actually the happy ending flyovers were footage that was unused from The Shining, Kubrick let Scott have it on condition that he not use any of what was actually used in The Shining - for the simple reason that Tyler mounts were damned expensive to rent in 1980 and there was a cabinet full of film.
1. the Nexus 6 is the only model referred to with a fixed lifespan. There is no allusion to any other model having such a limitation. This is down to, and I paraquote from the movie, the inevitability of the models developing a conscience.
2. Several years. Not specified, just implicated with the familiarity between them.
the 4 year lifespan is pretty comprehensively explained in the movie. The Nexus 6 (of which Rachel was NOT a member) was a combat model. Not expected to live very long anyway once deployed, it was engineered for raw brutality and physical strength. Rachel was like the civilian version of the Armalite - pretty much a trophy model. Not nearly as powerful as the military model, designed with polish and glitter rather than piss and vinegar.
I use an old touchscreen phone - ZTE F930. Infinite amount of storage potential with its microSD slot, built in speaker, music through bluetooth option as well if I want it, 3MP camera with video, I can even still make emergency calls on it (no SIM in it). Oh, and it charges using a standard miniB USB (which I can tether for data as well) and has a standard 3.5mm headphone jack. Oh, and 2.4 inch screen - that plays video at VCD resolution and framerate. Not the biggest in the world, but a: it's designed as a budget phone, b: if I wanted a phablet I'd've bought a Galaxy Tab, c: I don't want a phablet, d: it's the perfect spec for an ipod killer that makes even diehard ipodders who've seen it go "Dafuq is that!?".
As to the seagull problem, loud predator distractions (the insanely loud crow calls you hear around food warehouses as well), trained predator birds, and good old fashioned shootists. Not so much a problem any more.
what I mean is, that ordinarily they can't just search your phone on a traffic stop (what did someone call it the other day? A "Terry Stop"?), because all they had then was an actionable suspicion that you'd committed some misdemeanour worthy of a paper citation (busted tail light or whatever), but now, they've got you on an arrestable misdemeanour (refusal), hence have probable cause to search your phone and whatever else just to see what they can compound the charge with. This judgement is a licence for opportunistic enforcement.
if they move to a phone app for the licence and abandon paper licences altogether, there'll be no debating the matter, it's either produce your *phone* or be arrested for refusing to produce proper documents in which case they'll take it anyway.
refusal to hand over your licence and registration for inspection is an arrestable offence in a lot of places. Including Canada. Not so much implied consent, but black and white, right there in ther terms of issue, that the documents in question must always be carried and must be produced to a competent authority* on request.
Thank you, come again.
*Competent authority: a police officer who has probable cause or even mere articulated suspicion grounds to stop you in your vehicle.
The Supreme Court over there recently ruled that warrantless searches on mobiles belonging to arrestees are legal. If you refuse to hand over your phone/licence in CA because of whatever's on your phone or because you fear the privacy boogeyman, they'll just arrest you and use the precedent to search your phone anyway.
I said this shit was coming. I said it fucking years ago, even before contactless payments with iOS and RFID chips embedded in handsets.
I think some sort of laminated credit card sized thing with the holder's photo, licence class and serial number might fly in some states. Yanno, something that doesn't require a battery and can be stowed on the back side of the sunshade so your hands are always visible to a LEO with an itchy trigger finger and a nervous disposition? ICBW, YMMV, etc.
if a soft fleshy seagull can take out a cockpit window or blow a turbine blade, a hard and metally drone sucked into an engine would make the landing very interesting. As in, fiery.
remoting via camera is viable, it's here. You don't need line of sight to do that. Merely having a camera on the aircraft would be enough in a civil court to make the assumption that the equipment can be used for flying via a desk. It's called "balance of probabilities". It's less to do with commercial vs non-commercial (hell, I'm not even making assumptions about the relative pricing of the licences, you are), and more to do with the safety issues at hand. Can you physically see the aircraft when you look up? If not, you're flying a desk.
And no, removing a camera wouldn't upset the balance of the aircraft, if necessary you can always attach a dummy load.
if regulation of already regulated airspace is required to maintain safety in the sky, then so be it and I am all for it - as long as I can continue to use the sky without unnecessary restriction.
if it's a commercial operation (any photo/video, BVR sensor/camera, surveillance or cargo), a commercial pilots licence. Private operation (no paid payload/cargo, leisure flights only below 300ft and line of sight - no cameras, that instantly puts it into a commercial licence), private pilots licence. Can we have a mandate for R/C transmitting equipment to be licenced as well? I'm pretty sure it was at one time anyway?
That will surely weed out most of the idiots.
Oh, and let's have mandatory penalties for anyone who knowingly or not violates terminal airspace without express clearance to do so. Jailtime and immediate forfeiture of equipment.
(As to the loss of control/communication, I'd do this - it's very simple: mandate the installation of a drop parachute which also cuts power/fuel feed to any motor to bring the drone in for at the very least, a softish landing, with a white smoke canister (paraffin flare) to indicate an unmanned aircraft in trouble (in the international language of "Look out, I'm coming in unpowered and unable to steer, get the fuck out of the way!")).
Slashdot Mirror
they're certainly thinking of the children.
a la Disneyland.
or just get to tagging each file individually.
I do, because my client is running in a VM sandbox, just like everybody else's/
actually the happy ending flyovers were footage that was unused from The Shining, Kubrick let Scott have it on condition that he not use any of what was actually used in The Shining - for the simple reason that Tyler mounts were damned expensive to rent in 1980 and there was a cabinet full of film.
1. the Nexus 6 is the only model referred to with a fixed lifespan. There is no allusion to any other model having such a limitation. This is down to, and I paraquote from the movie, the inevitability of the models developing a conscience.
