Sky ‘To Be Dark’ With Unmanned Aircraft?

I know that the subject of this site is cold fusion, but I sometimes take the liberty to discuss other issues and technologies that I consider to be significant, interesting and potentially disruptive, especially when contemplating them in combination with an LENR energy source. We have talked about 3D printing and robotics here recently — another related technology is that of drones, or unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs).

Drones are most commonly discussed these days in the context of anti-terrorism strikes in which unmanned aircraft are remotely guided to send missile strikes on enemy targets — but the field of unmanned aircraft is becoming much wider than just for military applications. UAVs are fast becoming popular with hobbyists, with small and cheap quadcopter kits becoming available, which can be controlled by sophisticated software on computers or mobile phones.

A March 17th New York Times article, “Domestic Drones on Patrol” discusses some of the recent developments in the field and points out some of the political, ethical and safety issues that policymakers will have to deal with as this technology inevitably expands. The US Federal Aviation Authority has charged the Congress to draft laws governing UAVs by 2015. The article discusses some applications of UAVs already in use, or in development: searching for missing persons, firefighting, crop inspection, cargo transportation, building inspection, etc.

One of the big concerns that people bring up about UAVs is the potential violation of peoples privacy.

One of the limitations on UAVs is the length of time they can stay in the air due to current power sources. Over time, with improved energy sources (LENR, better batteries or supercapacitors, or something else) we might be seeing some of these craft able to stay airborne for much longer.

So where does the future lie with this kind of technology? It’s really not possible to say, but I get the feeling that there are thousands of applications that these kinds of machines. I can imagine small drones painting houses, washing windows, servicing communications towers, being used as security guards, and countless other purposes. I can also see this technology being appealing to criminals — not to mention the military applications.

Here’s a fascinating video of some of some mini quadcopters in action. This demonstrated was done at the University of Pennsylvania.

It seems that the acceleration of technological development is continuing unabated. Chris Anderson, of San Diego-based online seller of UAV equipment 3D Robotics says, “The sky’s going to be dark with these things.” That’s not a very appealing thought. So are UAVs something to be worried or excited about? What useful applications can you envision for them? What should we be concerned about? With all the amazing technology being developed, what kind of future are we looking at?

  • Wes

    A Homeland Security nighmare. Break out the light sabers.

  • georgehants

    If scientists read this, is there a possibility we will start seeing main-line research of Cold Fusion and UFO’s.
    ——
    Scientific American
    How Skeptics Can Break the Cycle of False Beliefs
    Pluralistic ignorance and the last best hope on earth
    By Michael Shermer
    http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=how-skeptics-break-the-cycle-of-false-beliefs

    • GreenWin

      Shermer’s original title “Dictators and Diehards” speaks to his view of the few elite who attempt to co-opt knowledge. Skeptics of knowledge-monopolies (aka orthodoxy) have risen recently in support of mavericks like Rupert Sheldrake and Graham Hancock (censored by TED Talks.) It is encouraging to see the “code of silence” being exposed as pluralistic ignorance.

      Indeed, the thousands of citizens and scientists who doubt AGW, big pharma-medicine, baseload wind/solar, 911 fabrications, national security coverups, etc., labor under a cracking code of silence. Fortunately intelligence is expanding those cracks, as more men & women of integrity and moral fiber emerge.

  • Barry

    off topic- Got this email from Future Energy. Good work Cx.

    Hi Barry,
    We’re investigating SmartPwr. We will release the names of all 8 presenters shortly. Thanks for your support and we look forward to seeing you on the 4th.

    Best regards,
    Graham

    • georgehants

      🙂

    • Barry

      Cx pointed out the small number of likes beside Smartpwr. I looked up the tally and sent this to Future Energy-

      Glad to hear. As you probably already know the number of votes totaled:

      1) Photovoltaics: 834
      2) SmartPwrNet: 728
      3) Miley 693

      But the number of likes totaled:

      1) Photovoltaics: 1199
      2) SmartPwrNet: 25
      3) Miley 462

      Smartpwr also only had two comments both of which were asking for an investigation because of a rapid number of votes in a minutes time.

      I have to admit I would like to see LENUCO present. It would be one thing if they lost in all fairness, but this is not only big but very important and I would hate to see him bumped because of unethical voting. Thanks Graham, see you at MIT, Barry

      So lets not give up yet.

