We live in the golden age of manly cooking. Across our great land, manly men are frying whole turkeys, using power tools to inject cheese into hot dogs, and tenderizing steak by blowing meat out of cannons.

One person had the vision to take manly cooking to its logical conclusion. Writing in Reddit, Oelund described how to fry bacon with a 7.62 mm machine gun.

In the comments sections, he said he was partially inspired by stories of British soldiers boiling tea with their automatic weapons in WW I. Boiling water is a good way of making sure what you are drinking is healthy (securing potable water can be a problem in a war zone).

However, manly men don’t care about health! We want bacon! (Come to think of it, if you’re the kind of guy who uses automatic weapons to cook, health may not be your number 1 priority anyway.)

Below are the photos and instructions Oelund posted. With its discussion of whether America is falling behind in the bacon race and the most economical machine gun to use for cooking, the comments section is worth reading.

Build-Your-Own-Module (BYOM)

Tablet Modules

SINGLE FINGERPRINT SCANNER

DUAL FINGERPRINT SCANNER

DUAL FINGERPRINT SCANNER

SMART CARD READER

MAGNETIC STRIPE READER

2D BARCODE READER

Compatible models: BioSense & BIOPTIX Tablets

Build-Your-Own-Module (BYOM)

Smartphone Modules

DUAL FAP45 FINGERPRINT MODULE

SINGLE FAP45 FINGERPRINT MODULE

Compatible models: BioFlex® Smartphones

I’ve discovered a new way of cooking bacon. All you need is: bacon, tin foil, some string, and.. oh whats it called?… oh yeah, an old worn out 7.62mm machinegun that is about to be discarded, and about 200 rounds of ammunition.

You start by wrapping the barrel in tin foil. Then you wrap bacon around it, and tie it down with some string.

Bacon gun 1

you then wrap some more tin foil around it, and once again tie it down with string.

Bacon gun 2

It is now ready to be inserted into the cooking device. I ripped the tin foil a little bit getting the barrel inserted. that part of the bacon got severely burned by hot gasses.

Bacon gun 3

After just a few short bursts you should be able to smell the wonderful aroma of bacon.

Bacon gun 4

I gave this about 250 rounds. but I think around 150 might actually be enough. But then again I don’t mind when bacon is crispy. Ahh the smell of sizzling bacon mixed with the smell of gunpowder and weapon oil.

Bacon gun 5

And the end result: Crispy delicious well done bacon.

Bacon gun 6

 

Note: AMREL  advocates responsible use of high-powered firearms and does not recommend using machine guns to cook bacon or anything else. Although, we’ll think you’re cool if you do so.

 

Build-Your-Own-Module (BYOM)

Tablet Modules

SINGLE FINGERPRINT SCANNER

DUAL FINGERPRINT SCANNER

DUAL FINGERPRINT SCANNER

SMART CARD READER

MAGNETIC STRIPE READER

2D BARCODE READER

Compatible models: BioSense & BIOPTIX Tablets

Build-Your-Own-Module (BYOM)

Smartphone Modules

DUAL FAP45 FINGERPRINT MODULE

SINGLE FAP45 FINGERPRINT MODULE

Compatible models: BioFlex® Smartphones

For five years, researchers at Virginia Tech have been working on the human-like, bipedal Shipboard Autonomous Firefighting Robot (SAFFiR). Recently, the SAFFiR was successfully tested on the Chatwal, the Navy’s firefighting ship.

SAFFiR used LIDAR (rotating lasers) to navigate through dense smoke across uneven floors. It located hot spots with its stereoscopic thermal imaging cameras, and dowsed a small fire with a hose.

SAFFiR stands at five feet, ten inches and weighs 143-pounds. Its electrical motors are protected from water by raingear.

It may have autonomous in its name, but currently it is controlled by human operators through a console. Eventually, natural language and gestures will be additional control options.

