Slashdot Mirror


Drone Guides Fuel Shipment to Alaskan Town

pigrabbitbear writes with an excerpt from an article at Motherboard.tv about a non-evil use for unmanned aircraft: "Ask anyone in Nome, Alaska right now how they feel about surveillance drones and you'll likely get unequivocally high praise. Had a remotely-piloted surveillance aircraft not been monitoring Bering Sea ice flows over the past week an emergency shipment of 1.3 million gallons of oil may not have reached the iced-in, snow-drifted town as soon as it did. ... The drone, which was launched from Nome's shores by University of Alaska – Fairbanks Geophysical Institute researchers, isn't the sort of eye-in-the-sky most often associated with the U.S.'s various hulking, 40-foot wing-spanning reconnaissance planes ... The Aeryon Scout micro unmanned aerial vehicle resembles a 'smoke detector with wings and legs,' according to the Anchorage Daily News, and is part and parcel of a rapidly expanding fleet of mid- to micro-sized sky robots being flown domestically for all manner of tedious or risky intelligence gathering gigs."

140 comments

  1. Its not the drones that are the problem by girlintraining · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's not the drones that people have a problem with; It's how they're used. No amount of positive publicity on their 'good' uses can erase the fact that many, if not most, law enforcement agencies envision an armada of cheap surveillance drones monitoring everyone and everyplace they decide they don't like. Protesting wall street? Drones. Add in the crowd-control microwave emitter for only an additional $2,999. How about some drones patrolling over the freeways during rush hour, equipped with a radar gun? Now an officer can write tickets for anyone speeding over a several mile stretch of road, rather than just a particular point. Only $1,599 after mail in rebate. The list goes on.

    --
    #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    1. Re:Its not the drones that are the problem by jhoegl · · Score: 2, Funny

      Im more interested in the live feed from Sorority Houses.

    2. Re:Its not the drones that are the problem by DigiShaman · · Score: 2

      -noun- don't -verb- people. People -verb- people.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    3. Re:Its not the drones that are the problem by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Thermal imaging cameras are invaluable for certain engineering work.
      They can also be used to violate your rights and 'look' into your house.

      Russian journalists have used drones to get arial photos of the Moscow riots.

      And this just in Hammers used to build houses can also be used to beat people's skulls in.

    4. Re:Its not the drones that are the problem by HankMoody · · Score: 1

      Yes, I don't know why someone doesn't do tv show like that. That's perfect use for drones.

    5. Re:Its not the drones that are the problem by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      Now an officer can write tickets for anyone speeding over a several mile stretch of road, rather than just a particular point

      I would hope you can come up with better worst case scenarios than that; loathe as I am to give that kind of power to the govt there is a part of me that would love to see an inflexible, if-you-break-driving-laws-you-WILL-be-caught scenario. Goodness knows there are enough dangerous drivers out there who get away with it because of how hard it is to catch them all.

      Im not sure, for example, that I would be against stationary radar stations on the highway that could alert a cop about reckless driving / speeding in a 5 mile stretch; I dont see the privacy concerns, and I do see the benefit.

    6. Re:Its not the drones that are the problem by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 2

      -noun- don't -verb- people. People -verb- people.

      some people -adverb-ly -verb- people with -noun-s, even. Especially -adjective- -noun-s.

    7. Re:Its not the drones that are the problem by treeves · · Score: 2

      Frog don't lick people. People lick people.

      Hmm. I'm not sure how that template works.

      --
      ...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
    8. Re:Its not the drones that are the problem by user32.ExitWindowsEx · · Score: 1

      No law should be 100% universally enforced. No human mind (or minds) can write a law that covers every physically possible situation.

      --
      "Evil will always triumph because good is dumb." -- Dark Helmet
    9. Re:Its not the drones that are the problem by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      The template means that people are responsible for their own actions, not some object or abstract they're in control of.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    10. Re:Its not the drones that are the problem by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      loathe as I am to give that kind of power to the govt there is a part of me that would love to see an inflexible, if-you-break-driving-laws-you-WILL-be-caught scenario. Goodness knows there are enough dangerous drivers out there who get away with it because of how hard it is to catch them all.

      Perhaps, but I submit that more education, stricter licensing requirements, and a de-sanitization of media would do far more without the added expense or possibility of abuse (here's where I go OT):

      Education and Licensing: There should be a federally mandated, minimum year-long class in the style of vocational schooling (split classroom/lab time) that focuses on teaching people how to drive. In addition to having to take such a class prior to acquiring a license, I also feel most current licensees should be required to take the class the next time they're up for renewal (with an option to test out)

      Also... why the hell are we passing out licenses to kill to 16-year olds who don't seem to be able to detach from their cell phone screens? I mean, c'mon, I can't be only one who thinks like that!

