One Drone Thread to Rule them ALL

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Re: One Drone Thread to Rule them ALL

Postby elfismiles » Tue Dec 15, 2015 8:23 pm


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YFdF_fx5Udk

This Awesome Drone Can Conquer Both Sea And Sky
Researchers developed a flying bot that can also swim
By Ryan Beckler on Dec 09, 2015 at 1:27 PM
http://www.vocativ.com/news/259629/this ... a-and-sky/
User avatar
elfismiles
 
Posts: 8511
Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 6:46 pm
Blog: View Blog (4)

Re: One Drone Thread to Rule them ALL

Postby elfismiles » Sat Dec 19, 2015 11:04 am

FORBES Logistics & Transportation
Dec 18, 2015 @ 03:07 PM 31,818 views
FAA Finally Admits Names And Home Addresses In Drone Registry Will Be Publicly Available
John Goglia, Contributor

The FAA finally confirmed this afternoon that model aircraft registrants’ names and home addresses will be public. In an email message, the FAA stated: “Until the drone registry system is modified, the FAA will not release names and address. When the drone registry system is modified to permit public searches of registration numbers, names and addresses will be revealed through those searches.”

I’ve been trying to get to the bottom of whether names and home addresses of model aircraft or hobby drone owners – including children as young as 13 – will be made available by the FAA to the public once the FAA’s new unmanned aircraft registry goes live on Monday. It seems a simple enough question. But it took a while to get a straight answer.

My confusion arose because of an apparent contradiction that a colleague pointed out to me between what the FAA stated in its FAQs on the new registration rule and what the Department of Transportation stated in a legal filing made at the same time as the FAA’s new rule was published. The FAA’s FAQs made it appear that only the FAA, its contractor and law enforcement agencies would have access to the data. Here is the FAA’s FAQ:
Who can see the data that I can enter?

A. The FAA will be able to see the data that you enter. The FAA is using a contractor to maintain the website and database, and that contractor also will be able to see the data that you enter. Like the FAA, the contractor is required to comply with strict legal requirements to protect the confidentiality of the personal data you provide. Under certain circumstances, law enforcement officers might also be able to see the data.


This led me – and many others I’ve spoken with – to believe that only these three entities would have access to registrants’ personal information. But my colleague pointed out that the DOT’s filing contained the following statement, “all records maintained by the FAA in connection with aircraft registered are included in the Aircraft Registry and made available to the public, except email address and credit card information submitted under part 48 [the new model aircraft registry].” In addition, the DOT statement says the name and address of model aircraft owners will be searchable by registration number.

So, I emailed DOT’s public affairs office to ask if they could clarify what information from the newly announced UAS registry will be made publicly available. Specifically I asked: “Will a hobby registrant’s name and home address be publicly releasable? Will the public be able to search the hobby registry for owner names and addresses by registration number?” I thought these were easy questions requiring simple yes or no answers. But apparently they weren’t that simple so my questions were referred to the FAA. An FAA spokesman wrote back: “Initially the Registration system will not have a public search function. The FAA plans to incorporate a search by registration number in the future. Names and addresses are protected by the Privacy Act. The FAA will handle disclosure of such information in accordance with the December 15, 2015 Federal Register notice. [https://federalregister.gov/a/2015-31647] ”

Not considering this a clear answer, I replied, “my reading of the DOT policy is that if someone requests the name and address of a drone registrant the information will be released by the FAA. I don’t want to misstate what the FAA would do so I would appreciate your confirmation.”

The FAA responded that it would have the Chief Counsel’s Office again review my request. It seems the third time was a charm and I got an answer that may not make many hobbyists very happy.

Fortunately for hobby flyers, the Academy of Model Aeronautics announced to its members yesterday that it’s exploring all legal and political means to stop the registry. In the meanwhile, it’s asking its members to hold off registering. If you’re concerned about what data will be made publicly available, you might consider holding off registering to give the AMA a chance.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/johngoglia/ ... available/
User avatar
elfismiles
 
Posts: 8511
Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 6:46 pm
Blog: View Blog (4)

Re: One Drone Thread to Rule them ALL

Postby Elvis » Sat Dec 19, 2015 9:34 pm

A little extra cash should relieve those pesky anxieties over killing people.


http://www.airforcetimes.com/story/military/careers/air-force/2015/07/15/predator-reaper-drone-pilots-to-get-135k-re-up-bonus/30184499/

Predator, Reaper drone pilots to get up to $135K re-up bonus

MQ-1 Predator and MQ-9 Reaper drone pilots will be eligible for retention bonuses worth up to $135,000 beginning in fiscal 2016 under a new policy announced by the Air Force.

