Small manned aircraft also may violate rules. Sometimes it may fly below its minimum 200 meters limit. But in any case it has got a priority. One can hear a helicopter or a small manned fixed-wing well before it is seen. And it is absolutely not difficult to dive quickly to the ground to be on the safe side. Actually I train this maneuver regularly. The main thing is to learn to avoid the vortex ring state https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... while descending quickly.
In the parts where I live the rule is 5 kilometers around a large international airport. The government wants that this new emerging multi-billion industry continue to develop further so it tries not to over-regulate. The altitude limit is 150 meters. But indeed there is the strict rule of the constant visual contact.
Everything tells us that there should be Life in the Universe. There are trillions of stars and planets, still the Life is no found. Instead - the Great Silence. The SETI Institute searches for Life for decades to no avail.
About the same with drones. Drones seem to be dangerous, but an accident does not materialize. Shark or bear attacks are extremely rare, still they do actually happen on the planet Earth about ten cases each year.
UAS pilots are not idiots, if I hear a low flying manned aircraft I immediatly dive to the ground. It is not like a stupid bird.
... scaling up to maybe $1500 for helicopters that are more expensive to run....
It depends on a region and a type of a helicopter. A VIP helicopter transfer in some places in Europe may cost more than 1500 or even much more than 9000. Medical helicopters' flights are also very expensive, as a patient or an insurance company pay not only for the flying time and the fuel, but also for the service as a whole, i.e. that doctors and pilots are on shift 24/7 ready to deploy. Even if they are not flying on a certain day, they should be paid for being on duty.
But in any case, it is quite expensive in comparison with an UAS multi-rotor flight, which costs practically zero. My DJI Phantom 3 quad-copter costs with a hard-shell backpack, spare batteries, charging hub less that 1500. Besides it can fly where a helicopter cannot in principle, for example, lower than 150 meters altitude.
Could be. But I also think that a leadership of a commercially successful company with time moves from engineers and scientists to political and marketing appointees. So basically they produce the same model from decades ago under a new name and slightly different shape.
Maybe this too. Until now flying was the domain of a State. The flight of a helicopter costs 9000 per hour. Only a State can afford it on a regular basis.
I remember how difficult was the aerial photography before. People had to use kites, helium balloons, water rockets to lift a camera in the air with mixed results. A kite needs very strong wind, helium balloons' cord vibrates like a guitar string. A water rocket flies OK, but a camera parachute is not reliable.
You can see the grills clearly at 1:37 https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
They are made from the titanium metal to protect engines against birds, even dogs, on country side airfields.
If there was a thud, then there should be a scratch. It is not difficult to make a photo with a smartphone camera and publish it. Also there would be a damaged drone. Independent witnesses' accounts, etc.
I think there is another reason behind this "drones danger" media campaign. There is a worry that the Chinese civil drones producers, - DJI Innovations, Yuneec, etc. have got the leading positions on the market. These companies left behind western enterprises for about a decade, their sales are in tens of billions.
So, perhaps, there is an idea to close this market for a while. But it cannot be done without a preliminary media campaign.
A car, which costs ten thousand, has got a dashboard video camera recorder. A jet liner costs millions. Why not to install a video recorder too? So that we could have a clear picture of what happened.
Pilots of modern manned aircraft have got very little to do during a flight, so no wonder that they may see things. I would prefer not words, but a proof.
Such an approach is built around a medieval model of a city. This vehicle 95% carries its own weight.
What is needed, however, is the implementation of the Evacuated Tube Transport Technologies, or ET3: http://www.et3.com/ . This technology is ecological, safe, scalable, and fast.
The main obstacle is the littleness of the current political and technical leadership, which is stuck firmly in the past centuries.
as those first nuclear bombs were exploding just partly. They are not even close to modern nuclear bombs, which are much more damaging.
After such a visit a politician who does not have a technical background may think that it is survivable, and that there could be even PR ceremonies and visits afterwards. What is not true at all.
Not a switch, please. A light plastic manual shutter, a blind, both for the camera and microphone. So that I can physically close it and unequivocally see that it is closed.
Electronics can be hacked, but not physics.
However, it seems that physically closing camera is in the same league as a strong encryption. I never saw it on any device, and I am sure it will remain this way.
... they only let him stay because his presence gives the U.S. a black eye....
Actually it is not exactly like this. Russia is a very large country by territory, so they need good educated people.
If someone arrives at the Russian Federation, even without documents at all, and can demonstrate that she/he can speak Russian language fluently, this person may remain in the country legally.
