The problem is that on the battlefield one can not just go back and get another one. When the failure of a piece of equipment may mean someone's death that equipment better work. A soldier will not carry around equipment that only works 80% of the time and no good commander would make them.
So you think a this is the same as this? You also need to read a bit more.
Nothing like ignoring the obvious I pointed out.
All you said was being dependant is bad. I agree and there are ways around dependence. What did I miss?
A soldier running a recon mission
Who said recon mission. It could be a patrol.
is different than every soldier walking around with a tiny drone tethered to them
They are not talking about a drone for every soldier all the time but a drone per squad used when needed.
You are not going to fit much into a small drone in terms of either anti-jamming or encryption.
Are you an electronics expert who knows what can and can not be done on small chips these days?
If you think that you can find a sniper with this drone, I have a nice bridge for sale.
Explain to me how a drone with a camera transmitting back to an operator can't look behind a rock and see anyone hiding there.
Wrong, it takes very little to detect electronic signals being broadcast.
Detection is very different that locating the source. The former can be done with any radio the latter requires a lot more equipment. Your car has a radio which can detect radio stations. Try to use it to find the transmitter. See the difference?
The concept being discussed goes back to the Army (FCS) project work which ended up being cut.
The FCS program was between 2003 and 2009. Drone and computer technology has come quite a way in the last 6 years. How about you catch up with technology.
If remote controlled tiny aircraft were better on the battlefield we would not need soldiers at all.
There is a huge difference between an armed drone and a small recon drone.
There is a huge issue with putting soldier under the dependency of gadgets.
True, which is why you train them with and without the drones so they know how to use them but don't become dependent on them. . Do you see no value in a soldier being able to send a drone into a building or over a hill to check if anyone is in there? Say you were on patrol and ahead you see a spot that would be great for a sniper. Wouldn't you rather send a drone to check it out?
Soldiers walking around with broadcast devices have no ability to hide,
They can only be seen by people with sophisticated tracking systems which would actually fail when a number of these things are in operation. I doubt Daesh has any of this kind of equipment.
they also run the risk of interception and force feeding bogus orders.
Which is why encryption and jam resistance is important and one reason why civilian drones will not be sufficient.
Take your $1000 drone and do the following. 1. Rugedize the controller and drone so they can stand up to battlefield conditions which includes the following: temperature extremes; being dropped, stepped on, etc; waterproof; dust/sand resistant; etc 2. Make the communications channel both jam resistant and secure. 3. Make it, including a protected carrying case for the drone, small and light enough not to be a burden. 4. Go through several rounds of testing and modification so everyone has a say in the design and politicians are seen to be doing something. 5. Parcel out the production to several states to spread the money around. That $1000 drone just got much more expensive. The main issue is that military equipment has to work in harsh conditions. On the battlefield you can't say "my machine is not working so I am not going to play today".
On the issue of "toy". What do most people say when they have purchased a FDM printer? It is usually "Look at my new toy".
Show me a service that uses a uPrint Plus. Notice that it is in the "Idea" line of printers and not the higher quality series.
But comparing the output quality of a Stratasys FDM vs a well-calibrated RepRap? You'd be surprised which one you'd pick and the price difference between the two.
Who would build the RepRap for me if I don't have the skill? Who will teach me how to calibrate it successfully?
It comes down to the fact that if you put your time at $0 doing it yourself will always be cheaper.
I'm not calculating my time because the parts I make are for personal projects, i.e. it's a hobby.
By definition a tool used for a hobby is also a toy.
What commercial services use FDM? The one I have seen use much more expensive technologies.
One service I called was proud that their Stratasys was able to make 0.25mm layers even though a properly calibrated home-made printer can do 0.10mm layers.
That is kind of strange since the lowest cost Stratsis, the Mojo, can do 0.178mm layers. This also brings up the question of how hard is it to "properly calibrate" and how long does that celebration last? If it takes hours of setup to print one item it is a toy. Sure, if you compare low quality prints done by a hobbyist and the same prints using similar equipment by a service the hobbyist will always be cheaper. You have to pay something for not doing it yourself. There are quite a few services that use technologies other than FDM. I was referring to companies like Shapeways and Quickparts.
Considering that Scotland produces very little electricity from oil that is not an issue. Most of there electricity from non-renewable sources comes from coal and nuclear.
In your cost calculations how much did you figuratively pay yourself? If you valued your time at $0/hr your calculations may be a bit off.
As for 3D services, they generally have printers that produce much higher quality that desktops can produce. A desktop extruder is very different than a laser sintering printer.
3D printers is a huge category. There are a wide range of 3D printers from sub-$500 glorified hot glue guns to multi$100K laser-sintering printers. To me, the low end printers are a toy as they have many issue that only hobbyists could love. The high end ones are definitely not toys considering the awesome stiff they can make. Sometimes it is the implementation and not the technology that makes it a toy. For example, the standard household oven is not a toy but the Easybake Oven is.
Repeat something that is true most of the time eventually it will be false. It is the reverse of the "even a broken clock is right twice a day".
