If this was a dump of docs unquestioningly demonstrating that Sony was using underage labour in Liberia to cut their rootkits to disk using nothing but a chisel and a magnifying glass, I would be setting up my own mirror of this "leak" and showering the world with links. All this drop seems to be doing is opening employees even more massive invasion of privacy and identity theft. It could be argued these employees deserve to have their cheeks parted for simply working with Sony to begin with, but at the end of the day they are but tiny cogs in a giant machine (as most of us are no matter where we work), and with no signs (so far) of actual evil in these dumps that employees should have blown a whistle on, these poor bastards do not deserve this exposure of their information.
Of course, now those who DO want to part the cheeks of anyone who dares trying to feed their kids by working for Sony have more than enough information to go on a campaign of life ruination. Well played Wikifreaks.
Not even bothered by horrible grammar of quiz title at this point. Just fucking fix it.
It's an interesting concept, but it seems a little "cheaty" to me. We'll see where it goes I guess.
That technology has been available for a few decades.
Yes it has. But there has been a fundamental shift in the accessability of the technology. A majority of this technology has historically been radio transmitters that cost hundreds (sometimes thousands) of dollars, recievers that cost similar, and models that actually require a solid understanding of aerodynamics to build, trim and fly. Dozens if not hundreds of hours of work to build it. An big investment of time, money, and a dash of pride meant that flyers protected their craft like a their first born. Flying near an airfield would be unspeakable; No way in hell do I want my toy wrecked by errant prop or jet wash! (..I guess it would suck if I brought an actual plane down as well.. I guess).
The only thing different about drones is that they are slow and hence easier seen.
I disagree. Any spanner with a credit card and a desire to see their neighbours tits can go buy a ready to fly FPV drone cheap on eBay, hook it up to their smartphone, and get in the air in a second. No expensive equipment investment, no time invested in the build, no incentive to protect their flyer. THIS is the difference, and it has seen people who would never consider an RC aircraft suddenly snapping them up like the "toys" they are often marketed to be. So now you have a bunch of people who have no knowledge about aerodynamics or aviation generally who suddenly think "wouldn't it be sick to go fly this around an airport for lulz and photos", and suddenly we have the problems we are now seeing. Most fixed and rotary wing hobbyists I know have an inherent respect for their fellow flyers, be they scale or full size pilots. We all share the sky, and we'd rather not kill each other.
HISTORICALLY there has been close to zero risk (no such thing as zero risk, where there are humans involved, there is always room for something to fuck up) but now the technology is more accessable to the "pleb public", the risks of serious incident is and will continue to increase. As you have said, there have been next to no incidents historically, but as many have pointed out to you, the fact this story even exists to publish is a demonstration that the danger is indeed increasing. To ignore these factors is about as ignorant as using an absolute term like "zero actual risk" when there is no way for you to know what is and has happened globally in the past.. however many years of RC flying as a hobby.
plural noun: trains
1. a series of connected railway carriages or wagons moved by a locomotive or by integral motors.
Now that we have that out of the way, go look up "wagonways" c1500. There is evidence the greeks had rail based transport as well. The technology has indeed been around for a several centuries.
No a quadrocopter and a bird will likely get downed by the propwash before it gets anywhere near a helicopter.
Why reply when you have clearly not comprehended the dudes post?
If a drone gets UNDER the rotor disk, sweet, it gets blown into oblivion. But thats only one of three possible scenarios.
If it gets ABOVE or LATERALLY CLOSE to the disk, it could either be sucked downwards into the rotor disk, or, as Splab correctly said, be pulled into the tip vortex ring, which would see the drone be lifted over and into the disk. See this diagram for a quick look at the aerodynamics at play.
This is what she gets for doing bodywork in front of the machine.
Link to Original Source