Not necessarily. We'll need to look at the full list to see if there are any actual incidents left that show an actual drone violating airspace. If the FAA was desperate enough to fluff up their argument with the examples given, it really leads me to wonder if they have a point at all.
So the drone operators need to be careful of airports and the FAA needs to quit lying.
Actually, it enumerated a number of sightings that weren't drones at all, 2 that were drones but were flying within the rules including being appropriately distant from an airport (5 miles in one, 13 miles in the other), more than a dozen incidents that were military drones, another was a police drone. The FAA claimed all of those reports (even the object at 51000 feet and the "mini blimp") as relevant to hobby drones.
Also dismissed was the thing that "looked like a large vulture". Best guess, it was a large vulture.
They are basing their complaint on a comparison between what the FAA is saying vs. what the actual pilots reported. That makes the commercial pilots the observers, not the drone operators.
Some of the reports the FAA claimed bolstered the need to do something about drones included objects seen at 51,000 feet, according to the pilot that filed the report.. That would be well beyond the capability of any hobbiest drone.
Other sightings as described by the commercial pilot described drones operating within the rules.
No. Near miss is a well defined term. The pilots making the reports are declining to characterize the events as a near miss (a much more serious matter than a simple sighting). The press and perhaps the FAA are presenting these sightings as if they were near misses. All the drone pilots are doing is actually reading the reports.
Not necessarily, because your market argument is half a bubble off. Due to poor repairability, the epoxy sealed phone may sell 'better' because of people buying a replacement rather than repairing. That can easily make a minority who will tolerate an expensive disposable to be hip to look like a much larger market share. Meanwhile, the others may grudgingly buy the less repairable product because they need a phone and there really isn't a more repairable alternative (since sales figures 'showed' that the non-repairable phone sells better due to replacements).
Meanwhile, there's the consumers who just assume there must be some magic way a repair person can open the phone and seal it up again, kind of like a jeweler does for pricey watches when they need a battery.
The iPhone 4s is an example for you to ponder. It CAN be opened and the battery can be replaced. BUT, Apple used the 'pentalobe' screws where a common phillips or even torx could have been used. Doesn't that suggest that the point was to keep people from repairing their phone rather than because screws would show or add bulk?
Last time I checked the whole point of the router was that it's a limited-purpose device and it's management access was highly restricted, both in terms of credentials to access the management interface and of the networks that the management interface will communicate with.
Yes, and they typically don't have anti-virus or get as much scrutiny as a workstation. What's your point?
To be a strawman, it would have to have never been a part of the right's policy. I don't know much of UK politics but in the U.S. It most certainly has been (even by name) a part of the right and is still practiced.
Most of the people violating restricted airspace seem to be unaware of it. GPS would be fine as an advisory measure. If the GPS was spoofed, it would prove intent.
What feature would screws eliminate? I canb see it might make the device slightly larger, but given how phablets are selling, apparently that's not a problem.
It could, as others have suggested, store the data as an encrypted blob where I (not they) have the private key. It could send the data directly to my own PC at home. It could just hold the data until I connect the phone to my PC via USB cable. It absolutely does not need to share the data with any corporate entity at any time.
Add in that you must show that you were offering at least as much as the H1-B gets paid and that he (or she) actually has all of the qualifications that were listed as requirements when the job was advertised.
Funny how that same reasoning doesn't seem to keep prices to the consumer from rising. And it sure doesn't influence CEO salaries. Why not bring in an H1B, there are plenty of well qualified European CEOs accustomed to working for a fraction of what an American CEO costs.
I would like to see a more overt response pinpointed to the launch point of an attack. They do have a right to defense. Interdiction of weapons shipments is fine as well.
Keeping the general population in poverty is just helping the enemy's recruiting efforts and offers little in the way of reward (or lack of punishment) for those who aren't launching rockets.
Agreed that a laser is a better choice. I understand that an inkjet needs to clean periodically, but that's no excuse for refusing to print in black and white just because the color carts are empty or missing.
Slashdot Mirror
Not necessarily. We'll need to look at the full list to see if there are any actual incidents left that show an actual drone violating airspace. If the FAA was desperate enough to fluff up their argument with the examples given, it really leads me to wonder if they have a point at all.
So the drone operators need to be careful of airports and the FAA needs to quit lying.