Shipboard fires are a nasty business. Not only do flammable systems and ordinances pose a threat, but also human firefighters may not have the latest training. Indeed, their responses may actually make the situation worse.

SAFFiR is bipedal so it can work in the cramped shipboard environments designed for humans. Eventually humans and unmanned systems will integrate into hybrid firefighting teams.

SAFFiR is sponsored by the Office of Naval Research (ONR). ONR plans to expand SAFFiR’s duties to include checking for leaks, scanning for corrosion, and taking measurements.

Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) crash. A lot.

Consider the chart below, which is for “Class A” accidents, the most serious designation. As you can see, at all times, for all platforms, UAVs have a significantly higher crash rate than manned aircraft.

UAV Crash Table

Click to expand table

The Defense Department maintains that the UAVs are relatively new, and that as we learn how to fly them better, the rate of accidents goes down. This assertion appears to be true. However, the rate of UAVs falling from the sky is still frequent enough to give anyone pause when pondering their integration into domestic airspace.

Why are UAVs so prone to crashing? In a rare burst of actual journalism, the Washington Post has conducted an in-depth study of this issue (the article is worth reading in its entirety). They identify four major causes:

“•A limited ability to detect and avoid trouble. Cameras and high-tech sensors on a drone cannot fully replace a pilot’s eyes and ears and nose in the cockpit. Most remotely controlled planes are not equipped with radar or anti-collision systems designed to prevent midair disasters.

• Pilot error. Despite popular perceptions, flying a drone is much trickier than playing a video game. The Air Force licenses its drone pilots and trains them constantly, but mistakes are still common, particularly during landings. In four cases over a three-year period, Air Force pilots committed errors so egregious that they were investigated for suspected dereliction of duty.

• Persistent mechanical defects. Some common drone models were designed without backup safety features and rushed to war without the benefit of years of testing. Many accidents were triggered by basic electrical malfunctions; others were caused by bad weather. Military personnel blamed some mishaps on inexplicable problems. The crews of two doomed Predators that crashed in 2008 and 2009 told investigators that their respective planes had been ‘possessed’ and plagued by ‘demons.’

• Unreliable communications links. Drones are dependent on wireless transmissions to relay commands and navigational information, usually via satellite. Those connections can be fragile. Records show that links were disrupted or lost in more than a quarter of the worst crashes.”

The problem of limited sight and sound is nothing to sneeze at. There was an incident of a $3.8 million Predator crashing, because the pilot did not realize the UAV was flying upside-down.

For this and other reasons, pilots do not like flying the UAVs. One pilot is quoted by the Washington Post as saying:

“The problem is that nobody is comfortable with Predator. Nobody,” the pilot said, according to an interview transcript. He called the malfunction-prone drone “the most back-assedward aircraft I ever flown.”

In addition to poorer visual acuity, Predators are also slower than manned aircraft. UAV operators have complained that aviation personnel, such as air traffic controllers, often fail to account for the UAV’s limited speed and visual capabilities.

Predators are lighter than manned aircraft and lack redundant systems, such as engines. This makes mechanical problems a lot more serious for UAVs.

As it is with manned aircraft, “pilot error” for UAVs is a complex issue. One of the main attractions for UAVs is that they can stay in the air longer than their manned counterparts. Ideally, the lengthy mission is shared between 2 or more pilots. However, a shortage of trained pilots has meant that UAV operators are putting in extended shifts. Of course, this increases the odds of pilot error.

Furthermore, UAVs are flown by teams, i.e. sensor operators as well as pilots. These teams may be responsible for more than one UAV at a time. The more people involved in a task, the more points of failure are possible.

Congress has ordered the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to issue rules for domestic integration of UAVs by September 2015. UAV promoters have accused the FAA of dragging its feet, but considering the poor adjustments that the Air Force and other institutions have made in switching from manned to unmanned vehicles, and the alarming crash rate, bureaucratic reluctance seems reasonable.