And if someone speaks Russian on the level of a mother tongue, gets to Russia, and declares a wish to become a resident or a citizen, then she/he may get the Russian citizenship in a short time.
Another question is a job and a house. It should be as hard as anywhere. Most probably it will be in Siberia. But Edward Snowden, I assume, is also somewhere there. It would be too risky for him to stay in European part of Russia.
I actually saw by a freak chance an industrial grade eavesdropping equipment. It was still fourteen years ago. It was so incredibly tiny.
I cannot see why it is not being pre-installed in all electric equipment which we buy: cameras, coffee makers, etc. by several services of several powers independently, and also by private entities. No chance whatsoever to find it.
I think it is time to accept that every word which we say or write is seen and recorded by several governments and private organizations. There is no chance to resist this technology.
I guess the data which is collected this way is used not only to fight crime, but also to plan policies by analyzing our reactions to events, speeches, etc. It is not the questions if it is being done on mass scale, but what we as individuals can do about it to mitigate the effects on the civilization.
Perhaps, we should carry on important conversations outdoors in woods wearing only freshly washed t-shirts and shorts, or speak for several minutes indoors a nonsense to jam analyzing soft, etc.
Would you agree that they put it in the area where you live? To hear constant "chug, chug, chug,.." noise, to have a sharp fast shadow moving endlessly over the yard, and birds falling periodically from the sky.
Certainly not, it is better to construct them where other people live, who cannot to afford lawyers for fend them off. Instead of building gigantic ugly structures, it would be better to limit the size of a private house and a private car to sane figures, to produce energy by saving it.
Could we find a way to keep this wonderful planet surface beautiful? Dig down power cables, make generators inconspicuous. And leave airspace free to birds, manned and RC aircraft.
...But my face? If someone gets their hands on a suitable picture or video of me (really not hard to get a photo or video of the average person) and can use that, I'm shit outta luck....
Slashdot Mirror
Small manned aircraft also may violate rules. Sometimes it may fly below its minimum 200 meters limit. But in any case it has got a priority. One can hear a helicopter or a small manned fixed-wing well before it is seen. And it is absolutely not difficult to dive quickly to the ground to be on the safe side. Actually I train this maneuver regularly. The main thing is to learn to avoid the vortex ring state https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... while descending quickly.
In the parts where I live the rule is 5 kilometers around a large international airport. The government wants that this new emerging multi-billion industry continue to develop further so it tries not to over-regulate. The altitude limit is 150 meters. But indeed there is the strict rule of the constant visual contact.
Everything tells us that there should be Life in the Universe. There are trillions of stars and planets, still the Life is no found. Instead - the Great Silence. The SETI Institute searches for Life for decades to no avail.
About the same with drones. Drones seem to be dangerous, but an accident does not materialize. Shark or bear attacks are extremely rare, still they do actually happen on the planet Earth about ten cases each year.
UAS pilots are not idiots, if I hear a low flying manned aircraft I immediatly dive to the ground. It is not like a stupid bird.
... scaling up to maybe $1500 for helicopters that are more expensive to run. ...
It depends on a region and a type of a helicopter. A VIP helicopter transfer in some places in Europe may cost more than 1500 or even much more than 9000. Medical helicopters' flights are also very expensive, as a patient or an insurance company pay not only for the flying time and the fuel, but also for the service as a whole, i.e. that doctors and pilots are on shift 24/7 ready to deploy. Even if they are not flying on a certain day, they should be paid for being on duty.
But in any case, it is quite expensive in comparison with an UAS multi-rotor flight, which costs practically zero. My DJI Phantom 3 quad-copter costs with a hard-shell backpack, spare batteries, charging hub less that 1500. Besides it can fly where a helicopter cannot in principle, for example, lower than 150 meters altitude.
Curse you Red Baron!
Psalm 109:17 He loved to curse; let curses come upon him! He did not delight in blessing; may it be far from him!
Could be. But I also think that a leadership of a commercially successful company with time moves from engineers and scientists to political and marketing appointees. So basically they produce the same model from decades ago under a new name and slightly different shape.
Maybe this too. Until now flying was the domain of a State. The flight of a helicopter costs 9000 per hour. Only a State can afford it on a regular basis.
I remember how difficult was the aerial photography before. People had to use kites, helium balloons, water rockets to lift a camera in the air with mixed results. A kite needs very strong wind, helium balloons' cord vibrates like a guitar string. A water rocket flies OK, but a camera parachute is not reliable.
You can see the grills clearly at 1:37 https://www.youtube.com/watch?... They are made from the titanium metal to protect engines against birds, even dogs, on country side airfields.