      • artefact

        A good mail and I’m looking forward to another great video at MIT from you 🙂

  • georgehants

    No mention of Cold Fusion, just an administrative error I expect.
    —–
    Union of Concerned Scientists Expert to Testify at Kalamazoo Energy Forum
    Michigan Must Extend and Strengthen Its Clean Energy Policies
    KALAMAZOO, MICH. (March 18, 2013) – Union of Concerned Scientists’ Midwest Office Director Steve Frenkel will call for Governor Rick Snyder (R) and the legislature to extend and strengthen the state’s clean energy policies at the governor’s energy forum at Western Michigan University today.
    http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/expert-testify-at-MI-energy-forum-0368.html

    • GreenWin

      The Union is apparently UNconcerned with real solutions.

  • georgehants
    • artefact

      🙂

  • georgehants

    Andrea Rossi
    March 18th, 2013 at 5:07 PM
    Dear Julian Becker:
    I do not think I will be able to attend the Conference on Cold Fusion at the University of Missouri, but I wish the best success to all the organization guys and the attendants.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • LB

    Nice flying but iit Will be hard using iit outside the laboratory as the control of the copters is based on the images From the cameras om the walls

  • George N

    I imagine that air space will be rented, especially in urban areas. I think most people would agree that it would be hard to stop this technology from advancing – but order will naturally occur and we will be able to adapt. Especially if we are able to get fully automated and quick logistics. Although if we really get free energy from cold fusion, I have read somewhere that most of our roads would go underground, which might be a better environment for mass autonomous logistics systems. Therefore there might not be any good reason for an unknown uav that’s flying over your house – so maybe most people will shoot them out of the sky, haha

  • georgehants

    Oregon Company to Sell Drone Defense Technology to Public
    March 16, 2013
    Do you want to keep drones out of your backyard?
    An Oregon company says that it has developed and will soon start selling technology that disables unmanned aircraft.
    The company, called Domestic Drone Countermeasures, was founded in late February because some of its engineers see unmanned aerial vehicles—which are already being flown by law enforcement in some areas and could see wider commercial integration into American airspace by 2015—as unwanted eyes in the sky.
    http://www.infowars.com/oregon-company-to-sell-drone-defense-technology-to-public/

    • GreenWin

      They’ll do plenty of business. In the interim, a K-band radar gun (~$100) with tweaked output amp can potentially cripple FPV drones & bots at 500 yards.

  • georgehants

    Andrea Rossi
    March 18th, 2013 at 2:02 PM
    Dear Bernie Koppenhofer:
    We never worked upon funding, our strategy has always been based upon making working plants with our own money and get the funding from the payments of the Customers. This has always been our policy, because I believe in my work.
    Warmest Regards,
    Andrea

    • Bernie Koppenhofer

      georgehants…this response bothered me a little, I sent him a follow up. All the activity Rossi has been referring to, has to cost a lot of money. It seems unrealistic to me that his only source of funding is his own private funds and profits from the sale of E-Cats. What do you think?

      • yamal

        he uses ‘we’, not ‘i’, so he may well mean to include the money of his licensees and (for later expenses) his unknown partner when he talks about ‘our own money’. i think if he meant his money without including license fees and his partner, he would have said ‘my own money’.

        • Peter Roe

          I seem to remember that license fees were supposed to go into some sort of escrow account, but pending exactly what event or other triggering factor, I’m not sure.

      • georgehants

        Bernie, things bother me with just about everything to do with any science.
        Can only say that it is a crazy situation that we still don’t know for sure that Rossi is legit, but like others here I stick my neck out and say again, I am still 99.9% sure Rossi has something substantial.
        This is based on intuition and maybe some Evidence but as with many other subjects until the fat lady sings I will give the benefit of the doubt.
        Rather be wrong than prejudge or deny or accuse unjustifiably.
        I am quite sure there is a Father Christmas somewhere. Ha.

      • georgehants

        Bernie, have replied, but waiting for moderation.
        O’dear what have I said.
        p.s. you have another reply from Mr. Rossi on his page.

      • Peter Roe

        The story is that Rossi put his personal assets on the line up to the point where he sold his first LT e-cat, then used the income from this to fund everything else up until he sold the hot cat IP. That seems possible, but we have seen a few hints that the story is rather more complicated than it has been made to appear (e.g., the presence of Prof. Michael Melich (DOD-USA) and other ‘connected’ US people on Rossi’s advisory board, and other comings and goings that seem to indicate that Rossi was never quite the ‘lone inventor’ he makes out).

        Also the whole ‘partner’ saga may yet turn out to be not what we currently believe it is. I think we may be in for a few surprises when the full story finally emerges (not for quite a while though, I think).

