit that they are multirotor, which in hindsight is kind of strange.)

The use of weaponized robots by police on civilians (flying or not, lethal or less than) will eventually (hopefully) go to the Supreme Court. As will the concept of whether or not damaging/destroying a robot can be construed as assault on an officer the same way harming a police dog is, now, and can land you an assault on an officer charge. (Tangentially: how does a dog being protected by these laws translate to meat and dairy animals? Heh.)

And instead of a plain old wire and barb tazer, given the power needs a drone platform is perfectly suited for that new-fangled UV-laser wireless tazer that uses the UV laser to open up a charged ion path in the air so a tazer-like voltage generator can just zap down it at a distance, wire-free, like a lightning bolt.

Barring some grand, rapid evolution of human empathy and consciousness the future looks increasingly like Aeon Flux mixed with Wall-E, not Brave New World or 1984 or We.

Hypersecurity, hyperconsumerism and even hyperhedonism, all three facets specifically tailored and individualized from paramilitary police control to the pricing and delivery of goods both needful and leisurely to from food and toilet paper to booze and drugs.

Drones will deliver you your pizza, booze, drugs, brand new electronics just minutes old from the assembly line and even fresh flowers to your spouse or partner of the week. And bombs, bullets or just plain old tazings to you and your kids.
posted by loquacious at 5:41 PM on August 28, 2015 [1 favorite]


Oh, and there are major battery revolutions coming, both in cost, storage, and recharge times.

Small multirotor drones with much higher payloads and much longer flight times are less than 5 years away.
posted by loquacious at 5:44 PM on August 28, 2015


Oh, and I should mention that for the purposes of drone use "high crime areas" means "predominately minority areas".

Just as stop and frisk, asset forefiture, pretextual traffic stops, etc aren't frequently used against white people, but rather are the tools of choice for oppressing minority populations, I'm sure weaponized drones won't be deployed against straight, white, middle class, Americans anytime soon. They'll be used against "those people".
posted by sotonohito at 5:49 PM on August 28, 2015 [10 favorites]


I am pretty sure this happening in ND was just the proving grounds to set a precedent that could be used by other states to do the same, although that does raise the point sotonhito brings up - controlling drones to do this kind of work is hard, cutting them off/taking them down is easy.

See you at the next demonstration, selling bolas, 3 for a dollar (lessons are free).
posted by Aya Hirano on the Astral Plane at 5:58 PM on August 28, 2015


I'm fine with this, as long as they are encoded with the four primary directives.
posted by cacofonie at 6:25 PM on August 28, 2015


The funny thing is that they can't actually make this legal because it's not illegal. Not in ND or any other state for that matter.

More info (albeit less fear mongering) here.
posted by sexymofo at 6:38 PM on August 28, 2015 [1 favorite]


Serve the public trust, Protect the innocent, Uphold the law, Mess up people we want messed up?

'cause that's what would happen.
posted by mephron at 6:39 PM on August 28, 2015


The drones belong to ICE, not the Air Force so no Posse Comitatus issues there.

Maybe so. Still, it looks like the Grand Forks folks have them on speed-dial. Seems like there should be more of a process for a federal agency to retask a sophisticated military asset for local law enforcement activities than "I know a guy".
posted by RobotVoodooPower at 6:50 PM on August 28, 2015


Taking down an even half-assedly hardened target takes at least a few days

Assuming the people running the drones listen to any halfway competent infosec person
Aaaaand relax.
posted by fullerine at 7:00 PM on August 28, 2015 [6 favorites]


So not based on military drones basically.
posted by Artw at 7:13 PM on August 28, 2015


Let's solve this problem the American way - Amendment XXVIII:
A well regulated autonomous distributed robo-militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and maintain general purpose computing devices and atomically precise manufactories shall not be infringed.
posted by save alive nothing that breatheth at 7:34 PM on August 28, 2015


“You Can Now Buy Special Ammo Just for Shooting Down Drones,” Adam Clark Estes, Gizmodo, 18 August 2015
posted by ob1quixote at 7:39 PM on August 28, 2015


I'm really struggling to think how 12 gauge cartridges capable of taking down a duck might not do that also.
posted by Artw at 7:56 PM on August 28, 2015


> loquacious: Yeah, criminals hijacking weaponized drones was totally a thing at least as early as Gibson's Neuromancer. (On that note, Gibson's drones appear to be described as plain single-rotor w/ tail rotor automated helicopters, but not really explicitly. It's never implicit that they are multirotor, which in hindsight is kind of strange.)