Some have argued that the integration of UAVs into domestic airspace should be easier than that of unmanned systems on the ground or in the water. Fewer obstacles, fewer people, and fewer competing manned vehicles. Developers of non-aerial unmanned vehicles should pay special attention to the legal and political challenges faced by UAVs for these may foreshadow the problems of integrating autonomous cars, remotely controlled ships, and even domestic robots.

AMREL now offers a full line of turn-key night vision solutions, fully compliant with MIL-STD 3009 and CECOM (CSLP) standards.

“AMREL’s rugged laptops, tablets, and handhelds are the perfect platforms for night vision solutions,” states Kalvin Chen, AMREL’s VP of Operations. “The durability and reliability of our computers makes them practical for both ground and aviation purposes.”

The widespread use of night vision goggles has necessitated the adoption of light restricting filters for mobile computers. Aviation crews must be careful that the light of their laptops and tablets do not blind pilots who use night vision goggles to fly in dark, dangerous areas. Military forces on the ground are keen that enemies cannot detect their presence by using night vision goggles to spot light emitting from their tactical computers.

“Special Forces have used AMREL’s rugged computers for years,” explains Mr. Chen. “We are especially pleased that we can offer them this feature, which enhances their safety by limiting their detectability. Of course, our night vision computing solutions also meet the less stringent aviation standards.”

Build-Your-Own-Module (BYOM)

Tablet Modules

SINGLE FINGERPRINT SCANNER

DUAL FINGERPRINT SCANNER

DUAL FINGERPRINT SCANNER

SMART CARD READER

MAGNETIC STRIPE READER

2D BARCODE READER

Compatible models: BioSense & BIOPTIX Tablets

Build-Your-Own-Module (BYOM)

Smartphone Modules

DUAL FAP45 FINGERPRINT MODULE

SINGLE FAP45 FINGERPRINT MODULE

Compatible models: BioFlex® Smartphones

AMREL’s Night Vision Computing Solutions virtually eliminate all infrared emissions completely, which is important, since night vision goggles usually work in that part of the spectrum. Overall light transmissions are restricted to just 2.5%. Other levels of light suppression are available on request.

AMREL Night Vision Solutions use the industry-leading SafeNight™* filters. These polymeric filters are nonflammable and offer full color rendering, which is important for mapping applications.

AMREL Night Vision Computing Solutions are available for:

  • ROCKY RS11, the lightest, thinnest rugged laptop in the world (13.3” display)
  • ROCKY DK10 fully rugged tablet (12.1” display)
  • ROCKY DB6 handheld, the smallest, fully rugged handheld with full Windows OS (5” display)
  • Other computing platforms available upon request.

For more information, visit: http://computers.amrel.com/?p=7491

*“SafeNight” trademark is property of CEVIANS, LLC – Formerly a division of Wamco Inc.

Boston Dynamics quadrupedal Big Dog Unmanned Ground Vehicle (UGV) looks pretty amazing in its videos. However, the smaller version, known as “Spot,” is even more mind-boggling.

The electrically powered Spot is faster and quieter than the gas-fueled Big Dog. Weighing only 160 pounds (Big Dog is 240), Spot displays an impressive agility while navigating stairs, crossing rough terrain and especially righting itself after being kicked (one commentator suggests that since the robot rebellion is inevitable, it is unwise for Boston Dynamics to abuse them).

One of the main arguments against UGVs with legs is their lack of robustness and engineering simplicity as compared to their wheeled counterparts (for more on this debate, see Walk n’ Roll). The progress Boston Dynamics has made with Spot and Big Dog undermines this contention. Go, Spot, go.

