The helicopter features a remote camera for eas of aiming.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=4cd_1228911752

i

On Thu, 02 Jul 2009 23:28:01 -0500, the infamous Ignoramus31617
scrawled the following:

The helicopter features a remote camera for eas of aiming.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=4cd_1228911752

So, who picked up Jim Simmons (the filmmaker/machinist/"terrorist")
first, the BATFE, the FBI, or the DHS?

Fun stuff! Note how the rapid firing sent the copter backwards a few
feet. Physics works!

--
Only the curious will learn and only the resolute overcome
the obstacles to learning. The quest quotient has always
excited me more than the intelligence quotient.
-- Eugene S. Wilson

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 02 Jul 2009 23:28:01 -0500, the infamous Ignoramus31617
scrawled the following:

The helicopter features a remote camera for eas of aiming.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=4cd_1228911752

So, who picked up Jim Simmons (the filmmaker/machinist/"terrorist")
first, the BATFE, the FBI, or the DHS?

Fun stuff! Note how the rapid firing sent the copter backwards a few
feet. Physics works!

--

Now mount a .22 "American 180" full auto on there and you got something!
http://world.guns.ru/smg/smg62-e.htm

On Fri, 3 Jul 2009 09:50:51 -0400, the infamous "Buerste"
scrawled the following:


"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 02 Jul 2009 23:28:01 -0500, the infamous Ignoramus31617
scrawled the following:

The helicopter features a remote camera for eas of aiming.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=4cd_1228911752

So, who picked up Jim Simmons (the filmmaker/machinist/"terrorist")
first, the BATFE, the FBI, or the DHS?

Fun stuff! Note how the rapid firing sent the copter backwards a few
feet. Physics works!

--

Now mount a .22 "American 180" full auto on there and you got something!
http://world.guns.ru/smg/smg62-e.htm

You'd need a minimum of 4x the lifting power and one helluva gyro,
methinks.

--
Only the curious will learn and only the resolute overcome
the obstacles to learning. The quest quotient has always
excited me more than the intelligence quotient.
-- Eugene S. Wilson

On 2009-07-03, Buerste wrote:
The helicopter features a remote camera for eas of aiming.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=4cd_1228911752

Now mount a .22 "American 180" full auto on there and you got something!
http://world.guns.ru/smg/smg62-e.htm


That would be a rather formidable weapon. That could really be a
terrorist tool of some sort, scary.

Ignoramus1923 wrote:

On 2009-07-03, Buerste wrote:
The helicopter features a remote camera for eas of aiming.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=4cd_1228911752

Now mount a .22 "American 180" full auto on there and you got something!
http://world.guns.ru/smg/smg62-e.htm


That would be a rather formidable weapon. That could really be a
terrorist tool of some sort, scary.

An ordinary crop duster aircraft loaded with chemical, biological or
nuclear material is cheaper (steal), easier (no need to try to stay in
radio range of the target), and more effective.

Ignoramus31617 wrote:

The helicopter features a remote camera for eas of aiming.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=4cd_1228911752

i

Don't tell Sarah Brady.

On 2009-07-03, Wes wrote:
Ignoramus31617 wrote:

The helicopter features a remote camera for eas of aiming.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=4cd_1228911752

i

Don't tell Sarah Brady.

I thought she was dead from lung cancer?

i

On Thu, 02 Jul 2009 23:28:01 -0500, Ignoramus31617
wrote:

The helicopter features a remote camera for eas of aiming.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=4cd_1228911752

Those guys have probably never experienced an in-air radio failure. I
have. Twice. I think helicopters are plenty dangerous enough as they
are.

In my opinion, this guy is an irresponsible idiot. It would almost be
funny if the helicopter turned around and shot its pilot in the head.
--
RoRo

Ignoramus1923 wrote:

On 2009-07-03, Wes wrote:
Ignoramus31617 wrote:

The helicopter features a remote camera for eas of aiming.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=4cd_1228911752

i

Don't tell Sarah Brady.

I thought she was dead from lung cancer?

i

I think she is still alive and fighting freedom.