If there was a thud, then there should be a scratch. It is not difficult to make a photo with a smartphone camera and publish it. Also there would be a damaged drone. Independent witnesses' accounts, etc.
I think there is another reason behind this "drones danger" media campaign. There is a worry that the Chinese civil drones producers, - DJI Innovations, Yuneec, etc. have got the leading positions on the market. These companies left behind western enterprises for about a decade, their sales are in tens of billions.
So, perhaps, there is an idea to close this market for a while. But it cannot be done without a preliminary media campaign.
The SU-27 jet has got the engine grills. You can see them clearly at this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
A car, which costs ten thousand, has got a dashboard video camera recorder. A jet liner costs millions. Why not to install a video recorder too? So that we could have a clear picture of what happened.
Pilots of modern manned aircraft have got very little to do during a flight, so no wonder that they may see things. I would prefer not words, but a proof.
Such an approach is built around a medieval model of a city. This vehicle 95% carries its own weight.
What is needed, however, is the implementation of the Evacuated Tube Transport Technologies, or ET3: http://www.et3.com/ . This technology is ecological, safe, scalable, and fast.
The main obstacle is the littleness of the current political and technical leadership, which is stuck firmly in the past centuries.
as those first nuclear bombs were exploding just partly. They are not even close to modern nuclear bombs, which are much more damaging.
After such a visit a politician who does not have a technical background may think that it is survivable, and that there could be even PR ceremonies and visits afterwards. What is not true at all.
Not a switch, please. A light plastic manual shutter, a blind, both for the camera and microphone. So that I can physically close it and unequivocally see that it is closed.
Electronics can be hacked, but not physics.
However, it seems that physically closing camera is in the same league as a strong encryption. I never saw it on any device, and I am sure it will remain this way.
... they only let him stay because his presence gives the U.S. a black eye. ...
Actually it is not exactly like this. Russia is a very large country by territory, so they need good educated people.
If someone arrives at the Russian Federation, even without documents at all, and can demonstrate that she/he can speak Russian language fluently, this person may remain in the country legally.
And if someone speaks Russian on the level of a mother tongue, gets to Russia, and declares a wish to become a resident or a citizen, then she/he may get the Russian citizenship in a short time.
Another question is a job and a house. It should be as hard as anywhere. Most probably it will be in Siberia. But Edward Snowden, I assume, is also somewhere there. It would be too risky for him to stay in European part of Russia.
Drones are no good for a conflict encounter with peers or near peers. This technology should be left to the civil industry.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... it could protect people not only form firearms but also at traffic accidents, falling down, etc.
at least people will know who is really behind all this hacking hoopla and stop blaming poor people in Russia, China, Ukraine, etc.
while walking, please? Sometimes it is hard to walk and breath behind a smoker.
Isn't it how IT industry sales de facto work, - including kick-backs into contracts?
I actually saw by a freak chance an industrial grade eavesdropping equipment. It was still fourteen years ago. It was so incredibly tiny.
I cannot see why it is not being pre-installed in all electric equipment which we buy: cameras, coffee makers, etc. by several services of several powers independently, and also by private entities. No chance whatsoever to find it.
I think it is time to accept that every word which we say or write is seen and recorded by several governments and private organizations. There is no chance to resist this technology.
I guess the data which is collected this way is used not only to fight crime, but also to plan policies by analyzing our reactions to events, speeches, etc. It is not the questions if it is being done on mass scale, but what we as individuals can do about it to mitigate the effects on the civilization.
Perhaps, we should carry on important conversations outdoors in woods wearing only freshly washed t-shirts and shorts, or speak for several minutes indoors a nonsense to jam analyzing soft, etc.
Would you agree that they put it in the area where you live? To hear constant "chug, chug, chug,.." noise, to have a sharp fast shadow moving endlessly over the yard, and birds falling periodically from the sky.
Certainly not, it is better to construct them where other people live, who cannot to afford lawyers for fend them off. Instead of building gigantic ugly structures, it would be better to limit the size of a private house and a private car to sane figures, to produce energy by saving it.
Could we find a way to keep this wonderful planet surface beautiful? Dig down power cables, make generators inconspicuous. And leave airspace free to birds, manned and RC aircraft.
Cockfighting never ends, because there is money in it.
...But my face? If someone gets their hands on a suitable picture or video of me (really not hard to get a photo or video of the average person) and can use that, I'm shit outta luck. ...
A Niqb could be a solution, at least for women: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
I a city where I live one can go to the city center or a park and meet pushers in person.