Build-Your-Own-Module (BYOM)

Tablet Modules

SINGLE FINGERPRINT SCANNER

DUAL FINGERPRINT SCANNER

DUAL FINGERPRINT SCANNER

SMART CARD READER

MAGNETIC STRIPE READER

2D BARCODE READER

Compatible models: BioSense & BIOPTIX Tablets

Build-Your-Own-Module (BYOM)

Smartphone Modules

DUAL FAP45 FINGERPRINT MODULE

SINGLE FAP45 FINGERPRINT MODULE

Compatible models: BioFlex® Smartphones

Are tanks obsolete?  Not if combat involves tennis playing, as the video below demonstrates. No word if the tank can jump over the net if it wins.

After being totally blown away by the M1 Abrams’ speed and agility, I learned this video is FAKED.  Still, this brings up a very real issue.  If tanks in reality can’t play tennis, what are they good for?

Army Chief of Staff Odierno testified that in 2012 before Congress that “…we don’t need the tanks. Our tank fleet is two and a half years old on average now. We’re in good shape and these are additional tanks that we don’t need” (Military.com). Congress went ahead and approved the purchase of additional, unwanted tanks. The fact that tanks are produced in Ohio, a critical state in presidential elections is just a coincidence.

Even before Odierno testified, some folks were touting the tank’s demise. Some pointed to the widespread destruction of Israeli armor in the 1973 war by handheld anti-tank weapons as a sign of the tank’s obsolescence. On the other hand, Michael Peck in War is Boring notes that the Israeli losses happened when they violated basic tactical rules, such as failing to support tanks with infantry.

To get an idea about the debate I suggest you read a summary of different points of views in The Atlantic The Wire.  It’s a bit dated, but the arguments are still relevant.

Build-Your-Own-Module (BYOM)

Tablet Modules

SINGLE FINGERPRINT SCANNER

DUAL FINGERPRINT SCANNER

DUAL FINGERPRINT SCANNER

SMART CARD READER

MAGNETIC STRIPE READER

2D BARCODE READER

Compatible models: BioSense & BIOPTIX Tablets

Build-Your-Own-Module (BYOM)

Smartphone Modules

DUAL FAP45 FINGERPRINT MODULE

SINGLE FAP45 FINGERPRINT MODULE

Compatible models: BioFlex® Smartphones

Recently, Chief of Staff Gen. Raymond T. Odierno gave a presentation to the Association of United States Army on “Force 2025 and Beyond.” If you want to know what the Army’s head honcho is planning for its future, check out this nifty PDF.

One thing that will definitely not change is the military’s fondness for acronyms. Reading Odierno’s presentation requires a high tolerance for initials as well as an instinctual knowledge about matters such as the difference between USAPRAC and USPACOM. After wandering through his dense forest of acronyms, I came away with the following impressions:

The Army doesn’t have a clue about the future. While it is true that he identifies possible threats, you don’t have to read between the lines too much to know that Odierno has no idea what kind of war the Army should prepare for. This is not a big surprise, and is something that this blog has discussed before (see here).

Odierno’s solution for this quandary?  Among other things, the Army needs “adaptability.”  I suggest you play a drinking game with a buddy. Download the PDF of Odierno’s presentation, and have your friend read it out loud. Every time he says “adapt” or “adaptability,” take a shot. You may want to start off with something light, because you’ll take 6 shots on the first page alone.

Doubling down on technology. Seeing a high-level bureaucrat reject common institutional wisdom is a bit like watching a magnificent sunrise. It has happened before and it will happen again. However, you should still pause and admire its beauty.

Odierno clearly feels like he is operating in a financial squeeze (in real terms, the Defense budget continues to rise). However, he is not following the usual institutional practice of cutting Research & Development in times of austerity. Odierno could have simply followed recent trends and simply off-loaded R&D responsibilities onto vendors, i.e. “I don’t know what we want, but I want you to build it.”

While the Army will use commercial suppliers, Odierno makes it clear that he is not abandoning R&D. In fact, technology and innovation is a big priority and he discusses it a great deal.

While I applaud Odierno’s not sacrificing R&D on the budget chopping block, I do wonder about the US military’s continued reliance on technology to give it an “edge” (or in Odierno-ese, “overmatch capabilities”), especially in counter-insurgency scenarios. Does it make sense to use million dollar missiles to destroy ancient pick-up trucks?