      De-Sanitization: Ever notice how you never see a bloody accident scene, or god forbid an actual corpse, in media? Kinda creates an illusion that no one ever gets killed in automobiles, doesn't it? Of course, as intelligent, learned adults we know that's not the way things really work, but I sometimes wonder... what if I were a young person, still developing, who spends a good portion of my time immersed in a digital world where death = a Facebook tribute page, no one ever dies in the news, cars can roll 50 times end-over-end suffering minimal damage, and physical interaction between objects is impossible. Under those circumstances, I might be inclined to think that operating a 3,000 lb death machine ain't no big deal.

      So, back to the topic at hand, one can see how driver education and media de-sanitization could easily handle the issue of poor driving habits, without having to spend untold amounts of Treasure filling our skies with Watchers.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    11. Re:Its not the drones that are the problem by artor3 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What's so bad about the scenarios you've listed?

      The cops surveiling Occupy protests with drones... what's supposed to be scary about that? There are already cops at the scene. Why are we supposed to be scared that they now have an extra camera angle? Is it only if they have your hypothetical microwave emitter equipped on the drone? Because if so, that's a reason to be against microwave emitters, not drones, and at any rate it's unlikely they'd ever use them. They tried to the low tech equivalent (firehoses) against civil rights protestors, and it didn't do squat for them.

      And for your other example, a more uniform enforcement of traffic laws would be a good thing. Right now they're so spottily enforced that a lot of people ignore them, and it becomes a tax by lottery. If they were enforced uniformly, it would become a bad driving tax instead, which would be preferable.

      There's nothing cops can do with drones that they can't do with helicopters. The only difference is drones are cheaper. Unless your plan to defend civil liberties relies on the cops not being able to afford enforcement, there's no reason to be worried by drones. And if your plan does rely on impoverished police departments, you've got other things to worry about.

    12. Re:Its not the drones that are the problem by treeves · · Score: 1

      I know but that's just not funny.

      --
      ...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
    13. Re:Its not the drones that are the problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      some smurfs smurfily smurf smurfs with smurfs, even. Especially smurfy smurfs.

    14. Re:Its not the drones that are the problem by Beelzebud · · Score: 2

      It depends on who is operating, and controlling the drones. We have this thing called a constitution, and it states that the military isn't supposed to be used as a police force. Of course, we're in the process of arming our police forces exactly like a military unit, so that line is becoming blurred.

    15. Re:Its not the drones that are the problem by Beelzebud · · Score: 1

      In those systems they just flag all out of state vehicles and ticket them by airplane. Most people can't afford to drive back across the country to appear in court for an afternoon over a speeding ticket.

    16. Re:Its not the drones that are the problem by Memnos · · Score: 1

      I got 200K to blow. Wanna patrol back?

      --
      I don't trust atoms -- they make up stuff.
    17. Re:Its not the drones that are the problem by JDG1980 · · Score: 2

      The reason we hand out drivers' licenses at the drop of a hat is that in most parts of the US, driving is a necessary part of being an independent adult. That is due to the physical layout of our country and is not going to change in the forseeable future. What will happen eventually is that automatic driving systems like the ones currently being tested by Google and other companies will become ready for public consumption, and by a decade or so after their initial release, all new cars will have them. Then we can change the laws to make it much harder to get a license allowing manual driving, while everyone else (including children and drunks) can use the automated driving system to get from Point A to Point B.

    18. Re:Its not the drones that are the problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think the point was that the overuse of drones could lead to something resembling a police state. While it is nice that they are cheaper than other conventional means of surveillance, it is important to keep their use in check and make sure the rights of citizens are preserved.

    19. Re:Its not the drones that are the problem by axlr8or · · Score: 1

      This one, as described as a smoke detector with wings, is obviously aimed at reducing arson and cigarette smoking in smoke free towns. I mean, I've heard that someone envisioned nothing being scarier than if spiders could fly. Well, now there is an analogy.

    20. Re:Its not the drones that are the problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nothing like rubbing one out while watching smurfs smurf with smurfs, especially the smurfy ones.

    21. Re:Its not the drones that are the problem by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      Sounds like a plan.

      I guess, considering the inevitability of GPS-guided, self-driving cars (would that be "autoautomobiles?"), now would be the time to start demanding that the Congress Critters pass legislation barring the tracking of private citizen's movements without express consent, and an option to opt-out up front.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    22. Re:Its not the drones that are the problem by artor3 · · Score: 1

      I too am concerned by the militarization of the police. I was in Boston for New Years and there were guys in camo carrying assault rifles guarding the subways. I asked one of my local friends, and apparently that's just the normal transit cops. So yeah, that's definitely not a trend that I like to see. But the drones aren't innately military hardware, and unless they start putting bombs on them, I see no reason to worry about their use.