His latest, The Peripheral, pretty explicitly uses multi-rotor drone copters (piloted by someone in a different timeline in one case, but that's beside the point). It's a fun book.

This news story, OTOH, is too depressing to parse.
posted by RedOrGreen at 8:00 PM on August 28, 2015


Artw: “I'm really struggling to think how 12 gauge cartridges capable of taking down a duck might not do that also.”
I thought the same thing but these ones day "DRONE" on them, so they're worth double the price I guess.
posted by ob1quixote at 8:02 PM on August 28, 2015 [3 favorites]


I'm generally in favor of separating idiots and money, so it's a positive thing I guess.
posted by Artw at 8:05 PM on August 28, 2015


This will end badly, I'm sure.
posted by sundrop at 8:24 PM on August 28, 2015


Slingshot with a few feet of fishing line tied to a lead fishing weight. Tangle the rotors.
posted by five fresh fish at 8:24 PM on August 28, 2015 [2 favorites]


12-gauge bolo
posted by Johnny Wallflower at 9:51 PM on August 28, 2015 [1 favorite]


Just mount your own defense.
posted by clavdivs at 10:50 PM on August 28, 2015


And bombs, bullets or just plain old tazings to you and your kids.

Damn you. Damn you to hell.

♫ Old tazings for Christmas and a happy New Year ♫
posted by aws17576 at 11:08 PM on August 28, 2015


How To Shoot Down a Drone.

Incidentally, shooting down drones over your house can get you into trouble.

I'm not sure about the legality of using soundwaves, but.... you can.
posted by Mezentian at 11:26 PM on August 28, 2015


Meh. If I was going to protest in ND I'd just bring signal jammers along with the rest of the kit. It's not like the FCC is going to be there and able to pinpoint someone out of a large crowd.

IIRC, Back in the late 70's, early 80's TAP published in their newsletter instructions for a spark-gap generator, which provided scads of handy interference in the radio bands common in those days...
posted by mikelieman at 2:17 AM on August 29, 2015


12-gauge bolo

I see your 12-gauge and raise you a Mark II Bolo
posted by mikelieman at 2:21 AM on August 29, 2015


I see your Mark II Bolo and raise you a Marc Bolan.
posted by Mezentian at 3:24 AM on August 29, 2015


I see your Mark II Bolo and raise you a Marc Bolan

I fold....
posted by mikelieman at 3:56 AM on August 29, 2015


Sorry, I skipped Mack Bolan so I could win.
posted by Mezentian at 4:41 AM on August 29, 2015


How has this not come up again yet?

$20 knockoff quads with some open source/knockoff version of that software are going to be the solution here. No aiming, no piloting. Just launch, seek, destroy.

What's $500 for a stack of those hypothetical units to take down a bunch of $10k+ drones? Shit, what's some lines dangling from a stock $20-40 quad that you just pilot with your hands at your waist within the crowd?

Who even gives a shit if you get it back if it works? That's the difference here, and that's the asymetry. The cost of taking one of these down in a crowd with it being very hard to tell who did it is going to stay very low for a long time.
posted by emptythought at 4:50 AM on August 29, 2015 [2 favorites]


What to do about drones, and specifically, what should local and state governments be allowed to do with drones is a hot issue right now for state legislatures across the country:

In 2015, 45 states have considered 156 bills related to drones.

While most of the bills are related to privacy concerns, some address law enforcement. Here are some selected summaries from the link above. UAS = Unmanned Aircraft System, aka drone.

Maine LD 25 requires law enforcement agencies receive approval before acquiring UAS. The bill also specifies that the use of UAS by law enforcement comply with all FAA requirements and guidelines. Requires a warrant to use UAS for criminal investigations except in certain circumstances and sets out standards for the operation of UAS by law enforcement.

