21–30 of 36 posts
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.
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...?
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.
- Was it a helicopter or a fixed-wing aircraft?
- Was it something small or the kind of fixed-wing that companies use to do terrain imaging (think 3x4 meters, $10k+/piece)?
- Was it a cheap radio-controlled toy or something capable of flying BVR or autonomously?
- If fixed wing, was it a proppeler plane or a jet?
A lot depends on those answers. If that was just a random dude who bought a Phantom off eBay, then it's not really worth even writing about. On the other hand, it that was a model jet, it has very serious safety implications related to both speed and the noise its engines generate. Furthermore, if that was just an RC heli then again it's probably nothing, while if it was a long-flight-duration BVR/autonomous vehicle, it could be anything from a shady company doing something illegal to criminals scoping places for a strike.
Reading this article, I can't really be sure if that "mysterious drone" was any of the above, or if someone just strapped few LEDs to a pidgeon.
As for lumping everything under the name "drone" - for the last few years when you saw a news article with the word "drone" in it, it was usually followed by either a causalty count or remarks about police power abuse. People are scared of this term. Also, it feels sort of weird to call a cheap toy-quadcopter "a drone", much in the same way as calling a tank "a car".
I hope it's just some hobbyists having fun, but this is totally irresponsible. Whether they are trying to make a statement or just play a prank, they are making everyone look bad and giving the media all the reasons they need to run with it.
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.
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.
And what's wrong with night time? That's when the streets are least populated.
You could make many of these bogus arguments about a variety of new technologies ... maybe cars should only be driven during the day? Or film noir rejected because people have an expectation of privacy at night?
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…
So one is not a threat, but two are? (Pedantry begets pedantry.)
Overloading the term "drone" with all of the meanings above may not be optimal, but if enough context is given to roughly determine the class of drone under discussion then there is no reason to complain. The article mentions the following:
"Small drones are inexpensive and easy to buy but their appearance in recent months over sensitive locations has worried French authorities."
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...?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
This isn't a highly populated area. There is little chance that if this drone fell at any time it would hit someone or land in a street. A highly populated area is a soccer stadium during a match. And what's wrong with night time? That's when the streets are least populated. You could make many of these bogus arguments about a variety of new technologies ... maybe cars should only be driven during the day? Or film no…
Only if you consider the only failure mode to be a descent straight down. These 'consumer' multirotors do have a nasty habit of buggering off in random directions when they feel like it: https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=dji+flyaway
> And what's wrong with night time?
Maintaining line of sight with the vehicle becomes very difficult when its dark. In some jurisdictions the law actually makes no reference to it being daytime or night-time, only that you able to maintain direct unaided line of sight with the vehicle.
When you're in control of what is essentially a 1-2kg flying blender, it is your responsibility to err on the side of caution. Just like when you operate any other device which could significantly harm another.
> You could make many of these bogus arguments about a variety of new technologies ... maybe cars should only be driven during the day?
You'll probably find laws and rules already exist to protect the public from other new technologies. Take cars for example:
- You must be qualified by a government body to use them. - The car must be certified as safe to use on the road, and routinely checked. - You may only use them in specific segregated areas. - You must be able to maintain control over the car at all times. - At night your car must be well lit and must provide you with enough light to see what you are doing. - If you do something stupid/dangerous with your car you are punished.
I hope it's just some hobbyists having fun, but this is totally irresponsible. Whether they are trying to make a statement or just play a prank, they are making everyone look bad and giving the media all the reasons they need to run with it.
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.
It is irresponsible because they are flying a dangerous vehicle in an area where if they lost control they could cause harm to members of the public. And they are doing so under conditions that make harder to maintain clear line of sight to the vehicle, increasing the chance of them losing control.