2. Several years. Not specified, just implicated with the familiarity between them.
the 4 year lifespan is pretty comprehensively explained in the movie. The Nexus 6 (of which Rachel was NOT a member) was a combat model. Not expected to live very long anyway once deployed, it was engineered for raw brutality and physical strength. Rachel was like the civilian version of the Armalite - pretty much a trophy model. Not nearly as powerful as the military model, designed with polish and glitter rather than piss and vinegar.
Citations needed, as they say.
Also, 3-D printed titanium? Have we skipped ahead a century or so?
I use an old touchscreen phone - ZTE F930. Infinite amount of storage potential with its microSD slot, built in speaker, music through bluetooth option as well if I want it, 3MP camera with video, I can even still make emergency calls on it (no SIM in it). Oh, and it charges using a standard miniB USB (which I can tether for data as well) and has a standard 3.5mm headphone jack. Oh, and 2.4 inch screen - that plays video at VCD resolution and framerate. Not the biggest in the world, but a: it's designed as a budget phone, b: if I wanted a phablet I'd've bought a Galaxy Tab, c: I don't want a phablet, d: it's the perfect spec for an ipod killer that makes even diehard ipodders who've seen it go "Dafuq is that!?".
Phone cost me £35 new and boxed in 2010.
motors are necessarily metal.
As to the seagull problem, loud predator distractions (the insanely loud crow calls you hear around food warehouses as well), trained predator birds, and good old fashioned shootists. Not so much a problem any more.
what I mean is, that ordinarily they can't just search your phone on a traffic stop (what did someone call it the other day? A "Terry Stop"?), because all they had then was an actionable suspicion that you'd committed some misdemeanour worthy of a paper citation (busted tail light or whatever), but now, they've got you on an arrestable misdemeanour (refusal), hence have probable cause to search your phone and whatever else just to see what they can compound the charge with. This judgement is a licence for opportunistic enforcement.
if they move to a phone app for the licence and abandon paper licences altogether, there'll be no debating the matter, it's either produce your *phone* or be arrested for refusing to produce proper documents in which case they'll take it anyway.
refusal to hand over your licence and registration for inspection is an arrestable offence in a lot of places. Including Canada. Not so much implied consent, but black and white, right there in ther terms of issue, that the documents in question must always be carried and must be produced to a competent authority* on request.
Thank you, come again.
*Competent authority: a police officer who has probable cause or even mere articulated suspicion grounds to stop you in your vehicle.
as opposed to a fake 15.6" screen with quad core APU, 8GB DDR3 and 500GB HD?
The fuck?
The Supreme Court over there recently ruled that warrantless searches on mobiles belonging to arrestees are legal. If you refuse to hand over your phone/licence in CA because of whatever's on your phone or because you fear the privacy boogeyman, they'll just arrest you and use the precedent to search your phone anyway.
I said this shit was coming. I said it fucking years ago, even before contactless payments with iOS and RFID chips embedded in handsets.
So fucking glad I don't have a working phone.
I think some sort of laminated credit card sized thing with the holder's photo, licence class and serial number might fly in some states.
Yanno, something that doesn't require a battery and can be stowed on the back side of the sunshade so your hands are always visible to a LEO with an itchy trigger finger and a nervous disposition?
ICBW, YMMV, etc.
my screen is bolted to my keyboard, wtf am I supposed to do??
"Due to the stress I'm being put under, I HAVE FORGOTTEN THE PASSPHRASE."
Good luck with bruteforcing it.
what fucking planet are you on?? In the UK you need a PPL and a medical pass to fly a microlight. Hell, you need a PPL to fly a fucking balloon here.
(source: PPL balloon pilot of 12 years standing).
if a soft fleshy seagull can take out a cockpit window or blow a turbine blade, a hard and metally drone sucked into an engine would make the landing very interesting. As in, fiery.
preachin' to the choir, I've several hundred hours under my belt building and certifying a hopper.
Watching an inspection team poring over twelve hundred yards of double-lapped ripseams is nerve wracking by itself...
remoting via camera is viable, it's here. You don't need line of sight to do that. Merely having a camera on the aircraft would be enough in a civil court to make the assumption that the equipment can be used for flying via a desk. It's called "balance of probabilities". It's less to do with commercial vs non-commercial (hell, I'm not even making assumptions about the relative pricing of the licences, you are), and more to do with the safety issues at hand. Can you physically see the aircraft when you look up? If not, you're flying a desk.
And no, removing a camera wouldn't upset the balance of the aircraft, if necessary you can always attach a dummy load.
if regulation of already regulated airspace is required to maintain safety in the sky, then so be it and I am all for it - as long as I can continue to use the sky without unnecessary restriction.
if it's a commercial operation (any photo/video, BVR sensor/camera, surveillance or cargo), a commercial pilots licence. Private operation (no paid payload/cargo, leisure flights only below 300ft and line of sight - no cameras, that instantly puts it into a commercial licence), private pilots licence. Can we have a mandate for R/C transmitting equipment to be licenced as well? I'm pretty sure it was at one time anyway?
That will surely weed out most of the idiots.
Oh, and let's have mandatory penalties for anyone who knowingly or not violates terminal airspace without express clearance to do so. Jailtime and immediate forfeiture of equipment.
(As to the loss of control/communication, I'd do this - it's very simple: mandate the installation of a drop parachute which also cuts power/fuel feed to any motor to bring the drone in for at the very least, a softish landing, with a white smoke canister (paraffin flare) to indicate an unmanned aircraft in trouble (in the international language of "Look out, I'm coming in unpowered and unable to steer, get the fuck out of the way!")).
Nature just fucking proved it.