  • robyn wyrick

    I think this is a real challenge, from a privacy POV – and in the U.S., from a Constitutional POV.

    The 4th Amendment states: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

    As I read this, it is being violated currently in many places, both federally and in the states; by both Republicans and Democrats.

    I don’t see it getting better any time soon, but I do see pressure on the other side. The issuance of National Security Letters was stuck down last week. That helps a small bit. More importantly, numerous organizations are now fighting to restore the right of privacy.

    However, they are up against everything from the NSA, state police, the FBI, and Google Glass. The ubiquity of surveillance and sophistication of intrusive devices is completely out pacing statutory law – meanwhile the Constitution pretty clearly states that most of these invasions (warrentless wiretaps, ubiquitous data mining of public records, etc) are illegal under the Constitution.

    I honestly don’t know what *can* be done, because the tools of surveillance (like my cell phone, for instance) are things that individuals not only accept, but they ask for and pay money for.

    • Iggy Dalrymple

      The remedy lies in unmanned vigilante drones (seek & collide). Remotely stationed, solar-charged batteries, with self initiated launch.

      • Peter Roe

        Excellent idea! 🙂

      • Peter Roe

        Or maybe a paintball gun or crossbow modified to fire some kind of sabot ‘bolas’ to entangle the blades (cheaper).

    • GreenWin

      Well put Robyn. Peeping Toms are a creeping problem. The U.S. correction will come from a Supreme Court returning to its mandate to uphold Constitutional peeping-preventions, e.g. the Fourth Amendment. The dysfunctional elements of State surveillance dismantled will never be missed.

  • artefact

    I don’t know if it was mentioned before

    Cold Fusion Now:

    “During the last day, a reader found evidence of vote-buying from at least one of the contestants which, according to the organizers, disqualifies them. The two winners are not implicated in that vote-buying scheme.”
    http://coldfusionnow.org/crowdvoting-not-enough-for-lenuco/

    (picture inside..)

    • Gerrit

      terrible thing.

      Anyone can anonymously put any project he dislikes on this online voting “GetVotesOnline” page and thereby have it disqualified.

      terrible.

    • cx

      So did anything become of the SmartPwr vote surge that thursday. I still say they used a bot to vote. This no way to go from less than 20 votes to almost 700 that quick. The fact that it only had 22 likes is big red flag. 🙁 Did any1 who as for investigation get a reply.

      • Barry

        Hi Cx, I emailed Future Energy and listed your concerns. I’m hopeing the staff picks will include G. Miley. Lets cross our fingers.

  • yamal

    there’s a new article about cold fusion (rossi, cravens) in the italian business times. nothing new, really, and nothing actually investigated by the paper – but at least some more or less main stream media outlet looked at our little hobby. here’s the google translation:

    http://translate.google.de/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=de&ie=UTF-8&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fit.ibtimes.com%2Farticles%2F44967%2F20130317%2Ffusione-fredda-lenr-fusione-fredda-per-auto-elettriche-andrea-rossi-cravens.htm

  • georgehants

    Mail Online
    The Great Green Con no. 1: The hard proof that finally shows global warming forecasts that are costing you billions were WRONG all along
    By David Rose
    Yesterday Piers Forster, Climate Change Professor at Leeds University, said: ‘The fact that global surface temperatures haven’t risen in the last 15 years, combined with good knowledge of the terms changing climate, make the high estimates unlikely.’
    And Professor Judith Curry, head of climate science at the prestigious Georgia Institute of Technology, said: ‘The models are running too hot. The flat trend in global surface temperatures may continue for another decade or two.’
    James Annan, of Frontier Research For Global Change, a prominent ‘warmist’, recently said high estimates for climate sensitivity now look ‘increasingly untenable’, with the true figure likely to be about half of the IPCC prediction in its last report in 2007.
    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2294560/The-great-green-1-The-hard-proof-finally-shows-global-warming-forecasts-costing-billions-WRONG-along.html#ixzz2NstEnOsA

    • Gerrit

      I don’t care who is right and who is wrong about global warming.

      I like this because it makes me understand how most people see cold fusion/LENR. Most people don’t care about it and will simply wait until something happens before getting all excited.

      Talking to those people about LENR is like talking to me about global warming.

      Who cares

      • Peter Roe

        Governments care, I would think. They use the faked AGW story to gouge unjustified ‘green’ taxes, pressure us to buy the latest model cars, stop using cheap light bulbs, close down coal power stations so they can justify new nuclear fission, and to produce derivatives such as the ‘carbon credit’ market to help make their sponsors even richer – all at our expense.