Also, beginning this August, the Air Force plans to steer 80 undergraduate pilot training graduates directly into drone squadrons, instead of traditional manned aircraft.

"In a complex global environment, RPA [remotely piloted aircraft] pilots will always be in demand," Air Force Secretary Deborah Lee James said in a release Wednesday. "Remarkable airmen have ensured the success of the MQ-1/9 programs. We now face a situation where if we don't direct additional resources appropriately, it creates unacceptable risk."

Air Force spokesman Lt. Col. Chris Karns said that the critical skills retention bonus will only be offered to pilots in the 18X Air Force specialty code.

18X pilots who are reaching the end of their initial six-year commitment can get the bonuses by agreeing to serve another five or nine years. They will get $15,000 a year, meaning they will get either $75,000 or $135,000, depending on how long they agree to stay. They can also choose to get 50 percent of their bonus as an upfront lump-sum payment.
more at link


Originally reported in WSJ:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/air-force-will-offer-bonuses-to-lure-drone-pilots-1436922312

Air Force Will Offer Bonuses To Lure Drone Pilots

. . . the Air Force, which flies Predator, Reaper and Global Hawk drones, has struggled to keep up with that demand largely due to the service’s inability to identify, train and retain enough drone pilots. The service trains about 180 such pilots a year, but loses about 230.

As a result, the pilots complain of being overworked and overstressed. On average, drone pilots fly up to 900 hours a year, compared with fighter pilots, who are in the cockpit an average of 250 hours a year, according to Air Force officials.
“The purpose of studying economics is not to acquire a set of ready-made answers to economic questions, but to learn how to avoid being deceived by economists.” ― Joan Robinson
User avatar
Elvis
 
Posts: 7411
Joined: Fri Apr 11, 2008 7:24 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: One Drone Thread to Rule them ALL

Postby conniption » Fri Feb 19, 2016 6:19 pm

Video at link...
c-span

Debate on Drone Strikes Programs The Chicago Council on Global Affairs


January 20, 2016

Debate on Drone Strikes Programs The Chicago Council on Global Affairs hosted a debate on the military’s use of drones as part of the nation’s counterterrorism strategy. Notre Dame University Law Professor Mary Ellen O’Connell blamed the rise of ISIS* on the use of drone strikes while DePaul Law School Professor Alberto Coll defended their use. Both are former Defense Department officials. Ivo Daalder, Chicago Council on Global Affairs president and former U.S. ambassador to NATO, moderated.

* The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), or DAISH/DAESH in Arabic is a militant group that has called itself the Islamic State.
conniption
 
Posts: 2480
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 10:01 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: One Drone Thread to Rule them ALL

Postby Burnt Hill » Fri Feb 19, 2016 6:35 pm

Bet 667

Duration 5 years (02014-02019)

“By the end of 2017 a major protest will feature a drone versus drone aerial confrontation.”

PREDICTOR
Chris E Spurgeon

CHALLENGER
Unchallenged


http://longbets.org/667/
User avatar
Burnt Hill
 
Posts: 2584
Joined: Wed Nov 22, 2006 7:42 pm
Location: down down
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: One Drone Thread to Rule them ALL

Postby Grizzly » Fri Feb 19, 2016 6:48 pm

A little extra cash should relieve those pesky anxieties over killing people.


Right!? There is a difference between warriors and straight up killers, I guess. However, having said that, the hypocrite in me has given serious thought to what my price is. We all have a price. Having only once ever tasting real money, or at least what I thought at the time was real money, the system we've created for ourselves has had me given serious contemplation on, silly ideals, such as what I'd be willing to do for manna. I fantasized once, creating a temp website on the deep web, and if someone were to sponsor it, playing Russian roulette, live for big chunks of money. Say, 100,000 k for each chamber spent. That's what this system wants, isn't it!??? Entertainment!



We're back! Live! Bang!
“The more we do to you, the less you seem to believe we are doing it.”

― Joseph mengele
User avatar
Grizzly
 
Posts: 4722
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2011 4:15 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: One Drone Thread to Rule them ALL

Postby Grizzly » Wed Mar 09, 2016 4:35 pm

Pentagon admits it has deployed military spy drones over the U.S.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nati ... /81474702/
“The more we do to you, the less you seem to believe we are doing it.”

― Joseph mengele
User avatar
Grizzly
 
Posts: 4722
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2011 4:15 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: One Drone Thread to Rule them ALL

Postby conniption » Thu Mar 10, 2016 5:23 am

The Intercept
(embedded links)

Nobody Knows the Identities of the 150 People Killed by U.S. in Somalia, but Most Are Certain They Deserved It


Glenn Greenwald

Mar. 8 2016


Image
Photo: Veronique de Viguerie/Getty Images

The U.S. used drones and manned aircraft yesterday to drop bombs and missiles on Somalia, ending the lives of at least 150 people. As it virtually always does, the Obama administration instantly claimed that the people killed were “terrorists” and militants — members of the Somali group al Shabaab — but provided no evidence to support that assertion.

Nonetheless, most U.S. media reports contained nothing more than quotes from U.S. officials about what happened, conveyed uncritically and with no skepticism of their accuracy: The dead “fighters … were assembled for what American officials believe was a graduation ceremony and prelude to an imminent attack against American troops,” pronounced the New York Times. So, the official story goes, The Terrorists were that very moment “graduating” — receiving their Terrorist degrees — and about to attack U.S. troops when the U.S. killed them.

With that boilerplate set of claims in place, huge numbers of people today who have absolutely no idea who was killed are certain that they all deserved it. As my colleague Murtaza Hussain said of the 150 dead people: “We don’t know who they are, but luckily they were all bad.” For mindless authoritarians, the words “terrorist” and “militant” have no meaning other than: anyone who dies when my government drops bombs, or, at best, a “terrorist” is anyone my government tells me is a terrorist. Watch how many people today are defending this strike by claiming “terrorists” and “militants” were killed using those definitions even though they have literally no idea who was killed.

Other than the higher-than-normal death toll, this mass killing is an incredibly common event under the presidency of the 2009 Nobel Peace laureate, who has so far bombed seven predominantly Muslim countries. As Nick Turse has reported in The Intercept, Obama has aggressively expanded the stealth drone program and secret war in Africa.

This particular mass killing is unlikely to get much attention in the U.S. due to (1) the election-season obsession with horse-race analysis and pressing matters such as the size of Donald Trump’s hands; (2) widespread Democratic indifference to the killing of foreigners where there’s no partisan advantage to be had against the GOP from pretending to care; (3) the invisibility of places like Somalia and the implicit devaluing of lives there; and (4) the complete normalization of the model whereby the U.S. president kills whomever he wants, wherever he wants, without regard for any semblance of law, process, accountability, or evidence.

The lack of attention notwithstanding, there are several important points highlighted by yesterday’s bombing and the reaction to it:

1) The U.S. is not at war in Somalia. Congress has never declared war on Somalia, nor has it authorized the use of military force there. Morality and ethics to the side for the moment: What legal authority does Obama even possess to bomb this country? I assume we can all agree that presidents shouldn’t be permitted to just go around killing people they suspect are “bad”: they need some type of legal authority to do the killing.

Since 2001, the U.S. government has legally justified its we-bomb-wherever-we-want approach by pointing to the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), enacted by Congress in the wake of 9/11 to authorize the targeting of al Qaeda and “affiliated” forces. But al Shabaab did not exist in 2001 and had nothing to do with 9/11. Indeed, the group has not tried to attack the U.S. but instead, as the New York Times’ Charlie Savage noted in 2011, “is focused on a parochial insurgency in Somalia.” As a result, reported Savage, even “the [Obama] administration does not consider the United States to be at war with every member of the Shabaab.”

Instead, in the Obama administration’s view, specific senior members of al Shabaab can be treated as enemy combatants under the AUMF only if they adhere to al Qaeda’s ideology, are “integrated” into its command structure, and could conduct operations outside of Somalia. That’s why the U.S. government yesterday claimed that all the people it killed were about to launch attacks on U.S. soldiers: because, even under its own incredibly expansive view of the AUMF, it would be illegal to kill them merely on the ground that they were all members of al Shabaab, and the government thus needs a claim of “self-defense” to legally justify this.

