Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Paris night drone mystery deepens

bbc.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 36 posts

Re: Paris night drone mystery deepens

#11

Post by q3k »

engendered wrote: post #10
TeMPOraL wrote: post #6

Drones drones drones. What drones? Did someone flew a Predator, or was it just a Phantom bought from the "Accessories for GoPro cameras" shelf of the local RadioShack equivalent? There is an important difference between the two, and I don't really like how media and people in general conflate together the whole spectrum of UAVs and RC copters.

Radio controlled quadcopters, whether navigating automatically or not, fall under the definition of "drone". The terminology is fine, and the attempt at redefinition is a losing battle.

The terminology is not fine when used in an article - this word can mean:

- a cheap Chinese $10 toy that goes out of range after 300m

- a racing quadrocopter built at a hackerspace to research autonomous operation, with a tracking GPS, hour-long battery life and first-person-view camera

- a professional, thousands-of-dollars, remotely controlled photo rig

- a military machine designed to kill human beings in a semi-autonomous manner

If I saw one of these near my house I wouldn't so much as blink. If I saw another I would be immediately relocating to another country.

Re: Paris night drone mystery deepens

#12

Post by d_theorist »

engendered wrote: post #10
TeMPOraL wrote: post #6

Drones drones drones. What drones? Did someone flew a Predator, or was it just a Phantom bought from the "Accessories for GoPro cameras" shelf of the local RadioShack equivalent? There is an important difference between the two, and I don't really like how media and people in general conflate together the whole spectrum of UAVs and RC copters.

Radio controlled quadcopters, whether navigating automatically or not, fall under the definition of "drone". The terminology is fine, and the attempt at redefinition is a losing battle.

Fine, but they don't specify.

The objection is against vagueness, not inaccuracy.

Re: Paris night drone mystery deepens

#13

Post by trvz »

centizen wrote: post #9
carbocation wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The media and authorities' reactions do not make this action irresponsible. Is it unlawful? Apparently, yes. Is it immoral? That depends on the purpose, but it is not intrinsically so.

I think that repeatedly flying a UAV in contravention to well known law, over highly populated areas, at night is totally irresponsible. Both to the people below and the UAV community at large. The media reaction has nothing to do with my decision.

Ok, now go tell this to the US.

Re: Paris night drone mystery deepens

#14

Post by d_theorist »

nodata wrote: post #4

How has it "deepened"? They didn't know, and now they still don't know.

It's not even a "mystery" to begin with. It's not difficult to understand what is happening.

It's like saying that a hot air balloon sighting is a mystery, just because we don't know who's flying it.

Hot air balloons are not mysteries, and neither are "drones".

Re: Paris night drone mystery deepens

#17

Post by engendered »

q3k wrote: post #11
engendered wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Radio controlled quadcopters, whether navigating automatically or not, fall under the definition of "drone". The terminology is fine, and the attempt at redefinition is a losing battle.

The terminology is not fine when used in an article - this word can mean: - a cheap Chinese $10 toy that goes out of range after 300m - a racing quadrocopter built at a hackerspace to research autonomous operation, with a tracking GPS, hour-long battery life and first-person-view camera - a professional, thousands-of-dollars, remotely controlled photo rig - a military machine designed to kill human beings in a semi-a…

And you really read this article and think "Oh, they might be talking about a missile-equipped military drone"?

Of course you don't. This is pedantry nonsense that, while becoming common, is really that someone wants to argue, in utter futility, about the definition of a word. For years HN was caught up naval gazing about the difference between hacker and cracker. Now it is this drone garbage.

Re: Paris night drone mystery deepens

#19

Post by ratsbane »

This illustrates something that might be a significant future problem for law enforcement, etc. - how to enforce anti-drone laws. Perhaps this will lead to an anti-drone technology industry with drone-tracking equipment and drone-capture drones. With radio-controlled devices, direction-finding equipment could work but with autonomous drones...?

Re: Paris night drone mystery deepens

#20

Post by d_theorist »

engendered wrote: post #17
q3k wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The terminology is not fine when used in an article - this word can mean: - a cheap Chinese $10 toy that goes out of range after 300m - a racing quadrocopter built at a hackerspace to research autonomous operation, with a tracking GPS, hour-long battery life and first-person-view camera - a professional, thousands-of-dollars, remotely controlled photo rig - a military machine designed to kill human beings in a semi-a…

And you really read this article and think "Oh, they might be talking about a missile-equipped military drone"? Of course you don't. This is pedantry nonsense that, while becoming common, is really that someone wants to argue, in utter futility, about the definition of a word. For years HN was caught up naval gazing about the difference between hacker and cracker. Now it is this drone garbage.

I think you mean "pedantic nonsense".
Post reply on HN