Wes
--
"Additionally as a security officer, I carry a gun to protect
government officials but my life isn't worth protecting at home
in their eyes." Dick Anthony Heller

On 2009-07-03, William Wixon wrote:
i don't know very much about RC aircraft but only one time i was at a RC
airplane get together, some guy was flying his large very expensive RC
airplane and all the sudden he started yelling (screaming) for
someone/everyone to turn off their radio transmitter, apparently someone had
inadvertently gotten onto his frequency and he completely lost control of
his airplane. didn't know that was a hazard for RC airplanes, was an eye
opener. (whoever it was turned off their transmitter in time and the guy
recovered control of his airplane.) wonder if there are now transmitters
that aren't vulnerable to that or if there even might be some sort of
encoded secure transmitters? must be huh for the drones and uav's the
military uses.

I am sure that the military is not stupid and uses proper digital
signatures and cryptographic protocols to control their UAVs.

Manufacturers of RC toys are not stupid either, but this crypto stuff
adds a lot of cost (as it requires a CPU, more or less) so they do not
use it.

i

Robert Roland wrote:
On Thu, 02 Jul 2009 23:28:01 -0500, Ignoramus31617
wrote:

The helicopter features a remote camera for eas of aiming.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=4cd_1228911752

Those guys have probably never experienced an in-air radio failure. I
have. Twice. I think helicopters are plenty dangerous enough as they
are.

In my opinion, this guy is an irresponsible idiot. It would almost be
funny if the helicopter turned around and shot its pilot in the head.

Well, if every guy's invention had to pass a safety inspection, Wilbur and
Orville probably would never have gotten off of the ground.

BUT, yeah, I thought the same thing when I saw that. Hopefully there are
safety mechanisms in place which we are not aware of.

Jon

i don't know very much about RC aircraft but only one time i was at a RC
airplane get together, some guy was flying his large very expensive RC
airplane and all the sudden he started yelling (screaming) for
someone/everyone to turn off their radio transmitter, apparently someone had
inadvertently gotten onto his frequency and he completely lost control of
his airplane. didn't know that was a hazard for RC airplanes, was an eye
opener. (whoever it was turned off their transmitter in time and the guy
recovered control of his airplane.) wonder if there are now transmitters
that aren't vulnerable to that or if there even might be some sort of
encoded secure transmitters? must be huh for the drones and uav's the
military uses.

b.w.



"Robert Roland" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 02 Jul 2009 23:28:01 -0500, Ignoramus31617
wrote:

The helicopter features a remote camera for eas of aiming.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=4cd_1228911752

Those guys have probably never experienced an in-air radio failure. I
have. Twice. I think helicopters are plenty dangerous enough as they
are.

In my opinion, this guy is an irresponsible idiot. It would almost be
funny if the helicopter turned around and shot its pilot in the head.
--
RoRo

Ignoramus1923 wrote:
On 2009-07-03, William Wixon wrote:
i don't know very much about RC aircraft but only one time i was at a RC
airplane get together, some guy was flying his large very expensive RC
airplane and all the sudden he started yelling (screaming) for
someone/everyone to turn off their radio transmitter, apparently someone had
inadvertently gotten onto his frequency and he completely lost control of
his airplane. didn't know that was a hazard for RC airplanes, was an eye
opener. (whoever it was turned off their transmitter in time and the guy
recovered control of his airplane.) wonder if there are now transmitters
that aren't vulnerable to that or if there even might be some sort of
encoded secure transmitters? must be huh for the drones and uav's the
military uses.

I am sure that the military is not stupid and uses proper digital
signatures and cryptographic protocols to control their UAVs.

Manufacturers of RC toys are not stupid either, but this crypto stuff
adds a lot of cost (as it requires a CPU, more or less) so they do not
use it.

i

A couple of working definitions for the discussion

1) Jamming; preventing your receiver from receiving your transmission.
2) Spoofing; mimicing your transmission to send disinformation to you
receiver.

There are radio systems that are resistant to jamming, nothing is jam
proof. Enough power, enough spectrum and you can jam anything. You can
make your system harder, more expensive to jam, but not jam proof.

Cryptos do nothing to prevent jamming, they prevent other folks from
making sense out of your transmission, they can prevent spoofing.
Cryptos are frequently used along with anti jamming techniques.

CarlBoyd

On Fri, 3 Jul 2009 12:58:00 -0500, "William Wixon"
wrote:

i don't know very much about RC aircraft but only one time i was at a RC
airplane get together, some guy was flying his large very expensive RC
airplane and all the sudden he started yelling (screaming) for
someone/everyone to turn off their radio transmitter, apparently someone had
inadvertently gotten onto his frequency and he completely lost control of
his airplane. didn't know that was a hazard for RC airplanes, was an eye
opener. (whoever it was turned off their transmitter in time and the guy
recovered control of his airplane.) wonder if there are now transmitters
that aren't vulnerable to that or if there even might be some sort of
encoded secure transmitters? must be huh for the drones and uav's the
military uses.

b.w.

There are only so many RF frequencies available to use
practically. And there are even fewer legal to use for such
purposes. RF is RF and if the foreign signal (another
controller) is strong enough you will be ****-out-of-luck no
matter what kind of encoding/control scheme is in use.
Another person may not be able to take over control without
the proper signaling scheme but they can effectively jam
your control.

The best defense in a jamming situation would be for your
vehicle to be looking for some sort of "heart-beat" type
pulse. If it is not received in a certain time frame to go
into a programmed shutdown, glide type landing.

--
Leon Fisk
Grand Rapids MI/Zone 5b
Remove no.spam for email

William Wixon wrote:

i don't know very much about RC aircraft but only one time i was at a RC
airplane get together, some guy was flying his large very expensive RC
airplane and all the sudden he started yelling (screaming) for
someone/everyone to turn off their radio transmitter, apparently someone had
inadvertently gotten onto his frequency and he completely lost control of
his airplane. didn't know that was a hazard for RC airplanes, was an eye
opener. (whoever it was turned off their transmitter in time and the guy
recovered control of his airplane.) wonder if there are now transmitters
that aren't vulnerable to that or if there even might be some sort of
encoded secure transmitters? must be huh for the drones and uav's the
military uses.

There are full auto-pilot modules available for both RC planes and
helicopters that can keep the craft stable in the event of a radio link
failure.

On Jul 3, 10:58*am, "William Wixon" wrote:
i don't know very much about RC aircraft but only one time i was at a RC
airplane get together, some guy was flying his large very expensive RC
airplane and all the sudden he started yelling (screaming) for
someone/everyone to turn off their radio transmitter, apparently someone had
inadvertently gotten onto his frequency and he completely lost control of
his airplane. *didn't know that was a hazard for RC airplanes, was an eye
opener. *(whoever it was turned off their transmitter in time and the guy
recovered control of his airplane.) *wonder if there are now transmitters
that aren't vulnerable to that or if there even might be some sort of
encoded secure transmitters? *must be huh for the drones and uav's the
military uses.

b.w.


If you ever get to another one, check the color of the flag at the end
of the antenna on the control box. That should match to a frequency
assignment board at the meet controller's site. No two colors should
be active at the same time.

Paul

"Ignoramus31617" wrote in message
...
The helicopter features a remote camera for eas of aiming.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=4cd_1228911752


Interesting and fun, but I wonder if it's illegal in his state, or against
federal law.

Most states at least have laws that forbid gun fire from motor vehicles, and
the feds prohibit gun fire from aircraft. Sure, special permits are
available, but I wonder if this guy has considered or dealt with these
issues.

I guess I might just do such a thing myself, but I would be real reluctant
to publicize it, much less put my name on it.

On Fri, 3 Jul 2009 12:58:00 -0500, "William Wixon"
wrote:

wonder if there are now transmitters
that aren't vulnerable to that or if there even might be some sort of
encoded secure transmitters?

There are. The latest and greatest in R/C nowadays is the 2.4GHz
stuff. There are different systems on the market. They all
automatically manage frequencies so that no signal collision should
occur. But they are far from problem free, and definitely not bullet
proof.
--
RoRo

On Fri, 03 Jul 2009 13:46:58 -0500, "Pete C."
wrote:

There are full auto-pilot modules available for both RC planes and
helicopters that can keep the craft stable in the event of a radio link
failure.

Of course. But no matter how many possible failure modes you protect
yourself against, there will always be at least one you didn't think
of. Also, a failsafe system is going to cost money, weight, space and
power.

My most recent crash was due to a failed potentiometer in the
transmitter stick. The transmitter suddenly commanded hard left
aileron. Any on-board system would see this as pilot input, and not
detect any problem at all, unless there was some sort of intelligence
able to decide what types of maneuvers are OK at any given time.
--
RoRo

On 2009-07-03, CarlBoyd wrote:
Ignoramus1923 wrote:
On 2009-07-03, William Wixon wrote:
i don't know very much about RC aircraft but only one time i was at a RC
airplane get together, some guy was flying his large very expensive RC
airplane and all the sudden he started yelling (screaming) for
someone/everyone to turn off their radio transmitter, apparently someone had
inadvertently gotten onto his frequency and he completely lost control of
his airplane. didn't know that was a hazard for RC airplanes, was an eye
opener. (whoever it was turned off their transmitter in time and the guy
recovered control of his airplane.) wonder if there are now transmitters
that aren't vulnerable to that or if there even might be some sort of
encoded secure transmitters? must be huh for the drones and uav's the
military uses.

I am sure that the military is not stupid and uses proper digital
signatures and cryptographic protocols to control their UAVs.

Manufacturers of RC toys are not stupid either, but this crypto stuff
adds a lot of cost (as it requires a CPU, more or less) so they do not
use it.

i

A couple of working definitions for the discussion

1) Jamming; preventing your receiver from receiving your transmission.
2) Spoofing; mimicing your transmission to send disinformation to you
receiver.

There are radio systems that are resistant to jamming, nothing is jam
proof. Enough power, enough spectrum and you can jam anything. You can
make your system harder, more expensive to jam, but not jam proof.

Cryptos do nothing to prevent jamming, they prevent other folks from
making sense out of your transmission, they can prevent spoofing.
Cryptos are frequently used along with anti jamming techniques.

redundancy, checksums and digital signatures can help overcome
jamming, no?

Robert Roland wrote:

On Fri, 03 Jul 2009 13:46:58 -0500, "Pete C."
wrote:

There are full auto-pilot modules available for both RC planes and
helicopters that can keep the craft stable in the event of a radio link
failure.

Of course. But no matter how many possible failure modes you protect
yourself against, there will always be at least one you didn't think
of. Also, a failsafe system is going to cost money, weight, space and
power.

My most recent crash was due to a failed potentiometer in the
transmitter stick. The transmitter suddenly commanded hard left
aileron. Any on-board system would see this as pilot input, and not
detect any problem at all, unless there was some sort of intelligence
able to decide what types of maneuvers are OK at any given time.
--
RoRo

The intelligence is to instantly turn off the transmitter and hope the
autopoilt can recover. Of course you can also configure the autopilot to
detect full travel of any control as a fault state.

Ignoramus1923 wrote:

On 2009-07-03, CarlBoyd wrote:
Ignoramus1923 wrote:
On 2009-07-03, William Wixon wrote:
i don't know very much about RC aircraft but only one time i was at a RC
airplane get together, some guy was flying his large very expensive RC
airplane and all the sudden he started yelling (screaming) for
someone/everyone to turn off their radio transmitter, apparently someone had
inadvertently gotten onto his frequency and he completely lost control of
his airplane. didn't know that was a hazard for RC airplanes, was an eye
opener. (whoever it was turned off their transmitter in time and the guy
recovered control of his airplane.) wonder if there are now transmitters
that aren't vulnerable to that or if there even might be some sort of
encoded secure transmitters? must be huh for the drones and uav's the
military uses.

I am sure that the military is not stupid and uses proper digital
signatures and cryptographic protocols to control their UAVs.

Manufacturers of RC toys are not stupid either, but this crypto stuff
adds a lot of cost (as it requires a CPU, more or less) so they do not
use it.

i

A couple of working definitions for the discussion

1) Jamming; preventing your receiver from receiving your transmission.
2) Spoofing; mimicing your transmission to send disinformation to you
receiver.

There are radio systems that are resistant to jamming, nothing is jam
proof. Enough power, enough spectrum and you can jam anything. You can
make your system harder, more expensive to jam, but not jam proof.

Cryptos do nothing to prevent jamming, they prevent other folks from
making sense out of your transmission, they can prevent spoofing.
Cryptos are frequently used along with anti jamming techniques.

redundancy, checksums and digital signatures can help overcome
jamming, no?

No, except perhaps for redundant transmissions on different frequencies
that the OP doesn't have a jammer for.

In article ,
Ignoramus1923 wrote:

On 2009-07-03, CarlBoyd wrote:
Ignoramus1923 wrote:
On 2009-07-03, William Wixon wrote:
i don't know very much about RC aircraft but only one time i was at a RC
airplane get together, some guy was flying his large very expensive RC
airplane and all the sudden he started yelling (screaming) for
someone/everyone to turn off their radio transmitter, apparently someone
had
inadvertently gotten onto his frequency and he completely lost control of
his airplane. didn't know that was a hazard for RC airplanes, was an eye
opener. (whoever it was turned off their transmitter in time and the guy
recovered control of his airplane.) wonder if there are now transmitters
that aren't vulnerable to that or if there even might be some sort of
encoded secure transmitters? must be huh for the drones and uav's the
military uses.

I am sure that the military is not stupid and uses proper digital
signatures and cryptographic protocols to control their UAVs.

Manufacturers of RC toys are not stupid either, but this crypto stuff
adds a lot of cost (as it requires a CPU, more or less) so they do not
use it.

i

A couple of working definitions for the discussion

1) Jamming; preventing your receiver from receiving your transmission.
2) Spoofing; mimicing your transmission to send disinformation to you
receiver.

There are radio systems that are resistant to jamming, nothing is jam
proof. Enough power, enough spectrum and you can jam anything. You can
make your system harder, more expensive to jam, but not jam proof.

Cryptos do nothing to prevent jamming, they prevent other folks from
making sense out of your transmission, they can prevent spoofing.
Cryptos are frequently used along with anti jamming techniques.

redundancy, checksums and digital signatures can help overcome
jamming, no?

No. Redundancy et al prevent the wrongful acceptance of corrupted data,
but cannot prevent denial of service.

We are using the word "jamming" as if it were a single thing, but there
are many kinds of jamming.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_countermeasures

Joe Gwinn

Ignoramus1923 wrote:

redundancy, checksums and digital signatures can help overcome
jamming, no?

Redundancy if you are speaking of agile frequency skipping or spread spectrum can help
with jamming. Now if enough power is close enough, I doubt anything will help.

Wes
--
"Additionally as a security officer, I carry a gun to protect
government officials but my life isn't worth protecting at home
in their eyes." Dick Anthony Heller

Ignoramus31617 wrote:

The helicopter features a remote camera for eas of aiming.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=4cd_1228911752

i

I was in a local hobby shop looking at RC helo's today. What I liked was out of my budget
for now.

I was hoping RogerN would pipe up about what type, model of helo could handle a .45 .

Personally, I think it was a stupid thing to do. Hard to portray the majority of gun
owners as responsible adults when that sort of thing is out there.

Wes
--
"Additionally as a security officer, I carry a gun to protect
government officials but my life isn't worth protecting at home
in their eyes." Dick Anthony Heller

Wes wrote:

Ignoramus31617 wrote:

The helicopter features a remote camera for eas of aiming.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=4cd_1228911752

i

I was in a local hobby shop looking at RC helo's today. What I liked was out of my budget
for now.

I was hoping RogerN would pipe up about what type, model of helo could handle a .45 .

One of the major Japanese companies (I forget which), makes a rather
large RC helicopter (blade span like 8') which is popular for stunt
photography and big enough to carry like a good sized payload of cameras
or whatever. Cost comparable to a nice new car, i.e. not at all cheap,
but not astronomical either.

On Fri, 03 Jul 2009 10:24:38 -0500, the infamous "Pete C."
scrawled the following:


Ignoramus1923 wrote:

On 2009-07-03, Buerste wrote:
The helicopter features a remote camera for eas of aiming.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=4cd_1228911752

Now mount a .22 "American 180" full auto on there and you got something!
http://world.guns.ru/smg/smg62-e.htm


That would be a rather formidable weapon. That could really be a
terrorist tool of some sort, scary.

An ordinary crop duster aircraft loaded with chemical, biological or
nuclear material is cheaper (steal), easier (no need to try to stay in
radio range of the target), and more effective.

Yabbut, the RC controls for that would be beaucoup expensive, unless
you were a kamikaze Iranican or sumpin'.

--
Only the curious will learn and only the resolute overcome
the obstacles to learning. The quest quotient has always
excited me more than the intelligence quotient.
-- Eugene S. Wilson

On Fri, 03 Jul 2009 11:34:57 -0400, the infamous Wes
scrawled the following:

Ignoramus31617 wrote:

The helicopter features a remote camera for eas of aiming.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=4cd_1228911752

i

Don't tell Sarah Brady.

Or...show Sarah Brady?

--
Only the curious will learn and only the resolute overcome
the obstacles to learning. The quest quotient has always
excited me more than the intelligence quotient.
-- Eugene S. Wilson

On Fri, 03 Jul 2009 16:09:26 -0500, "Pete C."
wrote:

The intelligence is to instantly turn off the transmitter and hope the
autopoilt can recover.

Too slow. Would only work at very high altitudes. The time it takes to
understand what has happened and then switch off is a few seconds.
Plenty of time to crash from any practical altitude.

In my case, the heli was sitting on the ground, getting light on the
skids, about to take off. The distance between blade tip and ground
was about a foot. I was really quick stopping the engine, so the
damage was minimal, but the blades still struck the snow many, many
times before they stopped.

Of course you can also configure the autopilot to
detect full travel of any control as a fault state.

But what if the potentiomenter fails in any other position than 100%?
What if the pilot actually *needs* full travel to, say, avoid a
collision?
--
RoRo

On Fri, 03 Jul 2009 19:40:00 -0500, "Pete C."
wrote:

One of the major Japanese companies (I forget which), makes a rather
large RC helicopter (blade span like 8') which is popular for stunt
photography and big enough to carry like a good sized payload of cameras
or whatever. Cost comparable to a nice new car, i.e. not at all cheap,
but not astronomical either.

The Yamaha RMAX. I've heard they are very hard to find outside Japan,
due to some very strict export restrictions.
--
RoRo

On Fri, 03 Jul 2009 10:11:34 -0500, Ignoramus1923
wrote:

On 2009-07-03, Buerste wrote:
The helicopter features a remote camera for eas of aiming.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=4cd_1228911752

Now mount a .22 "American 180" full auto on there and you got something!
http://world.guns.ru/smg/smg62-e.htm


That would be a rather formidable weapon. That could really be a
terrorist tool of some sort, scary.

Oh no....that couldnt happen. Gun owners are too stupid to do such a
thing, let alone put a video camera on it and remote aim it.
Nah...couldnt be done by those trailer trash rednecks.


"Lenin called them "useful idiots," those people living in
liberal democracies who by giving moral and material support
to a totalitarian ideology in effect were braiding the rope that
would hang them. Why people who enjoyed freedom and prosperity worked
passionately to destroy both is a fascinating question, one still with us
today. Now the useful idiots can be found in the chorus of appeasement,
reflexive anti-Americanism, and sentimental idealism trying to inhibit
the necessary responses to another freedom-hating ideology, radical Islam"

Bruce C. Thornton, a professor of Classics at American University of Cal State Fresno

On Fri, 03 Jul 2009 18:47:32 +0200, Robert Roland
wrote:

On Thu, 02 Jul 2009 23:28:01 -0500, Ignoramus31617
wrote:

The helicopter features a remote camera for eas of aiming.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=4cd_1228911752

Those guys have probably never experienced an in-air radio failure. I
have. Twice. I think helicopters are plenty dangerous enough as they
are.

In my opinion, this guy is an irresponsible idiot. It would almost be
funny if the helicopter turned around and shot its pilot in the head.

So you dont like guns eh?

Sorry to hear that.

Gunner

"Lenin called them "useful idiots," those people living in
liberal democracies who by giving moral and material support
to a totalitarian ideology in effect were braiding the rope that
would hang them. Why people who enjoyed freedom and prosperity worked
passionately to destroy both is a fascinating question, one still with us
today. Now the useful idiots can be found in the chorus of appeasement,
reflexive anti-Americanism, and sentimental idealism trying to inhibit
the necessary responses to another freedom-hating ideology, radical Islam"

Bruce C. Thornton, a professor of Classics at American University of Cal State Fresno

Robert Roland wrote:

On Fri, 03 Jul 2009 19:40:00 -0500, "Pete C."
wrote:

One of the major Japanese companies (I forget which), makes a rather
large RC helicopter (blade span like 8') which is popular for stunt
photography and big enough to carry like a good sized payload of cameras
or whatever. Cost comparable to a nice new car, i.e. not at all cheap,
but not astronomical either.

The Yamaha RMAX. I've heard they are very hard to find outside Japan,
due to some very strict export restrictions.

That sounds like it. I saw one on display at a video production expo.
Nice little toy.

On Jul 4, 3:52*am, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Fri, 03 Jul 2009 18:47:32 +0200, Robert Roland
wrote:

On Thu, 02 Jul 2009 23:28:01 -0500, Ignoramus31617
wrote:

The helicopter features a remote camera for eas of aiming.

* *http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=4cd_1228911752

Those guys have probably never experienced an in-air radio failure. I
have. Twice. I think helicopters are plenty dangerous enough as they
are.

In my opinion, this guy is an irresponsible idiot. It would almost be
funny if the helicopter turned around and shot its pilot in the head.

So you dont like guns eh?

Sorry to hear that.

Gunner


Did he say that? He said that this is an irresponsibly dangerous
device,

"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
...
snip
Oh no....that couldnt happen. Gun owners are too stupid to do such a
thing, let alone put a video camera on it and remote aim it.
Nah...couldnt be done by those trailer trash rednecks.

You already have one, don't you?

Still looking for reloading supplies!

On Sat, 04 Jul 2009 00:52:38 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

In my opinion, this guy is an irresponsible idiot. It would almost be
funny if the helicopter turned around and shot its pilot in the head.

So you dont like guns eh?

I am quite indifferent. I don't know much about them, but I do know
how dangerous they are.

I do, however, know a bit about remote controlled helicopters. I have
flown them for nearly 20 years, so I have seen and experienced many
ways in which they can go wrong. I believe this gives me enough
background to decide whether or not it is a good idea to strap a
firearm to one.

Sorry to hear that.

Why sorry? I have met lots of people who have no interest in neither
helicopters nor metalworking, but I have never felt sorry in any way
about that. They have their interests, and I have mine. That's just
the way it should be.
--
RoRo

On Sat, 4 Jul 2009 13:29:57 -0400, "Buerste" wrote:


"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
.. .
snip
Oh no....that couldnt happen. Gun owners are too stupid to do such a
thing, let alone put a video camera on it and remote aim it.
Nah...couldnt be done by those trailer trash rednecks.

You already have one, don't you?

shusssss!

Still looking for reloading supplies!

Primers are running $50 a box these days...a nickle apiece...5x what
they should be.

Reloading hardware..thats easy...lots and lots of it out there and much
of it is cheap.

