Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Not a rule (Score 1) 189

by BitZtream (#47439511) Attached to: FAA Pressures Coldwell, Other Realtors To Stop Using Drone Footage

Stop quoting that single court case bullshit. The case was dismissed because of an overly broad statement in the way the FAA filed it. The judge pretty much told them to narrow it down and I'll see you again in 3 months ... which it will go through. Guess what ... that very case is already back in the schedule to be retried.

And for reference. There have been 2 cases dismissed. One was retried and found in favor of the FAA and the fine stood, the second is on the schedule for retrial.

Comment: Re:Not a rule - Not just the FAA (Score 1) 189

by BitZtream (#47439489) Attached to: FAA Pressures Coldwell, Other Realtors To Stop Using Drone Footage

I fly UAVs to take pictures of real estate for realtors as well as construction jobs and other various things. I do it 'for fun at cost' which means I pretty much never charge unless I'm asked to do something that results in damage to my UAV. I'm also carrying a few million dollars worth of liability coverage for this purpose.

The 'good shots' are often the ones that would put me well into areas that it is perfectly legal to fly passenger carrying light aircraft, which is only 500 feet outside of congested areas. To get good framing, 500 feet isn't that high. In a city its actually better because higher shots aren't generally as useful unless you're trying to get a tall building because you have to crop so much out of the shot anyway (no one wants to advertise someone ELSEs buildings) and the minimum altitude for aircraft there is 1000 or 2000 feet above obstructions (depending on various other aspects too numerous to get into here)

However, I easily get 'good enough' shots from below 400 feet in most cases. The only problems are large estates where you need to be higher to get enough of the place in view.

Comment: Visualing this? (Score 1) 152

by sycodon (#47431761) Attached to: Amazon Seeks US Exemption To Test Delivery Drones

I'm having a hard time visualizing how this is going to work..

Will I see these things flying over my neighborhood at 300 feet and then drop down to my front door?
Will the package be left on the lawn?
If they have 20 deliveries to my 600 home neighborhood, will they send 20 drones or send a few drones multiple times?
What is the range of these drones?
Will they send a text or call and essentially say, "come and get it?"
Wind? Rain? Construction (cranes, concrete pumpers, other tall equipment. Trees?
Automated or manned? Will there be Job postings or drone pilots?

Comment: Re:Typical (Score 5, Insightful) 303

In 2013, 101 firefighters died in the line of duty.

In 2013, about 110 police officers died...mostly in traffic accidents. Only 33 due to firearms and even among those few actually killed by bad guys.

Firefighters risk their lives on every call and are protected by nothing more than a thick coat and helmet and their brains.

The Police face risks on every call but most a boring and not dangerous. They are protected by firearms, theirs and their partners, ballistic vests, and overwhelming firepower when needed.

The Police kill innocent people all the time. Firefighters rescue innocent people all the time.

Hats off to Fire Fighters.

Comment: Re:Repercussions? (Score 2) 107

by BitZtream (#47426435) Attached to: India's National Informatics Centre Forged Google SSL Certificates

Expecting CA's to be able to reliably fight off professional hackers from dozens of governments and never ever fail is likely an impossible standard to ever meet.

Yet that is exactly what they are supposed to do. Its not even really that hard.

Every CA hack to date has been preventable as was the fault of the CA simply not putting the required effort into doing their job or being flat out malicious. Stop trying to make it out like its an uber hard job, its not.

If what they've been doing hasn't solved the problem, tell them to do something else. -- Gerald Weinberg, "The Secrets of Consulting"