Can carry several pounds of payload. Of course it would probably be pretty noticeable As too shooting it down? That may cause more damage than the plane would.
I really wish people would stop using drones for most of these. They are simply RC Aircraft that have been around since the 1940s. Nothing really new or scary.
Exactly. And this part is just flamebait. "What's most interesting is that Google has no trouble tossing grenades at the feet of Microsoft and Apple courtesy of its Project Zero program, but doesn't seem to have the resources to fix a vulnerability that affects a substantial portion of the Android user base." Does Google release bugs for Windows XP and Me under Project Zero? Really the issue are the manufactures and the carriers.
You do realize that TurboPascal was insanely popular on both the PC and CP/M? The reasons where simple. 1. Cheap 2. Turbo Editor Toolbox. 3. Turbo Database Toolbox. 4. Turbo Telcom Toolbox 5. Turbo Graphics Toolbox
I sold like hotcakes well in the the start of the Windows era and Borland even had an Object Windows Library OWL before MFC took over that market.
"I'm still not saying ban it, but there are social consequences we need to consider." Those are past. You can do the same thing with a cell phone so the fact that Glass makes you aware of the potential is a good thing.
"I know I wouldn't feel comfortable having a connected conversation about my feelings with a potentially global audience." Then have it in private. That is the thing people need to learn public is public and private is private. When you at a restaurant you are in a public space. Same is true at club or bar. Those conversations should take place in private. That has been true for around 200 years or more and is nothing new.
There is a specialty vehicle clause that covers super low production cars. That is why you can go to a shop and buy a 32 Duce coup Hot Rod that used no parts from a 32 Ford Duce coup and probably has a small block chevy in it. No crash testing and no emissions testing... That is why they use a small bock chevy or some other classic engine. They make the emissions date of the car be the date of the engine so for a SBC they can put something like 1962. Same thing goes for kit cars and so on. But the truth be known a modern engine with emissions will make more power, be more driveable, and get better milage than and old style SBC. In the case of this car it is electric so emissions are not an issue.
"You've never seen a viral video of an ordinary person doing something really stupid? I can think of many." And not one was recorded with Google Glass.
"Someone wearing Google Glass (and constantly recording) catches you saying or doing something that sounds incredibly funny/offensive/strange, they post it online, it goes viral, and suddenly your life is different." 1. You can not constantly be recording with Google Glass the battery will last only about an hour. 2. Incredibly funny? Not a problem. Offensive? I try to never be offensive in public or private. Strange? Yea I do that all the time. I have discussions about physics and other strange topics.
"Sure it's unlikely but the threat is there. I'm not going to be nearly as comfortable having a conversation in a restaurant when I know people are recording because there's an extra filter all my words have to pass through." So I should not be allowed to use a piece of tech that I find useful because their is a very unlikely chance that someone will do something in public that someone records and posts to the internet? Really? You want to take away that right from me just to provide you with no real protection from an unlikely event since the same thing can happen with smart phone. And here is the best part... "I'm not going to be nearly as comfortable having a conversation in a restaurant when I know people are recording because there's an extra filter all my words have to pass through."" Good, you should have that extra filter on in public because you are in public. You should try to not be offensive in your speech and behavior. That is called manners. You never know when you are acting a fool in public when someone you know might see you or frankly anyone might take out a cellphone and record you.
And you are just not thinking. You think Google Glass is the problem? Every store, restaurant, and mall has the right to install security cameras. The UK has them on every street. So do you think you have a right to tell me that I can have wear Google Glass because I might be recording you? Not that I am but that I might be? Frankly I want a pair for driving and riding my motorcycle so I can have a hud with my speed and RPMs available with out taking my eyes off the road. Having the option to record a nice ride would be a good option. So exactly why do you have any reason to be upset if I decide to wear them into a restaurant where I am eating lunch? They are causing you no harm and are really not offensive in anyway. So your fear of Google Glass is unfounded and frankly violates others rights to use a tech tool that causes no harm to you unless they abuse it. But then I can take a video of you with my phone and you would never really know it so are you going to ban people from using their smart phones in public as well?