    23. Re:Its not the drones that are the problem by ironjaw33 · · Score: 1

      I too am concerned by the militarization of the police. I was in Boston for New Years and there were guys in camo carrying assault rifles guarding the subways.

      I remember traveling to Europe in the late 90s and being shocked to see police in the Paris subways with assault rifles. Until that point, I had never seen that at any US city, only regular uniformed police. Fast forward 15 years, and you see paramilitary police everywhere in the US.

    24. Re:Its not the drones that are the problem by davester666 · · Score: 1

      Why? Virtually none of them have glass roofs.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    25. Re:Its not the drones that are the problem by camperdave · · Score: 2

      Camo? In the city? Who's bright idea was that?

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    26. Re:Its not the drones that are the problem by rioki · · Score: 1

      This is what you call security theater, it looks way more impressive. Nonsense but more impressive... On the other hand I think black combat gear looks more awsome; so I might be wrong here.

    27. Re:Its not the drones that are the problem by Beelzebud · · Score: 1

      I was in NYC about 2 months after 9/11, and I got a laugh out of the soldiers they had stationed in the subway. All of them looked like they were ready for jungle warfare.

    28. Re:Its not the drones that are the problem by dargaud · · Score: 1

      Yeah, the movie Strange Days was science-fiction, but it's continous police presence and megaphone security messages now seem like a documentary.

      --
      Non-Linux Penguins ?
    29. Re:Its not the drones that are the problem by dintech · · Score: 1

      But that's what courts are for.

    30. Re:Its not the drones that are the problem by C0R1D4N · · Score: 2

      Cops surveying footage is considered sufficient. Red light cameras operate under this all over the country.

    31. Re:Its not the drones that are the problem by Patchw0rk+F0g · · Score: 1

      It's not the drones that people have a problem with; It's how they're used. No amount of positive publicity on their 'good' uses can erase the fact that many, if not most, law enforcement agencies envision an armada of cheap surveillance drones monitoring everyone and everyplace they decide they don't like. Protesting wall street? Drones. Add in the crowd-control microwave emitter for only an additional $2,999. How about some drones patrolling over the freeways during rush hour, equipped with a radar gun? Now an officer can write tickets for anyone speeding over a several mile stretch of road, rather than just a particular point. Only $1,599 after mail in rebate. The list goes on.

      Okay, hold on. This is just incentivising, nothing but stirring a pot not boiling. Yet.

      Regardless of what law enforcement agencies "envision", they don't have drones yet with crowd-control microwave emitters, radar guns, or other Dr. No devices attached from some Looney Tunes Acme mail-in company. Perhaps they will in the future. Deal with it then; don't stir up scary shit now with some quasi-conspiracy-theory invective.

      What I took from the articles and the events? I saw a positive response. We have technology that, up until now, has been used in mostly deleterious ways: dropping bombs, spying on enemies or suspected enemies, etc. Now someone(s) has/have determined to use this technology in a way that supersedes the usual mandate that we assign to it: drones can be used to help people, not just harm or harass them. I'm sure that there are many, many other examples of this in the scientific and sociological fields: rainforest and desert exploration, remote demographics and census taking... but we don't hear about them. They're not main-stream news.

      Kudos to the staff at U of Alaska for having the lateral thinking to use their equipment in a way that points out the positive usage of any technology. As "Hammer" guy says (either before or after this... ?) hammers can build houses, or beat people's skulls in. I favour advocating the houses, and focusing on the positive. Bring that to people's attention, and it will multiply. Only misogynistic sadists are going to clap for glee at the perverted use of any technology.

      --
      When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro. ~~ Hunter S. Thompson
    32. Re:Its not the drones that are the problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The cops surveiling Occupy protest with drones..what's supposed to be scary about that?

      Gee, I don't know. Maybe, you know, that arguably other than being there that they HADN'T COMMITTED ANY CRIMES THAT WARRANT SURVEILANCE. That they were where they were could be determined easily enough without a drone. Anything else is just using the police to manufacture evidence for a smear campaign. Do you seriously think that if it had been a gathering of white midwestern Christian males in suits that the police would be all that interested? Sure they would--except they'd be facing outwards, not inwards, since such a gathering would be approved by the powers that be.

      As to traffic laws, maybe the problem is that some of the traffic laws are kind of stupid. In particular, constantly changing speed limits, speed limits set by politicians instead of traffic engineers, two mile long school zones when there's not a kid in sight, etc. Also, this idiotic "you must come to a complete stop behind the line that's set a long way before the intersection before turning right on red even though doing so rarely affords you the visibility you need to see if it's safe to make the turn (which effectively makes you have to stop, move forward, stop again, and THEN make the turn--stupid)". Makes a lot of money for red light camera companies, though.

      The ONLY good that can possibly come out of this, and it's shaky at best, is that we start having debates about which laws are stupid, because the purpose of a lot of laws is EXACTLY that they're rarely enforced, but that they can be dragged out when somebody doesn't like you.