The list on Medium suffers from selection bias. It is merely a list of times when calling a new technology a "toy" was false. It says nothing about the number of times saying "it's a toy" was true.
The difference is that the "someone" is the maker of the encryption algorithm and not the owner of the papers. The latter would be against the 5th Amendment but the former is not.
But in exchange, in Section 1002 of that act, the Feds gave up authority to “require any specific design of equipment, facilities, services, features or system configurations” from any phone manufacturer.
It misses the preceding clause;
This subchapter does not authorize any law enforcement agency or officer
Notice that it "does not authorize" rather than "prohibits" and it only applies to law enforcement agencies or officers. There is nothing in it that prohibits another agency like the the Office of the President, as it is not a law enforcement agency from requiring it.
Also, the term "specific design" is questionable. A specific design would be something like "must use SHA2". It could easily be argued that "access to encrypted data" is not a "specific" design but a "general" design as it can be implemented in several ways and therefore the clause does not apply.
I am not saying a back door is a good idea but this law does not prohibit the requirement.
Maximum flight altitude and radius limits may be changed in the DJI Pilot app. Be aware that the maximum flight altitude cannot exceed 1640 feet (500 meters).
Yes, it does matter - because nitrogen isn't air, it's inert. It can't contaminate the sample.
When common air mixes with the nitrogen due to compromised seals the material can be contaminated.
You completely ignored the third citation from a NASA document that state clearly "This dust was so pervasive that no lunar rock boxes from any of the 6 Apollo missions to the Moon ever maintained their lunar vacuum -- they all leaked."
So where is your evidence to the contrary? You have yet to present any research at all.
You don't believe the seals on the containers were compromised by the regolith. Show your proof.
Did you miss the point that he was charged and plead guilty to the exact same offence in 2009? The first time he got a slap on the wrist. It seems he didn't learn from it.
This is not the first time Nicholl has been charged with jamming cell calls. He pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge in June 2009, according to court records. He was placed under court supervision for a year, and his equipment was confiscated and destroyed.
Slashdot Mirror
The video channel was not encrypted, it now is, but the control channel always has been.
Would we get these?
Then there is that corner that is 50 feet away. That is one long selfie stick.
The problem is that on the battlefield one can not just go back and get another one. When the failure of a piece of equipment may mean someone's death that equipment better work.
A soldier will not carry around equipment that only works 80% of the time and no good commander would make them.
Only after he fired which is a little late for the soldier who just got killed.
Fallacy much?
So you think a this is the same as this?
You also need to read a bit more.
Nothing like ignoring the obvious I pointed out.
All you said was being dependant is bad. I agree and there are ways around dependence. What did I miss?
A soldier running a recon mission
Who said recon mission. It could be a patrol.
is different than every soldier walking around with a tiny drone tethered to them
They are not talking about a drone for every soldier all the time but a drone per squad used when needed.
You are not going to fit much into a small drone in terms of either anti-jamming or encryption.
Are you an electronics expert who knows what can and can not be done on small chips these days?
If you think that you can find a sniper with this drone, I have a nice bridge for sale.
Explain to me how a drone with a camera transmitting back to an operator can't look behind a rock and see anyone hiding there.
Wrong, it takes very little to detect electronic signals being broadcast.
Detection is very different that locating the source. The former can be done with any radio the latter requires a lot more equipment. Your car has a radio which can detect radio stations. Try to use it to find the transmitter. See the difference?
The concept being discussed goes back to the Army (FCS) project work which ended up being cut.
The FCS program was between 2003 and 2009. Drone and computer technology has come quite a way in the last 6 years. How about you catch up with technology.
If remote controlled tiny aircraft were better on the battlefield we would not need soldiers at all.
There is a huge difference between an armed drone and a small recon drone.
There is a huge issue with putting soldier under the dependency of gadgets.
True, which is why you train them with and without the drones so they know how to use them but don't become dependent on them.
.
Do you see no value in a soldier being able to send a drone into a building or over a hill to check if anyone is in there? Say you were on patrol and ahead you see a spot that would be great for a sniper. Wouldn't you rather send a drone to check it out?
Soldiers walking around with broadcast devices have no ability to hide,
They can only be seen by people with sophisticated tracking systems which would actually fail when a number of these things are in operation. I doubt Daesh has any of this kind of equipment.
they also run the risk of interception and force feeding bogus orders.
Which is why encryption and jam resistance is important and one reason why civilian drones will not be sufficient.
Take your $1000 drone and do the following.
1. Rugedize the controller and drone so they can stand up to battlefield conditions which includes the following: temperature extremes; being dropped, stepped on, etc; waterproof; dust/sand resistant; etc
2. Make the communications channel both jam resistant and secure.
3. Make it, including a protected carrying case for the drone, small and light enough not to be a burden.
4. Go through several rounds of testing and modification so everyone has a say in the design and politicians are seen to be doing something.
5. Parcel out the production to several states to spread the money around.
That $1000 drone just got much more expensive.