Powder, primers and bullets...those are the tough ones..powder not toooo
bad..bullets..well one can cast their own from wheel weights etc...but
primers...thats the rub.

What calibers do you want to reload? Ill check my Stuff.

Gunner


"Lenin called them "useful idiots," those people living in
liberal democracies who by giving moral and material support
to a totalitarian ideology in effect were braiding the rope that
would hang them. Why people who enjoyed freedom and prosperity worked
passionately to destroy both is a fascinating question, one still with us
today. Now the useful idiots can be found in the chorus of appeasement,
reflexive anti-Americanism, and sentimental idealism trying to inhibit
the necessary responses to another freedom-hating ideology, radical Islam"

Bruce C. Thornton, a professor of Classics at American University of Cal State Fresno

On Sat, 4 Jul 2009 07:20:35 -0700 (PDT), rangerssuck
wrote:

On Jul 4, 3:52*am, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Fri, 03 Jul 2009 18:47:32 +0200, Robert Roland
wrote:

On Thu, 02 Jul 2009 23:28:01 -0500, Ignoramus31617
wrote:

The helicopter features a remote camera for eas of aiming.

* *http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=4cd_1228911752

Those guys have probably never experienced an in-air radio failure. I
have. Twice. I think helicopters are plenty dangerous enough as they
are.

In my opinion, this guy is an irresponsible idiot. It would almost be
funny if the helicopter turned around and shot its pilot in the head.

So you dont like guns eh?

Sorry to hear that.

Gunner


Did he say that? He said that this is an irresponsibly dangerous
device,


His opinion is noted. As is the likely basis for him holding it. Either
he is a little girl mentally....or the idea of a privately owned remote
controlled, armed gunship scares the **** out of him. Hence his snoody
comment about it shooting the pilot in the head.

Virtually any serious shooter..life long gun buff would have a woody
over that toy.

So while I may be wrong...I rather suspect Im right.

Do you have any other commentary to provide?

Gunner

"Lenin called them "useful idiots," those people living in
liberal democracies who by giving moral and material support
to a totalitarian ideology in effect were braiding the rope that
would hang them. Why people who enjoyed freedom and prosperity worked
passionately to destroy both is a fascinating question, one still with us
today. Now the useful idiots can be found in the chorus of appeasement,
reflexive anti-Americanism, and sentimental idealism trying to inhibit
the necessary responses to another freedom-hating ideology, radical Islam"

Bruce C. Thornton, a professor of Classics at American University of Cal State Fresno

On Sat, 04 Jul 2009 19:41:55 +0200, Robert Roland
wrote:

On Sat, 04 Jul 2009 00:52:38 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

In my opinion, this guy is an irresponsible idiot. It would almost be
funny if the helicopter turned around and shot its pilot in the head.

So you dont like guns eh?

I am quite indifferent. I don't know much about them, but I do know
how dangerous they are.

So how dangerous are they, really?

I do, however, know a bit about remote controlled helicopters. I have
flown them for nearly 20 years, so I have seen and experienced many
ways in which they can go wrong. I believe this gives me enough
background to decide whether or not it is a good idea to strap a
firearm to one.

So while you know much about helicopters (toys)...your ignorance..self
admitted of firearms leads you to believe that this is a Bad Thing?

Sorry to hear that.

Why sorry? I have met lots of people who have no interest in neither
helicopters nor metalworking, but I have never felt sorry in any way
about that. They have their interests, and I have mine. That's just
the way it should be.


And if those same people stated that Lathes are so dangerous that they
should suck in their operators....you would be fine with that.?

Gunner

"Lenin called them "useful idiots," those people living in
liberal democracies who by giving moral and material support
to a totalitarian ideology in effect were braiding the rope that
would hang them. Why people who enjoyed freedom and prosperity worked
passionately to destroy both is a fascinating question, one still with us
today. Now the useful idiots can be found in the chorus of appeasement,
reflexive anti-Americanism, and sentimental idealism trying to inhibit
the necessary responses to another freedom-hating ideology, radical Islam"

Bruce C. Thornton, a professor of Classics at American University of Cal State Fresno