Nevada AB 239 includes UAS in the definition of aircraft and regulates the operators of UAS. It also prohibits the weaponization of UAS and prohibits the use of UAS within a certain distance of critical facilities and airports without permission. The bill specifies certain restrictions on the use of UAS by law enforcement and public agencies and requires the creation of a registry of all UAS operated by public agencies in the state.

Utah HB 296 allows a law enforcement agency to use an unmanned aircraft system to collect data at a testing site and to locate a lost or missing person in an area in which a person has no reasonable expectation of privacy. It also institutes testing requirements for a law enforcement agency's use of an unmanned aircraft system.

Virginia HB 2125 and SB 1301 require that a law enforcement agency obtain a warrant before using a drone for any purpose, except in limited circumstances. Virginia's governor also issued an executive order establishing a commission on unmanned systems.

I think that North Dakota is swimming against the tide with weaponization of drones; plenty of red states are going in the opposite direction because they are concerned about surveillance and abuse by government.
posted by kovacs at 7:04 AM on August 29, 2015 [2 favorites]


Tangentially, this reminded me of the Larry Niven story "Cloak of Anarchy".
posted by sevenyearlurk at 9:13 AM on August 29, 2015 [1 favorite]


> a drone platform is perfectly suited for that new-fangled UV-laser wireless tazer that uses the UV laser to open up a charged ion path in the air so a tazer-like voltage generator can just zap down it at a distance, wire-free, like a lightning bolt.

So the Slylandro probes in Star Control II were really more of a prophecy....
posted by MysticMCJ at 9:26 AM on August 29, 2015 [1 favorite]


I'm wondering how small quadcopter drones would fare against a $10 airzooka....
posted by MysticMCJ at 9:28 AM on August 29, 2015


>The scenario of a swarm of drones equipped with tear gas or tasers or what have you decending on a group of protesters is a bit far fetched. While protesters tend to avoid attacking human police officers, that sort of restraint is unlikely with drones, especially drones releasing gas or shooting people.

That is, until they make the legal punishment for destruction of drones carry nearly the same punishment as shooting an officer.
posted by constantinescharity at 9:43 AM on August 29, 2015


Did anyone see the episode of Mythbusters where they piloted various drones into a human analog? The little ones were safe-ish, but when they broke out their big camera rig, it did some serious damage. I hope they engineer their weaponized drones so that they manage to not kill people when they fall out of the sky. (Not holding my breath, though.)
posted by Weeping_angel at 2:20 PM on August 29, 2015


Great. Now a new arms race between the states begins. Just wait until you see a swarm of these drones dosing a crowd of protesters with pepper spray. Who knows what is next. Tranquilizer darts on drones?
posted by Muncle at 6:41 PM on August 29, 2015


Posse Comitatus, anyone?

Jebus, don't say those words again. We already got enough trouble in this state what with that Canadian white supremacist who keeps trying to buy up small towns.

Drones would help with missing persons cases - there is plenty of space to get lost in out here. Plenty of area between the Killdeer Mountains and the Montana border that is even hard to search on horseback.

I'd say at least half of the Republicans are still the old school financial conservative types but they're scared to death of the crazy half of the party. Sort of like the rest of the country. I could see these drones not going over well with the crazies. I got this batshit-insane couple next door that swear that colored guy in the White House is coming for their guns any day now. Nice people to chat with but completely bonkers. This type isn't going to tolerate the idea of gummit drones too well. It's going to get real interesting.
posted by Ber at 9:08 PM on August 29, 2015


Ryvar: " Taking down an even half-assedly hardened target takes at least a few days - more likely weeks - of concentrated research. If you know precisely what your target is."

It's not like police departments have unlimited budgets for this kind of thing. Most of them will be inservice for years. Long term once you've identified the local variant(s) you are good to go with targeted counter-measures.
posted by Mitheral at 9:57 AM on August 30, 2015 [1 favorite]


Look, hacking drones will absolutely happen a few times in the next couple decades, and after whichever incident claims the first fatality + subsequent lawsuit, manufacturers will start taking this shit seriously enough to at least slap on the token security that ensures nothing short of an all-out effort will succeed. This just isn't going to be A Thing(tm) that people need to either worry about or hope for, depending.
posted by Ryvar at 3:31 PM on August 30, 2015 [1 favorite]


« Older Ube Goldberg   |   Be Happy for a Few Seconds Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments