RC Archive
Raffaello D'Andrea ~ Feedback Control and the Coming Machine Revolution
http://www.youtube.com/embed/C4IJXAVXgIo?rel=0
Drones Being Used By Military in Afghanistan (Black Hornet Nano)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1tetyswGyGA&NR=1&feature=fvwp
Avian-Inspired Grasping For Quadrotor Micro Aerial Vehicles
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ol8c9bdp7YI &feature=player_embedded#
Quadrocopter Pole Acrobatics
http://www.youtube.com/embed/pp89tTDxXuI?rel=0
http://www.ai-rider.com/en/index.html
http://www.youtube.com/embed/Vo8HxNniSYE?rel=0
BURNING MAN FPV - Black Rock City Aerial Tour 2012
http://www.youtube.com/embed/ftsNhUKAJ-s?rel=0
Simple Landing Gear
http://www.youtube.com/embed/CGG_7RIInrM?rel=0
Flite Test : Cool Ghoul - PROJECT
http://www.youtube.com/embed/j7eCJ05rupM?rel=0
Monster NutBall: Hey Friends, here are the plans to build the Monster NutBall featured in some of our videos including the Cool Ghoul and the most recent Candy Plane episode.
The Cool Ghoul: After watching an episode of Flite Test on YouTube aptly named 'Cool Ghoul' we decided we just HAD to make this plane for Halloween.
The NutBall ... It's what you get when you combine a Pizza Box Flyer with a Smart Dart, the best of both. It's round and it flies like crazy, hence the name.
Ghost Quadcopter
http://www.youtube.com/embed/BkNnzmWviHA?rel=0
Paranormal R/C Activity - Movie Trailer
http://www.youtube.com/embed/TjRAMy5WxXE?rel=0
Aerial drone photography
When your camera flies without you
nikonrumors.com via Fred
Burning Man From Above
http://player.vimeo.com/video/49735457
Memo to would-be journalists:
get your drone pilot's licence
Roy Greenslade, 29 October 2012, guardian.co.uk, Source
UNL's Drone Journalism Lab: Nebraska's Drought of 2012
http://www.youtube.com/embed/HV0iKlF9AdA?rel=0
I know it's fashionable for publishers to cut back on staffing so I wonder what they think of this initiative: drone journalism.
The film above shows how a drone - more properly called an "unmanned aerial vehicle" - was used to cover this year's record drought in the US state of Nebraska.
And the film below shows the vehicle itself, and the ease with which its pilot is able to control it. So, to add to all those other skills modern journalists are now expected to have, expect "drone piloting" to feature on future CVs.
Drone journalism from the ground
http://www.youtube.com/embed/Cr6VxiZTBgk?rel=0
The project, pioneered by Drone Journalism Lab, was discussed at a Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism seminar last week.
As Judith Townend pointed out, there are wide-ranging possibilities for the use of drone journalism, such as the coverage of conflicts and environmental disasters, and also sports reporting.
But there are many potential problems too. Will there be objections from governments and consequent regulatory oversights? Will there be privacy issues? How should news outlets deal with third-party drone content?
Following the seminar, these questions will get an airing in a report from the Reuters Institute. I doubt that it will point out one obvious plus for publishers - the saving in reporters' expense accounts.
Sources: Judith Townend/Reuters Institute/YouTube and YouTube
Drones should be banned
from private use, says
Google's Eric Schmidt
Google executive chairman says in Guardian interview that technology has potential to 'democratise the ability to fight war'
James Ball, The Guardian, Friday 12 April 2013, Source
Eric Schmidt has raised concerns over the use of miniature drones
by individuals. Photograph: Christopher Lane for the Guardian
The use of cheap, miniature "everyman" drones needs to be banned by international treaties before such devices fall into the hands of private users including terrorists, the head of Google has said.
In an extended interview with the Guardian, Eric Schmidt, executive chairman of Google and an adviser to Barack Obama's presidential campaign, warned of the potential of new technology to "democratise the ability to fight war", and said drones could soon be used to harass and spy on neighbours.
"You're having a dispute with your neighbour," he hypothesised. "How would you feel if your neighbour went over and bought a commercial observation drone that they can launch from their back yard. It just flies over your house all day. How would you feel about it?"
Schmidt set out the trajectory of robotic warfare and considered whether it would be confined solely to national governments. "It's probable that robotics becomes a significant component of nation state warfare," he said.
"I'm not going to pass judgment on whether armies should exist, but I would prefer to not spread and democratise the ability to fight war to every single human being.
"It's got to be regulated. You just can't imagine that British people would allow this sort of thing, and I can't imagine American people would allow this sort of thing. It's one thing for governments, who have some legitimacy in what they're doing, but have other people doing it … It's not going to happen."
The US government's use of military drones has proven increasingly controversial, with drone strikes on American citizens the subject of a recent 12-hour Senate filibuster by the Republican senator Rand Paul. The Bureau of Investigative Journalism estimates that US drone strikes in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia have been responsible for at least 2,772 deaths.
Schmidt's warnings on privacy in the robotic era notwithstanding, Google itself has been frequently criticised by privacy campaigners concerned about the company's huge reach and the extensive data collection used to power its multibillion-dollar advertising sales.
Challenged on these issues, Schmidt said Google was "super-sensitive" on privacy and had voluntarily kiboshed projects it thought could lead to privacy breaches. "Google is not a bunch of engineers who throw stuff over the wall," he said. "A classic example is that a team built a facial-recognition tool. It was just really good – state of the art at the time. We stopped that product for two reasons. One is that it turned out to be illegal in Europe and the second was that it was not a good product to offer in the US for the same reasons."
Schmidt, who said he was "literally in the room" when the decision was made to kill the product, said it had been a judgment call taken on Google's own initiative.
"Facial recognition, completely unmonitored, can be used for very bad things," he said. "It can be used for stalking, for example. You know, it's just we don't want to be part of that as a company. There are cases where facial recognition can be used, but they need to be fairly carefully boxed."
Schmidt also addressed the "transition fund", valued at between €50m and €60m (£33m- £39m), set up by Google after negotiations with the French government. The fund will support technologies to help French publishing companies that are suffering during the transition to digital to monetise their content.
Schmidt avoided the question of whether a similar fund could be established in the UK. "I'm sure we can talk about it," he said. "The reason I like this model is it's … I don't like the idea of randomly writing cheques to publishers in the old model, and I think it's a very good idea for Google to assist in the transformation of their business model from old to new."
Google chief urges action
to regulate mini-drones
Drones like the one pictured are being used to detect poachers in the
Indian state of Assam - one of the many non-military uses for such aircraft
The influential head of Google, Eric Schmidt, has called for civilian drone technology to be regulated, warning about privacy and security concerns. [Ed. Note: This is from the person who handed out personal user information on almost everyone on planet Earth, but does appear to want his own personal information published.]
Cheap miniature versions of the unmanned aircraft used by the military could fall into the wrong hands, he told the UK's Guardian newspaper.
Quarrelling neighbours, he suggested, might end up buzzing each other with private surveillance drones.
He also warned of the risk of terrorists using the new technology.
Mr Schmidt is believed to have close relations with US President Barack Obama, whom he advises on matters of science and technology.
"You're having a dispute with your neighbour," he told The Guardian in an interview printed on Saturday.
"How would you feel if your neighbour went over and bought a commercial observation drone that they can launch from their backyard. It just flies over your house all day. How would you feel about it?"
Warning of mini-drones' potential as a terrorist weapon, he said: "I'm not going to pass judgment on whether armies should exist, but I would prefer to not spread and democratise the ability to fight war to every single human being."
"It's got to be regulated... It's one thing for governments, who have some legitimacy in what they're doing, but have other people doing it... it's not going to happen."
Small drones, such as flying cameras, are already available worldwide, and non-military surveillance were recently introduced to track poachers in the remote Indian state of Assam.
The US and Israel have led the way in recent years in using drones as weapons of war as well as for surveillance.
America's Federal Aviation Administration is currently exploring how commercial drones, or unmanned aircraft systems, can be safely introduced into US airspace.
Don’t look now,
but something’s watching you
BeatFreakz - Somebody's Watching Me
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lh8_4qqX5bo
By Amy E. Feldman, National Constitution Center, Article Source
In the 1984 song "Somebody’s Watching Me," Michael Jackson sang: "I always feel like/ Somebody’s watching me/ And I have no privacy." He certainly could not have foreseen that within thirty years, the lyrics to that song could be changed to "I always feel like/ SomeTHING’s watching me/ And I have no privacy." Because as Orwellian as the year 1984 seemed, it could not have matched the potential for Big Brother-like surveillance that drones have the power to create in 2013.
Private drones. Source: Creative Commons
Much has been written about the constitutional concerns over weaponized drones, the unmanned combat-ready flying robots, including on Constitution Daily. But even drones without weapons or the potential to injure or kill—so-called "surveillance drones" that collect information about citizens—are raising real concern among privacy advocates and constitutional scholars.
In contrast with bulky and costly police helicopters, the surveillance drones have advanced to the point that so-called microdrones, about the size of birds or even bugs, can fly silently and inconspicuously, and cost as little as a few hundred dollars. It is estimated that although there are currently relatively few drones today, according to the Congressional Research Service, the Federal Aviation Administration estimates that there will be 30,000 drones flying in U.S. airspace in the next twenty years.
There can be no doubt about the value of the treasure trove of information potentially provided by drones, including aid to emergency search and rescue operations and critical law enforcement operations for public safety. But when they can be deployed, and what information they can gather about you or about a suspect in an investigation, is still unsettled. The Fourth 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."
Now, surveillance drones eliminate the need to enter a home to find evidence of criminal behavior, but can, instead, view such activity by hovering near a home’s window. So the question arises: Does law enforcement have to get a search warrant to deploy a drone to gather information? If so, when?
In Katz v. United States in 1967, the Supreme Court found that the need for the government to get a search warrant depends on whether the person had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the area to be searched. So it seems that if the police want to fly a drone to hover outside a suspect’s bedroom window in order to conduct surveillance, it would likely need a warrant. And areas outside a person’s home but still within close proximity, like the driveway, are what the court has called "curtilage" and are still afforded some Fourth Amendment protection (United States v. Hester, 1924).
That said, surveillance drones have a far broader ability to track and monitor the actions of citizens who may or may not be suspected of a crime. Through February 2013, 31 states have considered legislation to ensure privacy from surveillance drones. To date, none has become law, although both houses of the legislature of Virginia have passed a two-year moratorium on the use of drones by state and local law enforcement that awaits the governor’s signature; the city of Charlottesville, Virginia, last month passed a municipal drone resolution banning the sale or use by the municipality of surveillance drones.
Without a doubt, this issue is a thriller, as Michael Jackson would say. You can expect to see much more debate on this issue in the next year. What do you think? How do you balance a citizen’s right to be free of surveillance against the government’s need to protect citizens? Let us know!
Amy E. Feldman is the Legal Education Consultant to the National Constitution Center. She is the General Counsel of The Judge Group, Inc., a leading global professional services based in Philadelphia.
Google head worried about
privacy risk posed by
civilian drones
[Could be titled:
Massive Wealth Creates Paranoia?]"How would you feel if your neighbor…bought a commercial observation drone?"
by Cyrus Farivar, Ars Technica, Apr 14 2013, Article Source
In a subscribers-only interview published Saturday in the British newspaper, The Guardian, Google chairman Eric Schmidt called for increased regulation for non-military and non-law enforcement uses of drones.
"How would you feel if your neighbor went over and bought a commercial observation drone that they can launch from their backyard,” he said. “It just flies over your house all day. How would you feel about it?"
According to the BBC, which summarized Schmidt’s remarks, he also expressed concern about small drones’ potential use as an inexpensive weapon by unsavory characters.
"I'm not going to pass judgment on whether armies should exist, but I would prefer to not spread and democratize the ability to fight war to every single human being,” he said. "It's got to be regulated... It's one thing for governments, who have some legitimacy in what they're doing, but have other people doing it... it's not going to happen."
Schmidt has previously made similar remarks to the British newspaper in January 2013.
"Terrorists and criminals could use drones to carry IEDs [improvised explosive devices]—that could result in conflict between civil and military drones," he said.
"Or it could happen over the US-Mexico border. Maybe we'll even see the world's first drone strike against cyber-terrorists. That's how seriously evil part of this [growth in technology] could be.”
His remarks came just days after Idaho’s governor signed a bill into law that now requires a warrant to collect evidence from drones, and imposes other related restrictions on drone use by law enforcement.
Also this past week, India deployed drones in the northeastern part of the country as a way to combat rhinoceros poaching.
Related Interest
Cigarron
http://www.youtube.com/embed/KOHV6-a8Kig?rel=0