    33. Re:Its not the drones that are the problem by quarkscat · · Score: 1

      Exactly.

      A swarm of Hellfire missile equipped Raptor UAVs would have made a great "ice-breaker" for that Russian supply ship.

      But such an application is not the primary intent for deploying armed UAVs over the continental USA. All aspects of military-focused high technology developed for conflicts overseas ultimately finds its way to domestic "urban pacification" or against domestic "enemy combatants". 30 years of increasingly draconian police state legislation has brought us to the point that:
      (1) citizens can be stripped of citizenship with only an executive decision;
      (2) citizens can be preemptively indefinitely detained without charges;
      (3) citizens can be summarily executed based only upon an executive decision;
      (4) any crime suspected or charged against citizens may now be treated as "terrorism";

      The kidnapping of citizens is now "extreme rendition". The torture of of citizens is now "enhanced interrogation techniques". The extrajudicial imprisonment of citizens is now "indefinite preventive detention". Unintended civilian deaths is now "collateral damage". Reaction in response to our use of military force is now "blow-back". We justify interference in the internal affairs of other nations as "bringing freedom and democracy", even though we are no longer a democratic republic or constitutional republic, and if we bring not freedom but only death and destruction. If forces aligned with our side commit violence, it's justifiable in the name of "freedom fighting" -- but if their are aligned with our opponents they are deemed to be "terrorists."

      Drones are the very least of our problems, at least until The SHTF ...

    34. Re:Its not the drones that are the problem by bigrockpeltr · · Score: 2

      we would need to map the star positions and physical landmarks to triangulate their general location first. Then its party with the hot girls baby!

      --
      $ unzip, strip, touch, finger, grep, mount, fsck, more, yes,fsck,fsck,fsck,umount, sleep
    35. Re:Its not the drones that are the problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not the [Hammers] that people have a problem with; It's how they're used. No amount of positive publicity on their 'good' uses can erase the fact that many, if not most, law enforcement agencies envision an armada of cheap [Hammers] [hammering] everyone and everyplace they decide they don't like.

      - Kinda puts things into perspective.. paranoid speculation sometimes hides itself.

    36. Re:Its not the drones that are the problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why? The GPS plug in with maps is only $99.

      Nathan

    37. Re:Its not the drones that are the problem by Tarsir · · Score: 1

      An astute observation! I suggest a revision:

      -inanimate-noun- don't -animate-verb- people. People -animate-verb- people.

      \Computational Linguist

    38. Re:Its not the drones that are the problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe you shouldn't speed then?

    39. Re:Its not the drones that are the problem by g0bshiTe · · Score: 1
      I fully agree. From the summary what lept out at me was the fact they are saying "drones welcome in Alaska". Of note is

      launched from Nome's shores by University of Alaska – Fairbanks Geophysical Institute researchers

      This was used by a University and not local law enforcement or local government.

      FYI @girlintraining, they don't run radar from the air. Most likely they mark time from one place to another, r = d/t.

      --
      I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
    40. Re:Its not the drones that are the problem by im_thatoneguy · · Score: 1

      Protesting wall street? Drones.

      I really don't get the fear of a surveillance society in public.

      You know who else is watching Occupy Wall Street? OWS, The News, Police, citizens on the street etc etc...

      Speeding is illegal. What's wrong with getting a ticket for flagrantly breaking the law somewhere an officer happens to not be?

      If someone mugs someone and a drone sees them and follows them home... Good! If a drone sees me at 7-11 and follows me home... ummm... ok. Waste of resources. Someone must be really bored.

      I know this sounds like "If you aren't going something wrong then what do you have to hide." but it's not, it's: "If you're in public, surrounded by hundreds of people who can watch what you're doing anyway what do you have to hide?"

    41. Re:Its not the drones that are the problem by recharged95 · · Score: 1

      OP makes a valid point.
      The technology is NOT "bad", the usage is NOT "bad", and guess what? The people are not "bad".

      In some ways, it's just pure jealously of those that don't the tech or choose not to use it, and those that do (accessibility is not a problem, just look at the millions of home owners, and shop owners buying up CCTV systems).

      In other ways, it's just a true validation that information IS "power". And we all know humans crave "power". All UAV's offer (aside from the ones the military uses as weapons) is more "information" (video/audio/hyperspectral)

      Now those that want to restrict who can use UAVs and who can't--now those people are "bad" and the ones we should be worried about.

    42. Re:Its not the drones that are the problem by treeves · · Score: 1

      I think transitive-verb would suffice instead of animate-verb. (My example would have been funnier if I had used an intransitive verb to make that point, e.g. "Frog don't sleep people. People sleep people.
        Oh, and it should be plural-inanimate-noun.
      Glad you got my point, though.