Actually, it enumerated a number of sightings that weren't drones at all, 2 that were drones but were flying within the rules including being appropriately distant from an airport (5 miles in one, 13 miles in the other), more than a dozen incidents that were military drones, another was a police drone. The FAA claimed all of those reports (even the object at 51000 feet and the "mini blimp") as relevant to hobby drones.
Also dismissed was the thing that "looked like a large vulture". Best guess, it was a large vulture.
They are basing their complaint on a comparison between what the FAA is saying vs. what the actual pilots reported. That makes the commercial pilots the observers, not the drone operators.
Some of the reports the FAA claimed bolstered the need to do something about drones included objects seen at 51,000 feet, according to the pilot that filed the report.. That would be well beyond the capability of any hobbiest drone.
Other sightings as described by the commercial pilot described drones operating within the rules.
With that much genetic drift, can they really call themselves Daleks?
You really shouldn't eat turkey bones.
No. Near miss is a well defined term. The pilots making the reports are declining to characterize the events as a near miss (a much more serious matter than a simple sighting). The press and perhaps the FAA are presenting these sightings as if they were near misses. All the drone pilots are doing is actually reading the reports.
Not necessarily, because your market argument is half a bubble off. Due to poor repairability, the epoxy sealed phone may sell 'better' because of people buying a replacement rather than repairing. That can easily make a minority who will tolerate an expensive disposable to be hip to look like a much larger market share. Meanwhile, the others may grudgingly buy the less repairable product because they need a phone and there really isn't a more repairable alternative (since sales figures 'showed' that the non-repairable phone sells better due to replacements).
Meanwhile, there's the consumers who just assume there must be some magic way a repair person can open the phone and seal it up again, kind of like a jeweler does for pricey watches when they need a battery.
The iPhone 4s is an example for you to ponder. It CAN be opened and the battery can be replaced. BUT, Apple used the 'pentalobe' screws where a common phillips or even torx could have been used. Doesn't that suggest that the point was to keep people from repairing their phone rather than because screws would show or add bulk?
Last time I checked the whole point of the router was that it's a limited-purpose device and it's management access was highly restricted, both in terms of credentials to access the management interface and of the networks that the management interface will communicate with.
Yes, and they typically don't have anti-virus or get as much scrutiny as a workstation. What's your point?
To be a strawman, it would have to have never been a part of the right's policy. I don't know much of UK politics but in the U.S. It most certainly has been (even by name) a part of the right and is still practiced.
That is a valid concern. I wonder though how a typical minimum wage employer will fare when it's entire staff can afford to quit on a whim.
That does eliminate the justification for a seller demanding to see a licence from the buyer. The buyer might be operating in private airspace.
Much like you don't need a license to operate a motor vehicle on your own land.
Most of the people violating restricted airspace seem to be unaware of it. GPS would be fine as an advisory measure. If the GPS was spoofed, it would prove intent.
What if someone wants to fly it on his own land (not public airspace)?
What feature would screws eliminate? I canb see it might make the device slightly larger, but given how phablets are selling, apparently that's not a problem.
It could, as others have suggested, store the data as an encrypted blob where I (not they) have the private key. It could send the data directly to my own PC at home. It could just hold the data until I connect the phone to my PC via USB cable. It absolutely does not need to share the data with any corporate entity at any time.
Add in that you must show that you were offering at least as much as the H1-B gets paid and that he (or she) actually has all of the qualifications that were listed as requirements when the job was advertised.
If you're paying more and still have workers stolen away, you must be hell on Earth to work for. Try being nicer.
Funny how that same reasoning doesn't seem to keep prices to the consumer from rising. And it sure doesn't influence CEO salaries. Why not bring in an H1B, there are plenty of well qualified European CEOs accustomed to working for a fraction of what an American CEO costs.
Looks like time to up the salary offer or find other suitable incentives.
I would like to see a more overt response pinpointed to the launch point of an attack. They do have a right to defense. Interdiction of weapons shipments is fine as well.
Keeping the general population in poverty is just helping the enemy's recruiting efforts and offers little in the way of reward (or lack of punishment) for those who aren't launching rockets.
Yes, the settlements are gone, but the blockade remains.
I have to agree. I would find supporting Israel much easier if they would take the high road with Gaza.
Agreed that a laser is a better choice. I understand that an inkjet needs to clean periodically, but that's no excuse for refusing to print in black and white just because the color carts are empty or missing.
I guess you'll be mortified to learn that the law works the same way in the U.S.
Employers would have a hard time discriminating since they won't find anyone in an expensive area who is willing or able to work for minimum wage.