      • Iggy Dalrymple

        I care and I think the warmists are wrong. Climate has always changed. That’s how Eric the Red built a farm in Newfoundland.

        • Peter Roe

          Apparently Eric’s farm in ‘Vinland the Good’ was probably at L’Anse Aux Meadows in Northern Newfoundland – an area not currently noted for its grape harvest! Of course there may have been an element of propaganda in his naming of places he wanted his countrymen and women to join him in colonising – like ‘Greenland’, which even then was a tough place without much in the way of greenery.

        • Iggy Dalrymple

          Antarctic Ice Core Ice Age Cyclical Chart.
          We’re overdue for an ice age. If CO2 is causing global warming (which I doubt), then it’s performing a service to mankind by postponing a new ice age.

          http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_S3Q3q3ogmPM/S8vCAoFiZ1I/AAAAAAAAATQ/JPumLTo96Ac/s1600/IceCores1.gif

          Notice the temperature changes precede the CO2 changes.

    • robyn wyrick

      There are all kinds of contradictory data within the huge array of data collected on the global climate. It is not hard to find some data point that contradicts the majority of the reports.

      But that doesn’t mean that doesn’t falsify the overall consensus of climate scientists on global climate change.

      In my short (50 year) life, I have watched my hometown agricultural zone go from a 7a to a 7b because the season simply begins weeks earlier.

      I could claim that that data point is “proof” of global climate change, but it alone isn’t.

      Instead I rely on the NSF, NASA, and climate scientists – because I’m no climate scientist.

      And they are unambiguous that the gigantic array of observable data point to a serious global climate change.

      (On a side note: I don’t think that the same can be said about the scientific establishment on *everything* – including Cold Fusion. But the difference is that, whereas actual research into Cold Fusion was shut down in the mainstream, leading to a silence on the actual data being created in other circles, research into climate is expansive, cross disciplinary, and voluminous. Climate data is gathered by fisheries, meteorologists, the military, agronomists, travel companies, jet manufacturers, and on and on. But that data is compiled by Climate Scientists, and they say Global Warming is real.)

      • clovis

        1+

      • Iggy Dalrymple

        In my short (almost 74 yr), I’ve seen Florida’s commercial citrus zone move from Central Florida to South Florida and now citrus can once again grow in N Florida, S Georgia, and S Alabama. 40 years ago most Central Florida citrus was destroyed in a devastating freeze. 150 years ago N Florida was the commercial center of citrus production.

        The only constant in climate is change.

        • Peter Roe

          +1 And as yet, no-one is able to predict what it will do next, least of all ‘Climate Scientists’ – on either side of the debate.

          • robyn wyrick

            Respectfully, I think you’re very wrong: there are certainly predictions about Climate Change.

            Whether they turn out correct is another matter.

            The timescales and generalities of climate predictions are pretty wide, a couple / few degrees over x decades. So, is the dramatic evidence of polar ice melting in line with the global warming prediction? Or is the increase of antarctic ice a contradiction?

            I can’t say, but while I respect differences of opinion, I don’t disdain climate scientists.

            • Peter Roe

              Sorry, I should have said ‘accurately predict’. As Iggy D said, the only climate constant is change, and no-one seems to have demonstrated a handle on it yet.

              I don’t disdain climate researchers who are genuinely trying to figure things out (who because of their findings are often seen by the establishment as ‘renegades’ or ‘denialists’), but I do disdain those who have clambered onto the political AGW bandwagon in one way or another – the greater part of the ‘consensus’. They are essentially scientific prostitutes who don’t seem to see any problem with distorting a few facts or pinning any changes on ‘AGW’ on the basis of opinion, if that means grant money and a comfortable ride.

        • robyn wyrick

          Hi Iggy,

          Fair enough, but my point about the changes I personally have witnessed was that my anecdotal information is not climate science. I was saying that, just because I had watched something that supports my POV, doesn’t mean that that particular observation is actually proof of my conclusion.

          Change might be the constant, but respectfully, that doesn’t means there aren’t identifiable trends and causes.

          • NJT

            +1

      • Bernie Koppenhofer

        +1

      • GreenWin

        From one mainstream magazine willing to report on LENR and the inevitable shift to CF energy:

        http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2012/09/19/antarctic-sea-ice-sets-another-record/

        Robyn, the mere appearance of “consensus” means nothing to real scientists. We find consensus doubting Dr. Ed Mitchell, consciousness studies by Rupert Sheldrake, implications of placebo, AGW, 911, etc. etc. Evidence untainted by the brush of knowledge monopolies & public funding agencies often counters the herd mentality.

