Posted on 06/14/2010 2:54:35 AM PDT by Bad~Rodeo
Edited on 06/14/2010 5:18:59 AM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
WASHINGTON
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
“If you’ve got nothing to hide, you have nothing to worry about.” ~The German People, 1933
This doesn't jive. Seems to be quite a bit of investment for little comparative return.
You are at the age of the “new beginning”. In twenty years...at least one hundred ‘global platforms’ will be circling the United States at any given time. They will work for Homeland Security and have regional offices to connect state police and state officials to real-time imagery. It’ll be a billion-dollar a year contract.
Skynet
The return would be a police state where the United States once stood.
>>>>>The return would be a police state where the United States once stood<<<<<<<
We are pretty close to that now. As soon as we aer unarmed we have it.
I’m a strong believer in the right to hide nothing.
I don’t think flying red light cameras will be any more politically popular than the stationary one’s have shown to be. There are companies ready to sell this idea to local governments, however, and there’s a sucker elected to municipal government every seventeen minutes or so.
Except that the next step is for socialists to begin discerning right behavior from wrong behavior on the premise that God doesn’t exist, but believing their thinking is inerrant independent of God. After that type of discernment, they will establish laws and regulations which now may be enforced by totalitarian methods.
Believers in God hold that the best way to live righteously is from within the heart, while those separate from God are myopic on controlling behavior from outside the heart.
The next step after the failure of socialist totalitarianism, is either to turn to God, or to reject God and attempt to change the way people think by “re-education”, again to the norms and standards adopted by those in power.
When that fails, the arrogant in power will then seek to control the thinking of those who oppose them, even to the point of any physical mechanism which leads to the Mark of the Beast.
“Skynet”
They will turn on us.
The ONLY place we need these things is ON THE BORDER.
Well, you know Google wants one.
This is a subject I have been researching (apology for the long post):
Major General Marke Gibson, USAF Director of Operations; the main challenge to UAV NAS operations is widespread misunderstanding about the safety of UAVs. “We’re dealing with a lack of understanding and knowledge about (UAVs). Because they are unmanned, there is a negative connotation that they are out roaming around like ‘machine sharks,’ but, in fact, they are remotely controlled by a qualified pilot who is in control.” Dec 9, 2009, UAV Conference, Tyndall AFB, FL.
UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLES AND THE NATIONAL AIRSPACE
UAVs historically fly in restricted airspace (test and training ranges) or war zones, and have largely avoided conflict with manned aircraft. This is changing due to increased UAV military testing, training and operational requirements, as well as growing domestic security roles and the emerging role UAVs play in the commercial sector (emergency first-responders, geo-surveys, aerial photography, urban development, etc.). Consequently, it is imperative UAVs be seamlessly and safely integrated into the National Airspace (NAS).
Currently, there are a plethora of agencies and regulatory bodies that are trying to bring order to the chaos of establishing a uniform, international UAV standard. However independent or loosely coordinated these efforts are, their shared goal is to assure UAVs meet the same standards of safety for manned flights and not be burdened with higher levels of performance simply because of enabling technology. Because the most common cause of manned mishaps are mid-air collisions, UAV operations should expect the same and address the challenge of “see-and-avoid.”
“SEE-AND-AVOID” V “SENSE-AND-AVOID”
“The overall objective failure rate for the Predator is on the order of 10-5, a value equal to that for a number of mature manned aircraft.” DOD Unmanned Aerial System Roadmap 2005—2030, Appendix 6—Reliability, Pg H-6
Regardless of the class of airspace (controlled, uncontrolled), or Air Traffic Control (ATC) service, pilots are required to “see-and-avoid other aircraft” whenever weather permits. UAVs should also meet this standard.
Whereas, manned aircraft primarily use visual cues when executing see-and-avoid, the UAV operator uses technical means to “see” (sense). Regardless of the mode (sight or technology), pilots and UAV operators will “sense” to avoid potential conflicts. Whatever means used, they both sense-and-avoid (S&A) and therefore can meet “see-and-avoid” regulatory requirements.
Although S&A capabilities are not quantifiably defined, certain documents help circumscribe the requirements for such a capability. However, within those documents a bias regarding UAV S&A emerges, with “see-and-avoid” as the primary obstacle to integration and acceptance of UAV operations in the NAS. Essentially, the bias appears to overburden UAV operations with onerous levels of safety far beyond manned flight thresholds. In the United States, this issue was addressed early through an FAA White Paper, Sense-and-Avoid Requirement for Remotely Operated Aircraft, June 2004. The White Paper suggested UAV sensing technologies may actually eventually reduce air-to-air mishaps because technology is not influenced by external distractions, attention lapses or emotional overlays. Therefore, S&A technology can reasonably be expected to evolve to meet (or exceed) manned safety standards. The challenge then is to collate and synthesize the research to prove the concept beyond anecdotal research results. Of course, once proved, UAV S&A safety performance needs to be continually researched and analyzed to detect trends and identify cross-functional technologies that may enhance manned flight capabilities. Nonetheless, it is clear UAV technology and operations are in some cases achieving safety rates equal to manned systems.
There are many formulas establishing a benchmark level of a safe UAV S&A capability, but there is no uniform standard, because if there were, there would be one formula recognized as the objective safety score. To establish a standard without solid grounding in meaningful data will result in bad policy that either establishes an unreasonably high S&A standard or establishes an unsafe lower standard. Simply put, uniform, verified data is desperately needed to ensure reasonable UAV safety regulation. This regulation, internationally recognized, should require UAVs have onboard a self-contained ability to detect traffic conflicts, independently determine right-of-way, predictably maneuver well clear, and yield if the other platform does not adhere to avoidance responsibilities.
The introduction of UAVs into the NAS is challenging. Government, civil, industry and military UAV proponents are eager partners in developing and implementing operationally sound UAV practices. That said, close coordination with the US is in order to leverage their UAV advances. With mature S&A technology, coupled with professional certification standards for UAV operators, UAVs can operate safely in the NAS at a safety rate that is equal to, or better than, manned aircraft. Therefore, it is recommended efforts focus on forming a central technology development “center-of-excellence” that would function as an accrediting focal for collating S&A research and development findings, issuing reports and recommending reasonable UAV regulatory standards based on hard data.
First thing Obama will do with them is zap people who try to go to their doctor of choice; next they`ll blow up the new speakeasys, where people eat prohibited foods with fat and sodium... I am shocked, shocked to find that all those libs screaming about Bush creating a police state are silent now, as they have been throughout the reign of First Beaurocrat Obama.
Yes it is and I say screw the bureaucratic red tape and go this route instead.
Good point.
These damn things are a major step toward elimination of all personal privacy and the imposition of a police state and you’re pimping them because you don’t think they will run into stuff?
May your chains sit lightly.
Apologies if I misunderstand your point. It’s hard to wade through that bureaucrateze verbage on one cup of coffee.
Given that they refuse to protect our southern border, why would they want to fly these drones over our country? Take pictures of tea party gatherings?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.