This is not about recording anyone at dinner. What this whole thread is about is people not wanting other people to wear Google Glass because they are afraid of being recorded. You are right not to fear me because frankly I am polite, kind, and have never threatened anyone in my life. What I will not put up with is this dumb hate on Glass trend that seems so popular. It is a piece of tech like any other. It can be abused or not abused but just because someone can abuse does not mean people have the right to prevent me from using it based on a fear of being abused.
Really? Why do you think that everybody wearing google glass is spying on you? Why is it immoral are wrong for me to wear Glass if I am not recording you? Guess what.... there is nothing wrong. You are just afraid that someone might be spying on you but frankly there are a ton of really hidden cameras that cost a fraction of Glass and record at the same resolution. http://www.brickhousesecurity.... You don't see the two things as being remotely comparable but you want to ban something that might be abused... And frankly the abuse would be less harmful on average and less common than TOR or Bittorrent.
" if I constantly followed you around with a videocamera that would be harassment." Yes but if you are walking down the street with one it is not. You and everyone else are all bent out of shape not because people with Google Glass are recording you. You are all upset because they MIGHT be recording... Frankly people unless you are making a fool out of yourself in public your probably just not that interesting. But here you go http://www.brickhousesecurity.... Live in terror and hide. Lots of hidden cameras that cost a fraction of the cost of Google glass! Your doomed everyone is spying on you because you are so interesting! This all hype driven garbage.
You can stand on the street in front of my house if you wish but my door is on my property. What you do not get is that are creeped out because they MIGHT be recording you. Not that they are recording you. So do you demand that no one takes out a cell phone in public? They MIGHT be recording you... Horrors. Get a grip... You are probably really not that interesting.
Humm Let's see Flak was ripping through the Airplane... It was terrible... He did not say it was effective. And the fact that about the highest per mission looses of US bomber in Europe was around 10% so all that FLAK missed over 90% of the targets. It is over 90% because that includes losses to fighters. By 1944 when the Mustang started providing escorts for the entire mission looses became a fraction of that. I don't consider a weapon that hits less then 5% of aircraft flying straight and level to be effective. Maybe you have some I don't know... Data?
They already did that back in the 80s. Trouble is that if you make the code too simple than you can hurt business. You want to encourage business to do things like give benefits, hire people, spend on research and development and so on. You also want to encourage that average person to save, invest, spend education and so on. Frankly the answer of "simplify the tax code" is an oversimplification of a rather complex problem. Many people think that the rather complex tax code of the 60s and 70s was more fair than the one we have now.
Except is isn't that people are using Google glass to record them... People are upset that people might be recording them. So people might use TOR to trade kiddie porn no one should be allowed to have TOR on their computer? No it is just a bunch of people that seem to want to call other people names and rant.
Really? You think so? I bet if I have 12 people at a table for a birthday dinner and I shoot some video and you just happen to be in the background NOTHING would happen. Just because someone has Glass on does not mean they have any interest in recording you. It is just some weird from of narcism that seem to be popular today. So exactly what thinks you have a right to say someone else can not wear Google glass in a restaurant just because the MIGHT be recording.
No because you are a customer do not have the right. Only the owner/manager could make the space private for themselves but not making it a public place.
"You know restaurants are well within their legal rights to prevent members of the public from entering." Yes BUT YOU AS A CUSTOMER CAN NOT! That is why it is not "private" you can not restrict who comes in. And actually the owners at least in the US can not restrict people for reason of race or religion.
You still keep using that word without knowing what it means. Private restaurant? Privately owned maybe and the owner could request people not wear glass in the restaurant but it is still in public. You have NO EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY. Here is a good way to determine if it is a public vs private space. Can you exclude other members of the public from entering legally? If the answer is no then it is not a private space.