Most US military personnel in the Pacific region belong to the Army. Odierno makes a point of making this point. You know all those folks who say that the Pacific Tilt means cutting the Army’s budget, so that money can be diverted to the Air Force and Navy?  This is Odierno’s way of thumbing his nose at them.

80% of “rotorcraft” will be replaced.  Good time to be a helicopter manufacturer.

High Energy Laser Mobile Demonstrator (HEL MD) will reduce the need for stockpiles.  Yeah! We’re finally going to get ray guns!  Or at least “ray cannons.”

“Alternative sources of water.”  What has the Army learned after fighting for 13 years in an arid environment?  The importance of water.  I wouldn’t be surprised that out of all the technologies the military is currently developing that water purifications and generation end-up being the most world changing.

Healthcare & medicine.  More than a few areas of technological development that Odierno describes involved healthcare of some kind. Considering its skyrocketing cost, not a big surprise.

The future of unmanned systems is so last year. Odierno mentions Autonomous Aerial Resupply as a “potential capability.”  This is the only time he mentions unmanned systems.

I have been optimistic about the role of unmanned systems in US forces (see here). However, their relative absence from a technology-heavy discussion by the Army’s Chief of Staff does raise a red flag. Vendors of unmanned systems have visions of military robots doing everything from flipping burgers to fighting fires. If they want the Army to share that vision, they have some work to do.

“Sustaining investments in the technical workforce is paramount…However, sequestration could undermine these efforts.” Some congressmen have been vigilant in protecting soldiers form budget cuts. Not so much the military’s civilian workforce, which has been hammered by reduced funds. Odierno wants folks to understand that the guys who carry guns and wear camouflage are not the only ones who need protecting. The guys who carry calculators and wear white shirts are also important.

Odierno covers a lot of ground in his brief discussion. The above list is far from complete and only represents my overall impression. His presentation is worth reading in its entirety.

What do you think? What struck you about Odierno’s presentation?

Send your thoughts to: editor@amrel.com

Build-Your-Own-Module (BYOM)

Tablet Modules

SINGLE FINGERPRINT SCANNER

DUAL FINGERPRINT SCANNER

DUAL FINGERPRINT SCANNER

SMART CARD READER

MAGNETIC STRIPE READER

2D BARCODE READER

Compatible models: BioSense & BIOPTIX Tablets

Build-Your-Own-Module (BYOM)

Smartphone Modules

DUAL FAP45 FINGERPRINT MODULE

SINGLE FAP45 FINGERPRINT MODULE

Compatible models: BioFlex® Smartphones

For years, “Bring Your Own Device” (BYOD) has been a dependable staple of top tech trend lists.  Originally started by employees demanding to use their own devices for business purposes, companies realized that they could boost productivity and decrease costs by adopting BYOD.

Should your enterprise adopt BYOD? Below is a summary of the pros and cons.

(Click image to expand)BYOD 4

 

Employees are happy to pay employers’ costs

To a certain extent, BYOD is part of a larger trend of employers shifting costs to employees. Some cost-conscious companies have declared long-time workers to be independent contractors. Workers are not only stripped of benefits, but also forced to pay for their own equipment.

The irony is that BYOD is often demanded by employees. The increased cost to them is usually negligible (they have personal smartphones anyway), and they are saved the hassle of dealing with a separate business device.

The first response by enterprises to BYOD is often negative. IT hates the nightmare of supporting apps for multi-platform use. More importantly, employers worry about securing proprietary information on the employees’ personal devices, which is by far the number one objection to BYOD.

A pretty good example of this is the military. When soldiers started bringing their own devices into theater (even into combat), the military was initially appalled.  How could they possibly keep information secure on consumer devices?

While the security issue is still not resolved, the military is actively exploring BYOD.  For one thing, they see it as a way of leveraging the leading edge of consumer technology.