        Also diciplines, e.g. fisheries, study the effect of over-fishing, contaminants, chemical pollution and loss of habitat – none can be considered “climate.”

        • Peter Roe

          The so-called ‘consensus’ is as fake as AGW itself. It is based on published papers and a number of grave distortions of fact. Research that goes against the idea of AGW is in general poorly funded, and even if the research is done, many scientists seem to report abnormally problematic difficulties with reviewers and editors. ‘Warmist’ research on the other hand has a clear run as it is supported by political money and nodded through by sympathetic reviewers – a situation that is often reflected in the dubious quality of many such papers, which often just seek to add a few bells and whistles to existing junk research.

          A Larry Bell article from Forbes last year summarises the situation well:

          http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2012/07/17/that-scientific-global-warming-consensus-not/

        • georgehants

          From Daily Grail
          TED Deletes Talks by Rupert Sheldrake and Graham Hancock
          Last month I posted videos of two recent thought-provoking TEDx talks by Graham Hancock and Rupert Sheldrake. However, if you visit either of those stories today, you’ll find that the videos are no longer accessible. The reason? Complaints were made to the TED organisation – for example, by atheist blogger Jerry Coyne, and of course, P.Z. Myers – about the lectures being unscientific and full of ‘woo’. Under pressure from these bloggers and their readers (and others), TED set up a conversation page to get input from TED viewers about these talks.
          http://www.dailygrail.com/Fresh-Science/2013/3/TED-Deletes-Talks-Rupert-Sheldrake-and-Graham-Hancock

          • GreenWin

            Reprehensible. And TED personnel attempt to paint Hancock as a wild-eyed psychotropic drug pusher.

            “This provoked a storm of anger towards TED on social networks about censorship, and perhaps because of this the videos have now turned up in their own special blog post on the TED site where they can be viewed (though they can no longer be externally embedded on other websites).”

          • GreenWin

            However the comments are mostly unanimous in condemnation of TED and their purported “Science Board.” TED has lost many enthusiasts and points to the now full scale retreat of orthodox “consensus science.”

        • robyn wyrick

          Hey Peter,

          I didn’t mean that fisheries are doing climate science, but they are certainly collecting data points that climate scientists do review.

          And as to your point “the mere appearance of “consensus” means nothing to real scientists.” I think that’s fair – if you’re a climate scientist studying climate science, you need to look beyond mere consensus.

          But to be fair also, I “know” what I know about particle physics because of what physicists say – not because I have a collider.

          Same with paleontology or astronomy. I am not peer reviewing any of these papers, so I can’t judge if one paper on the water salinity is any more valid than another.

          Having said that, I’m not illiterate, and I have in fact read a few papers, and the evidence presented jives with my sense of things.

          • Peter Roe

            Hi Robyn. That a completely fair viewpoint and I wouldn’t dream of arguing that it isn’t valid. It’s not the data I would dispute, but the selectivity and interpretation sometimes put on them that I find difficult.

            My views on ‘climate science’ are of course simply my opinions, but I would venture to suggest that objectively, there is a strong indication of politically-driven bias in this particular subject that is not present in more neutral fields. There are both political and emotional inputs that have interfered with objectivity rather considerably.

            Political because it obviously suits our masters to be able to justify ‘green’ taxation, and emotional because (what I see as) propaganda designed to support the political objective has turned the whole subject into something approaching a religion in some circles, with all the associated resistance to facts, polarisation, name-calling and bitterness. That is no way to conduct science.

  • Jonas

    I’m hoping delivery services will greatly improve and get faster. For us that live in ‘remote areas’ getting stuff delivered is usually a bit of a pain, and there are lots of people having it worse than I in that respect. Hopefully one wouldn’t even have to take the car to the supermarket for food in the near future, but just send your drone.

    This will, of course, also make suppliying food and medicine to war refugees and such much easier.

    But on the negative side, smuggling of drugs and weapons will become far too easy, especially initially when governments will, most likely, drag behind. I guess if we want – as I do – a new society with self-sufficiency and greatly lessened governmental control, you’d also have to understand that many people will not have the ability to act responsibly in regard to their own and others’ safety. Perhaps one of our greates challenges lies in educating – ‘maturing’ – people to these things soon to come our way (the drones, the 3D-printers, the home-food-growing a.s.o.).