"You think is OK for some Glasshole to walk into a restaurant where you are enjoying a public yet private dinner with a friend" You keep using that word but I do not think you know what it means. YOU'RE IN PUBLIC AND NO EXPECTATIONS OF PRIVACY! Now if you book a private dining room you have some expectation of privacy.
In other words you can not have a public yet private anything. The very thought that you could strikes me as just odd.
I would have thought that a electro hydro pack like the one that was used on the Cessna 210 would be the solution of choice. Maybe this is lighter and it should probably be more reliable. I have just never seen a total loss pressurized hydraulic system before.
Actually in WWII flak was most effective at high altitude and low altitude. It was medium altitude where it really failed. Targets moved too fast to track with large guns and small guns could not reach them. AAA really caught on when the US started to use proximity fuses and radar tracking. Before that you could fire hundreds of shells and not hit an aircraft. I suggest you read up on the development of the proximity fuse for more details..
As to getting near the ground being death? Tell that to all the P-47, Typhoon, A-20 and IL-2 crews. Low and fast meant that AAA had less time to react and less firing arc. "And we're talking about little stupid toy drones that are going to operate at less then 500 feet probably. And you're telling me flak wouldn't kill a toy drone or be able to target it?" Sure it could and kill the friendlies that just happen to be under/around it. At sea this would not be an issue but over land it is a real issue.
If there is a FOSS project that does the job. And if you can get support, and if they do not decide to just kill the project. I love FOSS but it is does not solve all problems. For example you will not find a 3d cad system that matches SolidWorks or ProE that is FOSS.
That style of FLAK is not effective any longer and really was never very effective. We still have AAA today but the gun is radar or ir directed and the shells use proximity fuzes. The real issue that the drone will be low altitude and the shells would be going off very near your own troops... Not a good solution. At sea it would be better.
Slashdot Mirror
http://www.hobbyexpress.com/12...
Can carry several pounds of payload. Of course it would probably be pretty noticeable
As too shooting it down? That may cause more damage than the plane would.
I really wish people would stop using drones for most of these. They are simply RC Aircraft that have been around since the 1940s. Nothing really new or scary.
Making Chemical weapons requires that knowledge and skills of a 1916 Chemist.
Now if you want to make a Nerve agent you are up to about 1943.
Exactly.
And this part is just flamebait.
"What's most interesting is that Google has no trouble tossing grenades at the feet of Microsoft and Apple courtesy of its Project Zero program, but doesn't seem to have the resources to fix a vulnerability that affects a substantial portion of the Android user base."
Does Google release bugs for Windows XP and Me under Project Zero?
Really the issue are the manufactures and the carriers.
You do realize that TurboPascal was insanely popular on both the PC and CP/M?
The reasons where simple.
1. Cheap
2. Turbo Editor Toolbox.
3. Turbo Database Toolbox.
4. Turbo Telcom Toolbox
5. Turbo Graphics Toolbox
I sold like hotcakes well in the the start of the Windows era and Borland even had an Object Windows Library OWL before MFC took over that market.
I bet you went to school in the EU.
"I'm still not saying ban it, but there are social consequences we need to consider."
Those are past. You can do the same thing with a cell phone so the fact that Glass makes you aware of the potential is a good thing.
"I know I wouldn't feel comfortable having a connected conversation about my feelings with a potentially global audience." Then have it in private. That is the thing people need to learn public is public and private is private. When you at a restaurant you are in a public space. Same is true at club or bar.
Those conversations should take place in private. That has been true for around 200 years or more and is nothing new.
There is a specialty vehicle clause that covers super low production cars. That is why you can go to a shop and buy a 32 Duce coup Hot Rod that used no parts from a 32 Ford Duce coup and probably has a small block chevy in it. No crash testing and no emissions testing... That is why they use a small bock chevy or some other classic engine. They make the emissions date of the car be the date of the engine so for a SBC they can put something like 1962. Same thing goes for kit cars and so on.