But even under the “self-defense” theory that the U.S. government invoked, it is allowed — under its own policies promulgated in 2013 — to use lethal force away from an active war zone (e.g., Afghanistan) “only against a target that poses a continuing, imminent threat to U.S. persons.” Perhaps these Terrorists were about to imminently attack U.S. troops stationed in the region — immediately after the tassel on their graduation cap was turned at the “graduation ceremony,” they were going on the attack — but again, there is literally no evidence that any of that is true.

Given what’s at stake — namely, the conclusion that Obama’s killing of 150 people yesterday was illegal — shouldn’t we be demanding to see evidence that the assertions of his government are actually true? Were these really all al Shabaab fighters and terrorists who were killed? Were they really about to carry out some sort of imminent, dangerous attack on U.S. personnel? Why would anyone be content to blindly believe the self-serving assertions of the U.S. government on these questions without seeing evidence? If you are willing to make excuses for why you don’t want to see any evidence, why would you possibly think you know what happened here — who was killed and under what circumstances — if all you have are conclusory, evidence-free assertions from those who carried out the killings?

2) There are numerous compelling reasons demanding skepticism of U.S. government claims about who it kills in airstrikes. To begin with, the Obama administration has formally re-defined the term “militant” to mean: “all military-age males in a strike zone” unless “there is explicit intelligence posthumously proving them innocent.” In other words, the U.S. government presumptively regards all adult males it kills as “militants” unless evidence emerges that they were not. It’s an empty, manipulative term of propaganda and nothing else.

Beyond that, the U.S. government’s own documents prove that in the vast majority of cases — 9 out of 10 in fact — it is killing people other than its intended targets. Last April, the New York Times published an article under the headline “Drone Strikes Reveal Uncomfortable Truth: U.S. Is Often Unsure About Who Will Die.” It quoted the scholar Micah Zenko saying, “Most individuals killed are not on a kill list, and the government does not know their names.”

Moreover, the U.S. government has repeatedly been caught lying about the identities of its bombings victims. As that April NYT article put it, “Every independent investigation of the strikes has found far more civilian casualties than administration officials admit.”

Given that clear record of deliberate deceit, why would any rational person blindly swallow evidence-free assertions from the U.S. government about who it is killing? To put it mildly, extreme skepticism is warranted (after being criticized for its stenography, the final New York Times story yesterday at least included this phrase about the Pentagon’s claims about who it killed: “There was no independent way to verify the claim”).

3) Why does the U.S. have troops stationed in this part of Africa? Remember, even the Obama administration says it is not at war with al Shabaab.

Consider how circular this entire rationale is: The U.S., like all countries, obviously has a legitimate interest in protecting its troops from attack. But why does it have troops there at all in need of protection? The answer: The troops are there to operate drone bases and attack people they regard as a threat to them. But if they weren’t there in the first place, these groups could not pose a threat to them.

In sum: We need U.S. troops in Africa to launch drone strikes at groups that are trying to attack U.S. troops in Africa. It’s the ultimate self-perpetuating circle of imperialism: We need to deploy troops to other countries in order to attack those who are trying to kill U.S. troops who are deployed there.

4) If you’re an American who has lived under the war on terror, it’s easy to forget how extreme this behavior is. Most countries on the planet don’t routinely run around dropping bombs and killing dozens of people in multiple other countries at once, let alone do so in countries where they’re not at war.

But for Americans, this is now all perfectly normalized. We just view our president as vested with the intrinsic, divine right, grounded in American exceptionalism, to deem whomever he wants “Bad Guys” and then — with no trial, no process, no accountability — order them killed. He’s the roving, Global Judge, Jury, and Executioner. And we see nothing disturbing or dangerous or even odd about that. We’ve been inculcated to view the world the way a 6-year-old watches cartoons: Bad Guys should be killed, and that’s the end of the story.

