There are plenty of manned aircraft bases, planes and such flying over us all day ... but I don't like where this is going.
There are plenty of manned aircraft bases, planes and such flying over us all day ... but I don't like where this is going.
I read this on AVWEB this morning. Neither article is comforting.
http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/2237-full.html#206810
Navy UAV Crashes In Maryland
An unmanned aircraft being tested by the U.S. Navy crashed Monday about noon on Maryland's eastern shore, about 22 miles east of the Naval Air Station at Patuxent River. The Global Hawk, about 44 feet long with a wingspan of 116 feet, was one of five UAVs being used to test maritime surveillance capabilities. "No one was injured and no property was damaged at the unpopulated swampy crash site," Navy officials said. Aerial video from WBOC-TV showed piles of burnt debris at the crash site, with scattered flames and lots of black smoke. The site is being cleaned up and Navy officials are investigating the cause of the crash.
The test program at Patuxent River has been in operation since November 2006, working to develop tactics and doctrine for the use of high-altitude unmanned patrol aircraft. The Navy's RQ-4A Global Hawk is powered by a Rolls Royce turbofan engine. It's capable of flying up to 60,000 feet at speeds up to 340 knots for more than 30 hours. Its maximum takeoff weight is 25,600 pounds. It's operated by a crew of four -- two pilots and two sensor operators.
In Pursuit Of The Less Intelligent Drone
Researchers at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology are working on an autonomous flying vehicle that is not as good at avoiding crashes as it is at surviving them, for a reason. The idea is simple. An autonomous aircraft that must carry multiple onboard sensors and computer systems to avoid accidents will lose payload and endurance to those systems. It will also be bigger and cost more than a vehicle that doesn't carry those systems. As an alternate approach, the Swiss researchers are working to create a simple vehicle that is more efficient and more resilient. The design they have isn't just designed to survive crashes, it's designed to pick itself up and set off, again, after the crash.
The Swiss designers say they took inspiration from birds and insects that sometimes crash into things but mostly recover and continue on their way. All the key components of the Swiss design are protected by a lightweight, flexible carbon-fiber cage. The cage is designed to absorb impacts without transferring energy to the vehicle's most delicate components. The researchers have so far designed an oblong vehicle with an active recovery system. (See video at right.) That system is made up of four legs that can extend to right the vehicle if it ends up lying on its side. They hope the vehicle will prove more practical in navigating tight, uneven spaces than costlier flying vehicles. Japanese researchers have advanced a similar idea with a spherical design.
I don't do things that are against the law. This stuff doesn't bother me. In fact, if it keeps me safe, I'm all for it.
The military doesn't really care about what you're doing. The other government agencies, however...
It bothers the hell out of me. I don't like the idea of the constant threat of cameras flying over watching me to see if I am doing the smallest thing wrong. It is way too 1984 for me.
In reply to RossD:
He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither. People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both.
RossD wrote: I don't do things that are against the law. This stuff doesn't bother me. In fact, if it keeps me safe, I'm all for it.
Good for you, Tebow. What about the rest of us that drive 40 in a 35 zone?
RossD wrote: I don't do things that are against the law. This stuff doesn't bother me. In fact, if it keeps me safe, I'm all for it.
The "don't do anything wrong, don't have anything to worry about" line has been debunked over and over again. With a 24/7 surveillance and the current law enforcement mindset of "convict someone" rather than "convict the guilty party," you can be jailed for decades without having actually done anything wrong.
Go to http://www.innocenceproject.org/
Hell, we in the US had a few people executed in the last 5 years that have turned out to either be or almost certainly be innocent. Do you want that to be you?
Once a crime is committed, they should investigate it. But constant surveillance is a recipe for disaster. It results in wrongful accusations and convictions and no measurable increase in "safety."
93EXCivic wrote: It bothers the hell out of me. I don't like the idea of the constant threat of cameras flying over watching me to see if I am doing the smallest thing wrong. It is way too 1984 for me.