But the truth be known a modern engine with emissions will make more power, be more driveable, and get better milage than and old style SBC.
In the case of this car it is electric so emissions are not an issue.
"You've never seen a viral video of an ordinary person doing something really stupid? I can think of many."
And not one was recorded with Google Glass.
"Someone wearing Google Glass (and constantly recording) catches you saying or doing something that sounds incredibly funny/offensive/strange, they post it online, it goes viral, and suddenly your life is different."
1. You can not constantly be recording with Google Glass the battery will last only about an hour.
2. Incredibly funny? Not a problem. Offensive? I try to never be offensive in public or private. Strange? Yea I do that all the time. I have discussions about physics and other strange topics.
"Sure it's unlikely but the threat is there. I'm not going to be nearly as comfortable having a conversation in a restaurant when I know people are recording because there's an extra filter all my words have to pass through."
So I should not be allowed to use a piece of tech that I find useful because their is a very unlikely chance that someone will do something in public that someone records and posts to the internet?
Really? You want to take away that right from me just to provide you with no real protection from an unlikely event since the same thing can happen with smart phone.
And here is the best part...
"I'm not going to be nearly as comfortable having a conversation in a restaurant when I know people are recording because there's an extra filter all my words have to pass through.""
Good, you should have that extra filter on in public because you are in public. You should try to not be offensive in your speech and behavior. That is called manners. You never know when you are acting a fool in public when someone you know might see you or frankly anyone might take out a cellphone and record you.
And you are just not thinking. You think Google Glass is the problem?
Every store, restaurant, and mall has the right to install security cameras. The UK has them on every street.
So do you think you have a right to tell me that I can have wear Google Glass because I might be recording you? Not that I am but that I might be?
Frankly I want a pair for driving and riding my motorcycle so I can have a hud with my speed and RPMs available with out taking my eyes off the road. Having the option to record a nice ride would be a good option. So exactly why do you have any reason to be upset if I decide to wear them into a restaurant where I am eating lunch?
They are causing you no harm and are really not offensive in anyway.
So your fear of Google Glass is unfounded and frankly violates others rights to use a tech tool that causes no harm to you unless they abuse it. But then I can take a video of you with my phone and you would never really know it so are you going to ban people from using their smart phones in public as well?
This is not about recording anyone at dinner. What this whole thread is about is people not wanting other people to wear Google Glass because they are afraid of being recorded.
You are right not to fear me because frankly I am polite, kind, and have never threatened anyone in my life.
What I will not put up with is this dumb hate on Glass trend that seems so popular. It is a piece of tech like any other. It can be abused or not abused but just because someone can abuse does not mean people have the right to prevent me from using it based on a fear of being abused.
Really? Why do you think that everybody wearing google glass is spying on you?
Why is it immoral are wrong for me to wear Glass if I am not recording you?
Guess what.... there is nothing wrong. You are just afraid that someone might be spying on you but frankly there are a ton of really hidden cameras that cost a fraction of Glass and record at the same resolution.
http://www.brickhousesecurity....
You don't see the two things as being remotely comparable but you want to ban something that might be abused...
And frankly the abuse would be less harmful on average and less common than TOR or Bittorrent.
" if I constantly followed you around with a videocamera that would be harassment."
Yes but if you are walking down the street with one it is not.
You and everyone else are all bent out of shape not because people with Google Glass are recording you.
You are all upset because they MIGHT be recording...
Frankly people unless you are making a fool out of yourself in public your probably just not that interesting.
But here you go http://www.brickhousesecurity....
Live in terror and hide. Lots of hidden cameras that cost a fraction of the cost of Google glass!
Your doomed everyone is spying on you because you are so interesting!
This all hype driven garbage.
You can stand on the street in front of my house if you wish but my door is on my property.
What you do not get is that are creeped out because they MIGHT be recording you. Not that they are recording you. So do you demand that no one takes out a cell phone in public? They MIGHT be recording you... Horrors.
Get a grip... You are probably really not that interesting.