Build-Your-Own-Module (BYOM)

Tablet Modules

SINGLE FINGERPRINT SCANNER

DUAL FINGERPRINT SCANNER

DUAL FINGERPRINT SCANNER

SMART CARD READER

MAGNETIC STRIPE READER

2D BARCODE READER

Compatible models: BioSense & BIOPTIX Tablets

Build-Your-Own-Module (BYOM)

Smartphone Modules

DUAL FAP45 FINGERPRINT MODULE

SINGLE FAP45 FINGERPRINT MODULE

Compatible models: BioFlex® Smartphones

Work better by checking your personal email

Probably the single biggest benefit of BYOD is increased employee productivity.  Given the flexibility of choosing their own device, applications, and service plans, workers have been extremely innovative in increasing their efficiency. Another reason for increased productivity is that employees are more likely to work on business activities during their personal time if they can do so on their own devices. Counter-intuitively, according to an exhaustive international study by Cisco, performing personal tasks during business hours also increases employee productivity. Think about that the next time the boss yells at you for playing Clash of Clans.

BYOD = Mobility

It is no coincidence that BYOD emerged as smartphones and tablets conquered the world. Smartphones is the overwhelming device of choice for BYOD with tablets rapidly gaining ground.

Some enterprises have seen BYOD as an efficient way to “go mobile.” No longer anchored to the office, employees can work from home or on the road. Switching work activities from desktop to smartphones is also considered beneficial, because “smartphones are the wave of the future,” i.e. all the cool kids are doing it.

Indeed, mobile phone use is so closely tied to BYOD that their benefits have become blurred. People touting BYOD talk about the wonderfulness of networking employees as well as the importance of sharing and distributing information. When the negatives are discussed, increased use of corporate Wi-Fi is sometimes mentioned, a phenomena that would happen with business-issued smartphones as well.

Your mileage may vary

By any standard, BYOD has been successful. According to Cisco’s study, “….69 percent of IT decision makers (up to 88 percent in some countries) feel that BYOD is a positive development for their organization.”

You may read BYOD enthusiasts citing costs benefits of BYOD. Cisco’s report states that companies can save up to “$1,650 per mobile employee.” The problem with these claims is that benefits are far from uniform.

For one thing, local culture plays a big factor. I wasn’t surprise to learn, for example, that workers using BYOD in Germany had negligible productivity gains. This is just anecdotal evidence, but an inventive acquaintance of mine went nuts working in Germany. He performed every task efficiently, under budget, and before deadline, but his employers hated him.  In the US, employers tell workers to perform task X and will often let them decide how to do it. In fact, they will encourage them to come up with new ideas. In Germany, my friend was told to “perform task X by completing the following steps…” Despite the fact that he successfully did his job, his original approach upset his superiors.  If you live in a culture (or work in a company) that doesn’t value employee innovation, you are unlikely to benefit from BYOD.

Everybody is a winner! (Except for those who lose)

Some supporters will spout various numerous financial benefits of BYOD (“20 to 30% savings!”) without mentioning that these high numbers apply only to the small minority of companies that employ “comprehensive BYOD.” “Comprehensive BYOD” is a term used by Cisco to describe systematic preparation for enterprise-wide integration of BYOD. Unfortunately, it is far more common for enterprises to have a poorly thought-out ad hoc approach for BYOD adoption. See insert below for Cisco’s list of “comprehensive BYOD” capabilities.

(Click image to expand)

BYOD 2

Build-Your-Own-Module (BYOM)

Tablet Modules

SINGLE FINGERPRINT SCANNER

DUAL FINGERPRINT SCANNER

DUAL FINGERPRINT SCANNER

SMART CARD READER

MAGNETIC STRIPE READER

2D BARCODE READER

Compatible models: BioSense & BIOPTIX Tablets

Build-Your-Own-Module (BYOM)

Smartphone Modules

DUAL FAP45 FINGERPRINT MODULE

SINGLE FAP45 FINGERPRINT MODULE

Compatible models: BioFlex® Smartphones

Some of the items in the above list illustrate a serious drawback to BYOD. If an enterprise adopts the “comprehensive BYOD” approach, employees may object to the loss of privacy. It is one thing to have monitoring software on a company desktop, but it is another to concede even partial control of your personal smartphone to an employer.