    • clovis

      1+

  • elasticbucket

    Maybe we could get a couple of zillion of these PV or other solar energy type driven devices to form an all encompassing shield to deflect uv, ir and save the planet from a global warming disaster? Don’t know what to do about the rocks though. 🙂

    • Peter Roe

      What a great idea! It almost seems a shame that there isn’t actually any global warming to save the planet from. (georgehants 10:04am) 🙂 Maybe we could have a fleet of CF powered copters permanently aloft, with big elasticated nets strung between them to catch the rocks? (Damn – I should have patented that one)

      • clovis

        1+

      • georgehants

        Ha.

  • Gerrit

    can you 3d print a quadcopter ?

    • artefact

      Just search for “quadcopter 3d print” on google.
      But you will need motors, screws and the electonics.

      • clovis

        1+

  • Roger Bird

    This makes for a very strong case for preserving gun ownership, particularly shotguns. (:->)

    • sempervivum

      I think we are very close to reaching a world very like Philip K Dick archetypal prognostications in Blade Runner

      • Peter Roe

        A whole new modelling hobby is waiting to take off – building miniature radar-controlled anti-aircraft batteries firing .22 rounds, and tiny guided missiles.

      • clovis

        love the bladerunner, great movie.

  • GreenWin

    “The best security is in exposing everything.” I guess that would apply to government as well:

    Therefore their [government’s] choice was to deny it, to hush it up. And create the National Security Act of 1947, which validated that deception and covered it up. And allowed the group to go underground… And we’ve been living with that for 50 years.”
    Edgar D. Mitchell, Sc.D, Captain U.S. Navy, NASA Astronaut, Apollo 14 Lunar Module Pilot

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7AAJ34_NMcI

  • GreenWin

    Seems like a solution for Fukushima – except that the radiation levels are so high it destroys the electronics. Also nano-bot swarms can be easily blown apart by natural or artificial winds, EMF pulse, coherent particle/photon beams, etc.

    Cool sci-fair gadgets. But this is what happens when quadcopters look for love in the wrong places: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQTLlKDCyR8

    • Peter Roe

      A camera platform seems to be the obvious first use for these gadgets, or possibly as a means of planting more permanent trackers or spying devices. Apart from harmless private uses like checking your roof or getting aerial pictures of the landscape, the most common use will inevitably be spying, as per the clip. Spying on citizens by police and govt. agencies will inevitably become uncontrolled, people will spy on other people, businesses will spy on competitors – nowhere will be private.

      Slightly heavier versions will of course be able to carry more sophisticated spying and monitoring equipment and also mount weapons, taking the potential threat to another level. As it is governments and govt. agencies that will be the main users of the technology, we can’t expect to see any controlling legislation (other than against private use, obviously).

      In countries that have been or are being disarmed, even of shotguns, there is an urgent need for some kind of EMP circuit board killer or signal blanketing device to allow private individuals to defend their privacy.

      • Iggy Dalrymple

        We need an EMP projector beam rifle.

        • Peter Roe

          Artificial ball lightning projector. Any bright kids out there looking for a school project?

          • GreenWin

            Or a decent pellet gun – available here in the United Stakes at your local Tar-get Store!

            • Peter Roe

              I still have a battered but accurate BSA airgun from my teenage years (it was secondhand and old even then!). It might come in useful again.

              • Iggy Dalrymple

                Mocking birds are noted for chasing and attacking hawks and blue-jays. Maybe we could train mocking birds to attack quadcopters (at least those with DHS insignia).

  • Jim

    I don’t mind people knowing what I do, as long as I’m not liable to be arrested for it.

    The best security is in exposing everything.

    As privacy becomes an ever thinner tissue, laws based on archaic moralities will appear as both flagrantly oppressive and just plain silly.

    “You’ve got no privacy, get over it.” (Scott McNealy, CEO of Sun Microsystems)

    • GreenWin

      “The best security is in exposing everything.” I guess that would apply to government as well:

      “Therefore their [government’s] choice was to deny it, to hush it up. And create the National Security Act of 1947, which validated that deception and covered it up. And allowed the group to go underground… And we’ve been living with that for 50 years.”
      Edgar D. Mitchell, Sc.D, Captain U.S. Navy, NASA Astronaut, Apollo 14 Lunar Module Pilot

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7AAJ34_NMcI

    • clovis

      I agree Jim,
      And it looks like that if you are up to no good, you had better give it up, because we are watching, and listening, and i would give up a little security in order to break the strangle holt that the bad guys has at present, we are bound for a new world and it’s a good one, coming soon,–smile