Humm Let's see Flak was ripping through the Airplane... It was terrible...
He did not say it was effective. And the fact that about the highest per mission looses of US bomber in Europe was around 10% so all that FLAK missed over 90% of the targets. It is over 90% because that includes losses to fighters. By 1944 when the Mustang started providing escorts for the entire mission looses became a fraction of that.
I don't consider a weapon that hits less then 5% of aircraft flying straight and level to be effective.
Maybe you have some I don't know... Data?
They already did that back in the 80s.
Trouble is that if you make the code too simple than you can hurt business. You want to encourage business to do things like give benefits, hire people, spend on research and development and so on.
You also want to encourage that average person to save, invest, spend education and so on.
Frankly the answer of "simplify the tax code" is an oversimplification of a rather complex problem. Many people think that the rather complex tax code of the 60s and 70s was more fair than the one we have now.
Except is isn't that people are using Google glass to record them... People are upset that people might be recording them.
So people might use TOR to trade kiddie porn no one should be allowed to have TOR on their computer?
No it is just a bunch of people that seem to want to call other people names and rant.
Really? You think so?
I bet if I have 12 people at a table for a birthday dinner and I shoot some video and you just happen to be in the background NOTHING would happen.
Just because someone has Glass on does not mean they have any interest in recording you. It is just some weird from of narcism that seem to be popular today. So exactly what thinks you have a right to say someone else can not wear Google glass in a restaurant just because the MIGHT be recording.
No because you are a customer do not have the right. Only the owner/manager could make the space private for themselves but not making it a public place.
"You know restaurants are well within their legal rights to prevent members of the public from entering."
Yes BUT YOU AS A CUSTOMER CAN NOT!
That is why it is not "private" you can not restrict who comes in. And actually the owners at least in the US can not restrict people for reason of race or religion.
You still keep using that word without knowing what it means.
Private restaurant? Privately owned maybe and the owner could request people not wear glass in the restaurant but it is still in public. You have NO EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY.
Here is a good way to determine if it is a public vs private space. Can you exclude other members of the public from entering legally?
If the answer is no then it is not a private space.
"You think is OK for some Glasshole to walk into a restaurant where you are enjoying a public yet private dinner with a friend"
You keep using that word but I do not think you know what it means.
YOU'RE IN PUBLIC AND NO EXPECTATIONS OF PRIVACY!
Now if you book a private dining room you have some expectation of privacy.
In other words you can not have a public yet private anything. The very thought that you could strikes me as just odd.
I would have thought that a electro hydro pack like the one that was used on the Cessna 210 would be the solution of choice. Maybe this is lighter and it should probably be more reliable. I have just never seen a total loss pressurized hydraulic system before.
Actually in WWII flak was most effective at high altitude and low altitude. It was medium altitude where it really failed. Targets moved too fast to track with large guns and small guns could not reach them. AAA really caught on when the US started to use proximity fuses and radar tracking. Before that you could fire hundreds of shells and not hit an aircraft. I suggest you read up on the development of the proximity fuse for more details..
As to getting near the ground being death? Tell that to all the P-47, Typhoon, A-20 and IL-2 crews. Low and fast meant that AAA had less time to react and less firing arc.
"And we're talking about little stupid toy drones that are going to operate at less then 500 feet probably. And you're telling me flak wouldn't kill a toy drone or be able to target it?"
Sure it could and kill the friendlies that just happen to be under/around it. At sea this would not be an issue but over land it is a real issue.
If there is a FOSS project that does the job. And if you can get support, and if they do not decide to just kill the project.
I love FOSS but it is does not solve all problems.
For example you will not find a 3d cad system that matches SolidWorks or ProE that is FOSS.
That style of FLAK is not effective any longer and really was never very effective. We still have AAA today but the gun is radar or ir directed and the shells use proximity fuzes.
The real issue that the drone will be low altitude and the shells would be going off very near your own troops... Not a good solution. At sea it would be better.