      --
      ...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
    43. Re:Its not the drones that are the problem by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      Make that opt in instead, opt out is too easy to abuse by making it difficult to opt out, or making the opt out small print.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    44. Re:Its not the drones that are the problem by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      The problem with traffic laws is that you are always breaking them. Going too fast? you're speeding. Going slower than traffic, you're impeding the flow of traffic. Speeding not done to excess causes less accidents. The speed limits are also particularly bad.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    45. Re:Its not the drones that are the problem by im_thatoneguy · · Score: 1

      If the laws as written are bad then they'll get changed to better laws. Laws which people actually follow instead of laws which can be selectively enforced are better, fairer laws to start with.

      And you'll be able to go into court and say "As the drone data demonstrates I only sped for about 100m while coming down a hill. My apologies, but a human mistake.

      Or the drone data could prove that you were driving with traffic and not passing other speeders.

  2. Great! by jhoegl · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I guess Iceroad Truckers had the month off.
    I thought they would drive through anything including snow drifts. I am so disillusioned. :(

    1. Re:Great! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Theyre busy in the andes right now; testing their mettle!

    2. Re:Great! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uhh... there are no roads, even ice roads (which do require certain conditions and infrastructure), that connect Nome to the "road system." However, it has been proposed recently: http://www.adn.com/2011/02/13/1701108/public-hearings-put-road-to-nome.html

  3. Man is an intriguing being... by bogaboga · · Score: 2

    I just wonder why someone would be willing to live in a place that is by all measures a risky place to establish a life. Why? When I think of the polar bear, the weather, the isolation and so on, I fail to see the reason why I would want to live there. Man is surely intriguing.

    1. Re:Man is an intriguing being... by Ironchew · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I just wonder why someone would be willing to live in a place that is by all measures a risky place to establish a life. Why? When I think of the polar bear, the weather, the isolation and so on, I fail to see the reason why I would want to live there. Man is surely intriguing.

      Some people like to be closer to nature than others. It's a risky thing to do, but the Earth is a beautiful place, and that's fulfillment enough for those people.

    2. Re:Man is an intriguing being... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not remembering the summary, or knowing the purpose of the settlement in question if I did, I'd guess some people might get paid to work up there.

      Another possible reason might be that it has been proven habitable, especially with working logistics. How many would have died/suffered permanent damage from this heroic drone not saving the day? Or was it a question of more or less comfort?

    3. Re:Man is an intriguing being... by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      Polar bears are per-capita less dangerous than LA traffic.

      Some people like isolation. In all seriousness, there is risk in establishing a life anywhere. In one place you have some small but measurable probability of being capped by a gang-banger if you're not careful. In another place you have a small but measurable probability of freezing to death if you're not careful. It balances out.

      Speaking as one who moved out of a highly desirable, sunny, (which I miss a bit now) warm area to a place that was less so, my motivation is that I could afford a house here, and I certainly could not afford a house there.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    4. Re:Man is an intriguing being... by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I just wonder why someone would be willing to live in a place that is by all measures a risky place to establish a life. Why? When I think of the polar bear, the weather, the isolation and so on, I fail to see the reason why I would want to live there. Man is surely intriguing.

      Yes we are intriguing. Other people might say the same about living in a city.
      Noise level, crowding, crime, expense, risk of getting hit by a motor vehicle, etc, etc.

      To each his own.

    5. Re:Man is an intriguing being... by ColdWetDog · · Score: 4, Informative

      Or, that's where your family is from. Nome started out as a Inupiat settlement, then morphed into a Gold Rush town. Much of the population is Alaska Native and the rest are just basically crazy.

      It's an odd life, but makes more sense than living in Cleveland.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    6. Re:Man is an intriguing being... by icebraining · · Score: 1

      There are plenty of places close to nature (you can't even see a man made construction) without the risks, though.

    7. Re:Man is an intriguing being... by icebraining · · Score: 1

      Pretty sure Nome, Alaska is a city and has motor vehicles.

    8. Re:Man is an intriguing being... by hedwards · · Score: 1

      If you can't see other civilization there are additional risks as a result. The real question is how they compare with other living situations. Not all of them are equally risky. I spent some time living on an island without any reliable means of getting off it on short notice. It was perfectly fine as long as you didn't do anything stupid like split your head open or otherwise need immediate emergency care.

    9. Re:Man is an intriguing being... by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 1

      Pretty sure Nome, Alaska is a city and has motor vehicles.

      A city, for various definitions of 'city'.
      Population of Nome is ~3,500. Any traffic problems are much, much less than NYC, Chicago, LA, London, Paris, Istanbul.

    10. Re:Man is an intriguing being... by Beelzebud · · Score: 1

      It allows them to claim to be rugged individualists that don't rely on anyone or anything, as they cash the checks they get just for living there. Alaska takes in more money from the federal government than any other state.