They're probably not going to be flying overhead all the time; we're not in a war zone and it costs too much. This place is way too big for that anyway. The small ones will probably be deployed in a manner similar to helicopters by law enforcement.
4cylndrfury wrote: In reply to RossD:He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither. People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both.
What freedom did I give up? The freedom to break a law. I can do that whether someone watches or not. What's your point?
I've said it before and I'll say it again every time I see this topic come up. If you are worried about the drones, you have no idea the capabilities of or modern day imaging satellites. I will not delve into that anymore, but leave that to your own investigative geniuses.
[And Ross gracefully leaves this thread...]
RossD wrote:4cylndrfury wrote: In reply to RossD:What freedom did I give up? The freedom to break a law. I can do that whether someone watches or not. What's your point?He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither. People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both.
what happens the one time you are seen yanking your kid out of the sandbox by the arm because its dinnertime, and big brother in the sky says ohma gerd, hees berting his krrds omfgrotflmfaowtfbbqsause!!!!1!1!11!y0! ...and now youre in gitmo?
In reply to RossD:
I want freedom from my every move on my own property being monitored by the government. Is that too much to ask?
RossD wrote: I don't do things that are against the law. This stuff doesn't bother me. In fact, if it keeps me safe, I'm all for it.
It is good that you are a law abiding citizen. I hope the people who make the laws always act in your best interests.
N Sperlo wrote: I've said it before and I'll say it again every time I see this topic come up. If you are worried about the drones, you have no idea the capabilities of or modern day imaging satellites. I will not delve into that anymore, but leave that to your own investigative geniuses.
Yeah that is true.
Reminds of this Simpsons -
I love how people are like, "They're watching me!" Sure, they have the capability to watch you; they have for years. Are they? NO. It's too expensive and eats up too many man hours. Now, if there's a serial killer loose in your area that they're trying to track? Then yes, they are probably watching your area.
Think of it like the neighbor across the street. Yes, he can look in your house with a pair of binoculars. But, he doesn't really want to look at you; you're boring. Now, if you have a hot wife and daughter that like to sunbathe naked, then you might have someone watching.
If they wanna spy on ya they will
A new breed of robot has now entered the field, in military, homeland security, medical, and almost limitless other applications, at the extreme small end of the spectrum: nanomachines, ranging from the size of grains of sand to the size of insects, hummingbirds, and robins.
http://www.defensemedianetwork.com/stories/robonano-spies-and-more/
one more step closer to Skynet.
now were is Sarah Connors?
fasted58 wrote: A new breed of robot has now entered the field, in military, homeland security, medical, and almost limitless other applications, at the extreme small end of the spectrum: nanomachines, ranging from the size of grains of sand to the size of insects, hummingbirds, and robins.
Yeah, and they operate on a scale of seconds unless they're tethered by wires to something. Most sci-fi level stuff like that is limited by our available power sources, and I don't think the military is hiding nanomachine scale nuclear power sources.
dculberson wrote:fasted58 wrote: A new breed of robot has now entered the field, in military, homeland security, medical, and almost limitless other applications, at the extreme small end of the spectrum: nanomachines, ranging from the size of grains of sand to the size of insects, hummingbirds, and robins.Yeah, and they operate on a scale of seconds unless they're tethered by wires to something. Most sci-fi level stuff like that is limited by our available power sources, and I don't think the military is hiding nanomachine scale nuclear power sources.
You guys are freaking me out.
We observe that you are not wearing your government issued aquatic garment while utilizing the personal swimming space on your property. Please clothe yourself in your approved garment, or we will begin mandated deterrence. ...you have 30 seconds to comply
RossD wrote: I don't do things that are against the law. This stuff doesn't bother me. In fact, if it keeps me safe, I'm all for it.
So no matter what the new laws might be you'll never violate them and you don't care about privacy so you live in a glass house?
One other thing about unmanned craft, they have no moral dilemma following orders, no matter who the target is.
You'll need to log in to post.