The main issue is that military equipment has to work in harsh conditions. On the battlefield you can't say "my machine is not working so I am not going to play today".
On the issue of "toy". What do most people say when they have purchased a FDM printer? It is usually "Look at my new toy".
Show me a service that uses a uPrint Plus. Notice that it is in the "Idea" line of printers and not the higher quality series.
But comparing the output quality of a Stratasys FDM vs a well-calibrated RepRap? You'd be surprised which one you'd pick and the price difference between the two.
Who would build the RepRap for me if I don't have the skill? Who will teach me how to calibrate it successfully?
It comes down to the fact that if you put your time at $0 doing it yourself will always be cheaper.
I'm not calculating my time because the parts I make are for personal projects, i.e. it's a hobby.
By definition a tool used for a hobby is also a toy.
What commercial services use FDM? The one I have seen use much more expensive technologies.
One service I called was proud that their Stratasys was able to make 0.25mm layers even though a properly calibrated home-made printer can do 0.10mm layers.
That is kind of strange since the lowest cost Stratsis, the Mojo, can do 0.178mm layers. This also brings up the question of how hard is it to "properly calibrate" and how long does that celebration last? If it takes hours of setup to print one item it is a toy. Sure, if you compare low quality prints done by a hobbyist and the same prints using similar equipment by a service the hobbyist will always be cheaper. You have to pay something for not doing it yourself.
There are quite a few services that use technologies other than FDM. I was referring to companies like Shapeways and Quickparts.
Considering that Scotland produces very little electricity from oil that is not an issue. Most of there electricity from non-renewable sources comes from coal and nuclear.
In your cost calculations how much did you figuratively pay yourself? If you valued your time at $0/hr your calculations may be a bit off.
As for 3D services, they generally have printers that produce much higher quality that desktops can produce. A desktop extruder is very different than a laser sintering printer.
3D printers is a huge category. There are a wide range of 3D printers from sub-$500 glorified hot glue guns to multi$100K laser-sintering printers. To me, the low end printers are a toy as they have many issue that only hobbyists could love. The high end ones are definitely not toys considering the awesome stiff they can make. Sometimes it is the implementation and not the technology that makes it a toy. For example, the standard household oven is not a toy but the Easybake Oven is.
Repeat something that is true most of the time eventually it will be false. It is the reverse of the "even a broken clock is right twice a day".
The list on Medium suffers from selection bias. It is merely a list of times when calling a new technology a "toy" was false. It says nothing about the number of times saying "it's a toy" was true.
How do you think a military that has never practised in large numbers would fair if attacked? That is why it is called a training exercise.
The difference is that the "someone" is the maker of the encryption algorithm and not the owner of the papers. The latter would be against the 5th Amendment but the former is not.
How is unlocking a phone any different than cracking a safe full of documents?
Since people can move from state to state while using the same phone the Commerce Clause probably comes into effect.
The article quotes the following
But in exchange, in Section 1002 of that act, the Feds gave up authority to “require any specific design of equipment, facilities, services, features or system configurations” from any phone manufacturer.
It misses the preceding clause;
This subchapter does not authorize any law enforcement agency or officer
Notice that it "does not authorize" rather than "prohibits" and it only applies to law enforcement agencies or officers. There is nothing in it that prohibits another agency like the the Office of the President, as it is not a law enforcement agency from requiring it.
Also, the term "specific design" is questionable. A specific design would be something like "must use SHA2". It could easily be argued that "access to encrypted data" is not a "specific" design but a "general" design as it can be implemented in several ways and therefore the clause does not apply.
I am not saying a back door is a good idea but this law does not prohibit the requirement.
unless the drone provides constant feedback to its controller about its altitude relative to takeoff point (which some may, but I don't know of any)
Take a look at the flight telemetry from his drone. It always displays height above takeoff point. I bet most drones do that.
That is a software limit which can be changed.
Maximum flight altitude and radius limits may be changed in the DJI Pilot app. Be aware that the maximum flight altitude cannot exceed 1640 feet (500 meters).
Other drones may have different limits.
This drone has a flight time of 25 minutes. In 25 minutes it can definitely go higher than 400 feet.
Yes, it does matter - because nitrogen isn't air, it's inert. It can't contaminate the sample.
When common air mixes with the nitrogen due to compromised seals the material can be contaminated.
You completely ignored the third citation from a NASA document that state clearly "This dust was so pervasive that no lunar rock boxes from any of the 6 Apollo missions to the Moon ever maintained their lunar vacuum -- they all leaked."
So where is your evidence to the contrary? You have yet to present any research at all.
You don't believe the seals on the containers were compromised by the regolith. Show your proof.
Which may use radio which may be jammed by the jammer.
Did you miss the point that he was charged and plead guilty to the exact same offence in 2009? The first time he got a slap on the wrist. It seems he didn't learn from it.
This is not the first time Nicholl has been charged with jamming cell calls. He pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge in June 2009, according to court records. He was placed under court supervision for a year, and his equipment was confiscated and destroyed.