    11. Re:Man is an intriguing being... by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 1

      I just wonder why someone would be willing to live in a place that is by all measures a risky place to establish a life. Why? When I think of the polar bear, the weather, the isolation and so on, I fail to see the reason why I would want to live there. Man is surely intriguing.

      Indeed... we all still live here on this planet, while the risk to establish a life increases.

      I'm sure that compared to the streets of Mumbai or Detroit, Nome is paradise.

    12. Re:Man is an intriguing being... by Lunoria · · Score: 1

      I just wonder why someone would be willing to live in a place that is by all measures a risky place to establish a life. Why? When I think of the polar bear, the weather, the isolation and so on, I fail to see the reason why I would want to live there. Man is surely intriguing.

      The same could be said for those living in Tornado Alley. People are weird, and they'll live anywhere on this planet.

    13. Re:Man is an intriguing being... by treeves · · Score: 1

      Or further away from lots of other people. There's plenty of nature between 50S and 50N latitude.

      --
      ...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
    14. Re:Man is an intriguing being... by hairyfeet · · Score: 2

      Exactly. if you want to be close to nature come to a state like AR, where its lush green wherever you see and land is cheap so you can own your own holler and have as much nature as you desire. my GF's family own their own holler up in the Ozarks and i just love going up there to spend a week because i can sit on the front porch and enjoy my lunch while watching a herd of deer graze not 60 feet from my seat. Of course you gotta watch the squirrels on the back patio, the grandkids have fed them so much they park their little fat asses on the back patio not 10 feet from you and if you don't throw them a snack they start chattering at you like they are saying "Hey asshole, i'm right here looking all cute and shit and STILL no nuts, WTF? what's a squirrel gotta do to get some of those raisins man?". If its something they really love like dried fruits or cashews you can just stretch your hand out palm up and they will come pick the fruits right out of your hand.

      Its really beautiful country with miles and miles of unspoiled wilderness you can enjoy, fishing, hunting, whitewater rafting, or just being lazy with an inner-tube and a cold one on a lazy Sunday afternoon, its just nice. It also only snows a couple of days a year and almost never sticks except on the mountain tops so its a hell of a lot nicer even in the winter than something like Nome. how them folks live in that kind of cold is just beyond me, hell you have people dressing like Eskimos if it drops below freezing here and its a lovely 62 degrees f right now, light breeze, just wonderful. i'll take that over freezing my nads off any day of the week!

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    15. Re:Man is an intriguing being... by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      Because the government (not sure if state or fed) used to pay a monthly incentive check (~$3000?) to people to live there?

    16. Re:Man is an intriguing being... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I always suspected you were an ignorant hillbilly.

      Thanks for confirmation.

    17. Re:Man is an intriguing being... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It allows them to claim to be rugged individualists that don't rely on anyone or anything, as they cash the checks they get just for living there. Alaska takes in more money from the federal government than any other state.

      Some of us have moved here to "get away from it all" etc.

      But most people here, grew up here, as did their parents, grandparents, great-grandparents, and so on. This is their land, their heritage. The federal government and state government own most of the land here. Funny how things work, eh?

    18. Re:Man is an intriguing being... by sonamchauhan · · Score: 1

      Doesn't mean polar bears are safe to be around but... most traffic is per capita less dangerous than LA traffic :)

    19. Re:Man is an intriguing being... by tomhath · · Score: 3, Interesting
      One of my favorite stories, I think from Farley Mowat, is about a group of sociologists who were studying people in remote fishing villages accessible only by small boat along the coast of Newfoundland. One elderly woman they talked to had never in her life been away from the town where she was born. She'd never heard of New York City; they tried to describe it to her - millions of people living in buildings hundreds of feet tall. In response she shook her head and thought out loud "I can't imagine why so many people would want to live so far away from everything".

      I fail to see the reason why I would want to live there.

      You and than old woman are the same...

    20. Re:Man is an intriguing being... by JDG1980 · · Score: 1

      Blue-collar workers get paid more in Alaska than in most other states (in large part because so few people want to live there!) Also, the oil reserves are the property of the state, so not only are there no state taxes, but residents actually get a rebate check from the Permanent Fund Dividend (it was $1,174 per person last year).

    21. Re:Man is an intriguing being... by ColdWetDog · · Score: 4, Funny

      Exactly. if you want to be close to nature come to a state like AK where it's blanket white wherever you see and land is cheap so you can own your own bog and have as much nature as you desire. my GF's family own their own bog up near Fairbanks and i just love going up there to spend a week because i can sit on the front porch and enjoy my lunch while watching a herd of caribou graze not 60 feet from my seat. Of course you gotta watch the Polar Bears on the back patio, the grandkids have been fed to them so so long they park their little fat asses on the back patio not 10 feet from you and if you don't throw them a snack they start growling at you "Hey asshole, I'm right here and if you don't feed me some dog food, then you're next. WTF? What's a endangered species gotta do to get some of those calories man?". If its something they really love like a can of Alpo or a steak, they might take it out of your hand and leave the hand alone. Then again, they might not.

