the Eagle Nebula dubbed the Pillars of Creation
I thought they were space meerkats.
3263 posts • joined 19 May 2010
Oh, you've done it now!
Let's avoid the obvious ones, like Scunthorpe and Penistone, shall we? Oh, too late...
Ecclefechan, Dumfries and Galloway
Lickey End, Worcestershire
Little Snoring, Norfolk
Lower Assendon, Oxfordshire
Lower Dicker, East Sussex
Upper Boddam, Aberdeenshire
Shall I go on?
So far nobody else has been identified or arrested over the shutdown.
Curious how the story has rapidly been squashed, and not one enterprising journalist has written anything about why, given the massive disruption, nothing much has been done.
Gatwick, Heathrow and Edinburgh have apparently bought unspecified (but very expensive) anti-drone technology, but it would be interesting to see what would actually happen if someone reported drone sightings this week...
Now you've reminded me, there used to be a company - can't remember the name now, but a well known purveyor of computer peripherals - who sold a set of floppy disk holders (5 1/4 natch) which were designed... designed! to fit over a CRT monitor like a pair of saddlebags, with the floppies each side of the screen!
I wonder how many people thought that was a good idea...
Look at what's just happened in Germany:
and now imagine that they already had a porn watchers database in operation.
If data is collected by the government, it WILL be hacked, and it WILL be used for malicious purposes.
My comprehension is that "eggheads" refers to those who work purely theoretically, whereas "boffins" are those who combine the theory with the practical tinkering necessary to produce a working version.
However there is some blurring of this distinction, as I would consider Trevor Bayliss to be a Boffin, but I would also put Barnes Wallis in the same category, even though strictly he was an Egghead.
Oh, and I don't consider either term to be pejorative or derogatory.
It's defeatist nonsense in either case.
So you think punishing or restricting the majority will make any difference to future instances like this?
Or do you perhaps think it's possible to unilaterally ban the manufacture, sale and use of drones completely, remove all the internet content on how to bypass drone restrictions, or modify a drone for longer endurance, and get everyone to forget completely how to build, modify or fly a drone?
If not, then this is going to happen again and again.
Why is it that politicians (and pilots on PPrune) don't seem to understand that regulation only stops people who are prepared to abide by the rules?
Criminals and terrorists will just ignore any restrictions, so the only impact will be on law-abiding citizens who already follow the existing rules.
You cannot ban drones, anymore than you can ban encryption, the technology now exists and is widely available, it's too late.
As I posted above in response to a similar question:
What resources do you think the RAF has which are capable of dealing with a threat that is slow moving and doesn't go above about 800 feet?
What has the RAF got that can deal with what is essentially a mobile but ground-based threat?
FlightRadar24 doesn't use radar, sorry.
It relies on ADS-B information, or multilateration using FlightRadar24 receivers, both of which techniques require the target to be actively transmitting a recognisable signal. It is unlikely that a drone would have that sort of transmitter fitted.
3 people were killed during a ground nitrous oxide tanking test in development of Space Ship Two. That's four dead and they aren't even in commercial service yet.
How many people do you think died in developing aircraft to the point where they were commercially successful? How many people died before automobiles were generally safe to drive? How many people died building the railways?
People die, it happens all the time. This generation seems to think any loss of life is unacceptable, and because of that, are needlessly risk averse.
Earlier generations were more pragmatic.
Just to point out that Branson's endeavour is the only one so far to offer spaceflight (even if illusory) to "ordinary people" - in quotes because you have to be rich, Obvs - but by that I mean, not trained astronauts.
Think back to the early days of powered flight, and that's exactly what happened, it was first touted as a rich plaything, before disseminating to the general public.
Automobiles, too, were first and foremost a thing for rich people to play with, until mass-production became a thing.
If you go further back, look at Richard Trevithick who offered rides behind his new steam locomotive on a circle of track, to those who could afford it.
So don't be so disparaging, most of the innovations in transport have started this way, and it is a necessary step on the path to more widespread use.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019