In conversation on a social website, a BYOD supporter claimed that some of these problems can be avoided through cloud applications. Say you’re a company with a highly prized list of clients. Your salesmen want access to this list on their personal smartphones.  Fine you say, as long as you can remote wipe the data on their phones. After all, you don’t want them quitting and taking the list to a competitor.

However, your salesmen are uncomfortable with their employer having any kind of control whatsoever over their personal devices. A solution is posting the list on the cloud (many Customer Relationship Management apps are cloud-based anyway). This solution doesn’t completely eliminate the problem of “data walking out the door,” but it does allow salesman to access to sensitive information, without feeling that their boss is snooping around their phone.

Look before you BYOD

Before adopting BYOD, you need to examine your specific situation. If you operate in a medical environment, how will you address the rather-strict rules on patient privacy? If you want your students to use their own devices for homework, what precautions do you need to curtail cheating? The benefits of BYOD are real, but as with any innovation, you should think carefully before adopting.

 

While Unmanned Ground Vehicles have saved countless lives, the “bomb suit” is still a fact of life for Explosive Ordinance Detonation (EOD) personnel.  Somehow, running a mile, and even 5K, in these 80-pound suffocating suits have become charity events.

Why do they do these runs? The world female record holder says it’s part of their training, but EOD people are trained not to run in areas with explosives. I suspect the real reason for these runs is that nobody decides to specialize in detonating explosives, because they like doing sane things.

Group 5K run

Male Record Holder

Build-Your-Own-Module (BYOM)

Tablet Modules

SINGLE FINGERPRINT SCANNER

DUAL FINGERPRINT SCANNER

DUAL FINGERPRINT SCANNER

SMART CARD READER

MAGNETIC STRIPE READER

2D BARCODE READER

Compatible models: BioSense & BIOPTIX Tablets

Build-Your-Own-Module (BYOM)

Smartphone Modules

DUAL FAP45 FINGERPRINT MODULE

SINGLE FAP45 FINGERPRINT MODULE

Compatible models: BioFlex® Smartphones

Female Record Holder

For unmanned systems, the air is a relatively simpler environment than the ground. Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAV), unlike their earth-bound counterparts, do not have to navigate culverts, bridges, people, cars, and other obstacles. The FAA’s anxieties have mostly focused on concerns about privacy and airplane collisions. There is one other problem that we should be worried about: animals. In the battle of rams, hawks, and kangaroos vs. UAVs, the UAVs do not always win.

Hawk vs. Quadcopter


Read about it here.

Bird vs. RC plane

Amazing photography!  Bird is a raptor of some kind.

Build-Your-Own-Module (BYOM)

Tablet Modules

SINGLE FINGERPRINT SCANNER

DUAL FINGERPRINT SCANNER

DUAL FINGERPRINT SCANNER

SMART CARD READER

MAGNETIC STRIPE READER

2D BARCODE READER

Compatible models: BioSense & BIOPTIX Tablets

Build-Your-Own-Module (BYOM)

Smartphone Modules

DUAL FAP45 FINGERPRINT MODULE

SINGLE FAP45 FINGERPRINT MODULE

Compatible models: BioFlex® Smartphones

Ram vs. Quadcopter

Be sure to watch the last part of the video as the ram attacks the operator when he tries to recover his downed quadcopter.

Kangaroo vs. UAV

Somewhere there is a bureaucrat tasked with regulating UAVs, shaking his head, saying, “You mean we have to also worry about freaking kangaroos!”  Read about kangaroo attack here.