      Its really beautiful country with miles and miles of unspoiled wilderness you can enjoy, fishing, hunting, snowmobiling, or just being hypothermic with a survival suit and sleeping bag on a cold afternoon, its just nice, if your survive that is. It also only stops snowing a couple of days a year and almost never melts except under the houses so its a hell of a lot colder than a New York City hooker. How them folks live in those big cities is just beyond me, hell you have people dressing like it was Halloween pretty much every day of the year.s Right now, there's hardly a soul in site, just the sun barely above the horizon and 60 mph winds. I'll take that over traffic jams any day of the week.

      There, I made it a bit more topical.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    22. Re:Man is an intriguing being... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That'd be nice. I wouldn't have to work. I could just play video games and play with robots forever.

    23. Re:Man is an intriguing being... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The difference is you're exposed to very many more cars than polar bears.

      Some animals kill more people than other animals just because people think they aren't dangerous (or as dangerous)...

      More people would go closer to bison than they would to grizzlies...

    24. Re:Man is an intriguing being... by riverat1 · · Score: 1

      Nome started out as a gold rush town (although there were Inupiat in the vicinity before). You could pan gold straight out of the beach sand, deposited there by the Yukon River.

      It takes a different kind of person to live in Nome but it's probably better for the rest of us that they do.

    25. Re:Man is an intriguing being... by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      ...and some people step off the curb before looking both ways. Or look in the wrong direction on a one-way street. The world is generally full of ways to crash land for people not paying attention.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    26. Re:Man is an intriguing being... by Bitsy+Boffin · · Score: 1

      Wtf is a "holler"?

      --
      NZ Electronics Enthusiasts: Check out my Trade Me Listings
    27. Re:Man is an intriguing being... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or, that's where your family is from. Nome started out as a Inupiat settlement, then morphed into a Gold Rush town. Much of the population is Alaska Native and the rest are just basically crazy.

      It's an odd life, but makes more sense than living in Cleveland.

      True, but at least we are not Detroit.

      http://youtu.be/oZzgAjjuqZM

    28. Re:Man is an intriguing being... by rrhal · · Score: 1

      Nome does have motor vehicles - no polar bears. At ~3500 people it is the largest city for over a thousand miles radius. It is not connected by road to Fairbanks or Anchorage.

      --
      All generalizations are false, including this one. Mark Twain
    29. Re:Man is an intriguing being... by rrhal · · Score: 2

      The Alaska Permanent Fund Dividend is paid by the state. The amount varies year by year. It has been ~ $1200 for the last few years.

      --
      All generalizations are false, including this one. Mark Twain
    30. Re:Man is an intriguing being... by MaXintosh · · Score: 1

      That'd be nice. I wouldn't have to work. I could just play video games and play with robots forever.

      That would be nice. Except it's entirely untrue. And there is money, it's not 3k, and it's not for `simply living there.` It's royalties on oil money and rent, which instead of directly being plugged back into education, or whatever, the state decided to let people spend as they see fit. The amount doesn't even cover cost of living, which is incredibly high due to logistics.

    31. Re:Man is an intriguing being... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      holler, variant of hollow, meaning small valley.

    32. Re:Man is an intriguing being... by camperdave · · Score: 1

      Much of the population is Alaska Native and the rest are just basically crazy.

      You say that as if the two are mutually exclusive. :-)

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    33. Re:Man is an intriguing being... by camperdave · · Score: 1

      Nome... You can't get there from here.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    34. Re:Man is an intriguing being... by aynoknman · · Score: 1

      You missed the summertime mosquitoes as big as B52 bombers.

      --
      We need a "+1 -- nice sig" moderation.
    35. Re:Man is an intriguing being... by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      Its a small valley situated between two mountains, the Ozarks is full of them. Truly gorgeous up in that area and because you can't farm in a holler easily (too many trees, too hilly) you can own quite a bit of land dirt cheap. And for the guy that said you get mosquitoes the size of B52? that's the delta NOT the Ozarks. In fact because there is so little standing water you almost never see mosquitoes in that area.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    36. Re:Man is an intriguing being... by Ihmhi · · Score: 1

      It's an odd life, but makes more sense than living in Cleveland.

      Well yeah. I mean, think about it. One is freezing cold most of the time and filled with economic uncertainty and brutal animals out to murder you at a second's notice. The other is Alaska.

