Hubertus Bigend is on the phone, wants his drone back.
I want me one.
Restriction of surveillance powers to the Mobsters in Government Buildings is oh so very predictable though. And they have legal immunity.
Rupert Murdoch may soon have his front door kicked in by the US's Federal Aviation Administration, amid accusations that News Corporation has been operating an illegal air force. According to this report down at Forbes, the media magnate's fondleslab-friendly e-rag The Daily is flying a md4-1000 microdrone (pictured), which …
For example, assuming you live in the UK
Many many other places exist, I just chose that at random. It's not hard to source the parts off the web actually, and build your own. There's quite a few youtube videos on this.
Bet you the heart beating inside that thing is a GAUI GU-344 or something like it.
In all honesty, I'm not sure how they handle the wind. Fixed pitch rotor craft, in strong wind, tend to start acting like kites, at least the smaller ones do.
However, I'm waiting for a super smart doodad that will do collective pitch on all rotors, that should ride the winds better and provide for more stunts, possibly.
Now *THAT* will be full of so much win.
For this very reason...
Can you imagine the carnage?
I also think perhaps any sort of UAV above a certain size and performance envelope should be regulated.
What this size should be I couldn't say, but it should not cause too much grief to hobbyists.
Some reasonable compromise should be sought.
"In the far distance a helicopter skimmed down between the roofs, hovered for an instant like a bluebottle, and darted away again with a curving flight. It was the police patrol, snooping into people's windows. The patrols did not matter, however. Only the Thought Police mattered. "
And there I was thinking the opening paragraph of George Orwell's Ninteen Eighty-Four was:
"It was a bright cold day in April, and the clocks were striking thirteen. Winston Smith, his chin nuzzled into his breast in an effort to escape the vile wind, slipped quickly through the glass doors of Victory Mansions, though not quickly enough to prevent a swirl of gritty dust from entering along with him. "
Your Quote, I believe, comes from the middle of the fourth paragraph. Nice to see someone who (presumably) has actually read the book though, before likening things to it's themes or characters...
"if you're going to use the . . ." -- You failed to capitalise the letter 'I'.
However, stylistically, you should have rewritten the setntence to eliminate the superfluous comma: "You need to read your post several times before clicking 'Submit' if you're going to use the pedant icon."
Descending into pedantry recursion in 3 . . 2 . . 1.
"Restriction of surveillance powers to the Mobsters in Government Buildings is oh so very predictable though. And they have legal immunity." .... Destroy All Monsters Posted Friday 5th August 2011 10:56 GMT
Nobody has legal immunity for despicable sovereign type actions based on false evidence and contrived protocols, Destroy All Monsters. Just ask Saddam and Mubarak and Blair.
And Wee Willie Hague and Dave Cameron, his sponsor and mentor, are skating on very thin ice with regard to their virtual takeover attempt of Libya ..... which has been an unmitigated disaster which idiots wouldn't even be spinning as a winning game play. Is someone spiking the tea and biscuits for the Cabinet with some psychotropic substances which has them in denial of leadership failure?
but I think it's fair enough morally to use a UAV to get footage of a disaster area, the literal kind not the metaphorical kind that Newscorp is so good at lately. Anything that saves them buggering about with expensive, noisy, fuel guzzling helicopters.
Personally I think the law should allow this so long as the drones are only used for situations where a helicopter would otherwise be used. Not sure how to deal with issues where the less obvious nature of a drone allows them to spy on people though, maybe insist they run with lights on at all times and be painted flourescent yellow/orange while having their position monitored by local authorities at all times?
Require pilot certification and require the company to hold an operating license for them by all means but blanket banning them seems silly.
Read the article, I just skimmed it but it appears that Murdoch and crew have not bothered to apply for the proper commercial license for these devices, before releasing them on the public.
These commercial licenses are presumably where the authorities would check and ensure that they are indeed safe.
There also appears to be a research style license, that I would guess is MUCH easier to get, but only allows to to test and demonstrate (not fly into public areas, let alone disaster zones).
This has much less to do with whether or not one actually can fly these things (they can with the proper paperwork filled out) and more to do with Murdoch (FOX) and crew routinely and flagrantly violating laws for their own gain, which they seem to do in spades.
Throw the book at them and lock that despicable geezer up if you can. We need some relief from Murdick and his Teabaggers right about now.
You have *so* much to gain from an arbitrary denial of any news organization to obtain actual news. Question for you, Chester:
If this was CNN and the disaster was Katrina, how many months would you be howling about oppressive government trying to hide something, and how there is no existing regulation on the books covering this?
Seems to me, your outrage is triggered more by Fox/Murdoch thinking of and using the technology before anyone else, and your answer is to hand the state more censorship capabilities rather than see that happen. Whatever happened to "if it isn't denied, it is allowed."?
Tell CNN, et al to get their own damned drones if you're so concerned. Just one more sign that the rest of the lamestream media is not interested in reporting news anymore. PH for the sole object of interest in most news organizations (other than El Reg, of course...)
The FAA Regs that are linked have an interesting restriction. It states that current FAA policy (A policy is not a law) is that, among other things, model aircraft must be flown below 400 ft and no more than a mile distance under line of sight control. It also states that a model aircraft can only be used for hobby or sport, but not for any business uses. Oh really. It's okay for a 10-year old kid to send up a remote controlled model airplane but a company employee is somehow riskier.
Doing stuff for fun is and should be much less regulated than doing stuff 'for hire or reward'.
Just like I can drive a mate to a party if I like, but I can't ask him to pay me to do it unless I get a taxi licence.
- In the case of model aircraft, there's an argument along the lines of "If the weather is a bit dodgy and you're doing it for fun, you'll probably wait for a nicer day. If you're being paid to do it, you're more likely to go ahead anyway."
they didn't buzz Obama's birthday party. Imagine the yelling had they found a 76 year old woman at the sticks of this toy whirlybird!
Only the "preferred" news outlets are authorized to fly into the zone. Everyone else, including civilians, need to be patient until the "correct" Media tells them what they "need to know".
Fox News is guilty of being late to the party and kissing the wrong @rses.
helicopter icon needs more rotors
IIRC when the first self stabilised small planes came out someone wired one up with video and
had it track his car from a few 100 feet up. He then went on a (short) drive down the M1 and some back roads. The clever bit was that in those days before affordable GPS and sat-navs' he had a real time view of the road ahead (including traffic) from the plane that was tagging him.
I think a passenger was piloting but these days a drone could be self piloted.
Also remember that in these days of leccy planes, we stillhave small IC engines (including diesel) that can be used in aircraft that need the flight duration. A tiny RC engine mounted on a glider can stay in the air for hours.
You failed to read the article yourself my friend. It clearly specifies that licenses are only available for research and development, and additionally require the UAV to be kept well away from a populated area. Thus using a UAV for any civilian purpose other than developing a UAV would seem to be outside the scope of the available licenses and ultimately illegal.
This is what I was complaining about. Nail murdoch et al for breaking the law by all means, after all it is their responsibility to make sure they're complying with the law in these cases. On the other hand that doesn't make the law right. Just because a law is stupid however doesn't mean we have the right to ignore it.
"The WASP's compact computer may of particular interest to News Corporation since it is capable of sniffing Wi-Fi networks and intercepting mobile phone calls. "
Well, yes. You could probably also attach cream pies, weapons of mass destruction and an electric shaver to it if you really wanted to. So what?