So yesterday the president killed roughly 150 people in a country where the U.S. is not at war. The Pentagon issued a five-sentence boilerplate statement declaring them all “terrorists.” And that’s pretty much the end of that. Within literally hours, virtually everyone was ready to forget about the whole thing and move on, content in the knowledge — even without a shred of evidence or information about the people killed — that their government and president did the right thing. Now that is a pacified public and malleable media.
conniption
 
Posts: 2480
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 10:01 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: One Drone Thread to Rule them ALL

Postby Grizzly » Thu Mar 10, 2016 9:54 am

And some people have the nerve to ask why I say fuck this country
“The more we do to you, the less you seem to believe we are doing it.”

― Joseph mengele
User avatar
Grizzly
 
Posts: 4722
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2011 4:15 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: One Drone Thread to Rule them ALL

Postby elfismiles » Fri Mar 18, 2016 9:04 am

Image


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNiie_zmSr8

CeBIT 2016: The Aerotain Skye Could Be Your Friendly Floating Camera Drone
By Stephen Cass
Posted 17 Mar 2016 | 12:58 GMT
http://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/robo ... mera-drone


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KcWVJ95qKJ4

Flying Drone Billboards Are the Future We Deserve
Chris Mills
http://gizmodo.com/flying-drone-billboa ... 1765626310
User avatar
elfismiles
 
Posts: 8511
Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 6:46 pm
Blog: View Blog (4)

Re: One Drone Thread to Rule them ALL

Postby Grizzly » Sat Mar 19, 2016 1:35 am

“The more we do to you, the less you seem to believe we are doing it.”

― Joseph mengele
User avatar
Grizzly
 
Posts: 4722
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2011 4:15 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: One Drone Thread to Rule them ALL

Postby tapitsbo » Sat Mar 19, 2016 1:53 am

The prize of bringing on the collapse of this system is a sweeter reward however infinitesimally partitioned than any price.
tapitsbo
 
Posts: 1824
Joined: Wed Jun 12, 2013 6:58 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: One Drone Thread to Rule them ALL

Postby Grizzly » Sat Mar 19, 2016 10:16 am

Wut!? ...^^^
“The more we do to you, the less you seem to believe we are doing it.”

― Joseph mengele
User avatar
Grizzly
 
Posts: 4722
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2011 4:15 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: One Drone Thread to Rule them ALL

Postby peartreed » Mon Mar 28, 2016 5:53 am

While on vacation here in Kihei, Maui I was sitting on the third floor lanai overlooking the ocean yesterday morning when I noticed what appeared to be a distant small white light moving erratically in the sky, speeding across the horizon, stopping in mid-air, accelerating vertically, reversing direction, descending straight down, and making wide circular sweeps at varying altitudes for several minutes.

As I watched I noticed it glinted and glistened like reflective metal when caught by the sunlight. There was no sound clearly associated with it above the surf and trade wind noises, or the ambient sounds of people and light traffic passing by on the adjacent beach.

It caught my eye because the choreography reminded me of a UFO I witnessed in the night sky many decades ago. It certainly wasn’t moving like a bird, a balloon or a common aircraft. So I retrieved a pair of binoculars for a closer look.

The lenses brought the object into clearer focus and revealed a small drone of triangular shape with small propellers around its perimeter and, as it approached, I could finally hear the faint whining noise of its motors. I thought that perhaps a hobbyist was scanning the beach bathers for bikini models, or making voyeuristic beach blanket videos, or simply trying to impress other aeronautic enthusiasts.

After the drone finally disappeared from view in a sudden, distant descent behind some palm trees and buildings to what I assumed was the beach, I saw a low-flying helicopter arrive and patrol the same area of the sky the drone had performed in. The chopper also made several high and low passes over the same air space as if searching for the drone or its operator.

I wondered if there was a connection, a concern or a pursuit operation policing the air corridors, which are also frequented by jets and tourist helicopter tours arriving or departing Kahului Airport.

But my main thought was how easily drones can be mistaken for UFO, or vice versa.

And I fantasized that some drones might be time machines that initiated ufology.

Too many tropical cocktails on the lanai basking in hot temperatures will do that.
User avatar
peartreed
 
Posts: 536
Joined: Sun Aug 24, 2008 5:20 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: One Drone Thread to Rule them ALL

Postby elfismiles » Fri May 20, 2016 9:47 am

New robot bee may soon be a spy's secret weapon
Image
http://mashable.com/2016/05/19/perching ... OVa2HaOgqC
User avatar
elfismiles
 
Posts: 8511
Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 6:46 pm
Blog: View Blog (4)

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 43 guests