    37. Re:Man is an intriguing being... by YesIAmAScript · · Score: 2

      It's only partly that the oil resources belong to the state. It's that the state has a 25% severance tax.

      http://www.centerfortaxstudies.com/blog/taxnews/2007/12/27/alaska_severance_tax_governor_signs_petr

      http://housemajority.org/coms/hres/27/History_of_Alaskas_Oil_Gas_Production_Tax_Roger_Marks_20110209.pdf

      The amount made from severance tax is higher than the amount received from royalties on production on state lands.

      25% (at least! When oil is worth more than $30/bbl the rate is higher) of the value of every barrel of oil pulled from the ground in the state is paid to the state in taxes. This produces more money than the state needs, so they distribute the excess equally in a socialist fashion as a lump sum payout to residents of the state.

      The state collects this tax because they know that the oil is being by-and-large sold to other states in the union and the costs of the tax are passed onto the consumers, the population of the US, 99% of which doesn't live in Alaska. This money goes to the statehouse in Alaska and then some of it onto the residents.

      California, as a counter-example, has no severance tax at all, even though California is the 3rd largest oil producing state in the US and 90% of the population of the US lives outside California.

      --
      http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
    38. Re:Man is an intriguing being... by hoboroadie · · Score: 1

      I am pretty sure the mosquito reference was referring to AK. Every one I've met who's been to AK asserts they've far exceeded my one-time MN experience. Personally, I think some areas should be left for migratory waterfowl and such. Grizzlies and cold I can deal with, I not manly enough to face midges and mosquitoes. I am soon moving a bit north to where the cucarachas are smaller, in order to enjoy a better life.

      --
      They feared that it could be used to suppress protest or support unpopular rule.
    39. Re:Man is an intriguing being... by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      What's a midge? As for skeeters you should go to the delta sometime, they come in bunches so thick they look like a black cloud. Makes the fish fat though, i've seen them literally jumping out of the water to grab a big mouthful when they are flying just above a creek. As far as roaches ANY big city, i don't care how far north you go, will have huge bastards. Down here it stays warm enough most of the time the roaches stay outside where there is plenty of leaf matter to feed on and they actually don't get that big, the other bugs prey on them too much. the only time you see any big roaches is when there is a flood and the old ones come out the storm tunnels looking for higher ground.

      And you can keep the cold friend, as I always say "You can get under a shade tree with some sweet tea, or turn on your AC, but when its 20 degrees outside there is NOTHING you can do to keep from freezing your balls off." Give me a nice warm climate where there is tons of fresh fruits in the farmer's markets and slow cooked BBQ and I'm a happy camper.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    40. Re:Man is an intriguing being... by operagost · · Score: 1

      Why? Is Nome's football team better?

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    41. Re:Man is an intriguing being... by ErikZ · · Score: 1

      I have a friend who has problems with allergies. She loves the idea of moving to Northern Alaska.

      --
      Democrats or Republicans. They are both taking us to the same place and they are not afraid of us anymore.
    42. Re:Man is an intriguing being... by Translation+Error · · Score: 1

      Of course you gotta watch the Polar Bears on the back patio, the grandkids have been fed to them

      Yeah... that does sound like something to keep an eye on...

      --
      When someone says, "Any fool can see ..." they're usually exactly right.
    43. Re:Man is an intriguing being... by akgooseman · · Score: 1

      Cussin', drinkin' and (seasonally) gold minin' or dog mushin' are full time jobs in Nome. The welcome sign at the Nome airport greets visitors visitors "Welcome to fucking Nome, you cocksuckers".

    44. Re:Man is an intriguing being... by cthulhu11 · · Score: 1

      ... the lack of food

    45. Re:Man is an intriguing being... by tchall · · Score: 1

      More people would go closer to bison than they would to grizzlies...

      Which is why so many visitors to Yellowstone and the Flathead Bison Reservation take a few weeks to recover from their vation time before going home... (if they make it back...)

      They are "furry" so they MUST be nice to touch!!! Idiots!

    46. Re:Man is an intriguing being... by recharged95 · · Score: 1

      And maybe closer to Benjamin Franklin's (cash). I hear Nome's a big gold mining town...

    47. Re:Man is an intriguing being... by fuzzywig · · Score: 1

      In UK English we'd call it a hollow.

    48. Re:Man is an intriguing being... by Coren22 · · Score: 1
      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    49. Re:Man is an intriguing being... by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      Depending on which allergies, they could be much worse there too.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
  4. Not the drones you're looking for by countertrolling · · Score: 1

    Alaska is the perfect place for cargo drones.. They're a lot less likely to wreck than a human pilot..

    --
    For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
  5. Forgive my ignorance... by omganton · · Score: 2

    ...but does it really matter that it was unmanned? There was no inherent risk for a regular pilot to monitor the same situation. I would hardly consider this a " tedious or risky intelligence gathering gig."

    1. Re:Forgive my ignorance... by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      Many people around the world see drones as death, surveillance, 24/7 tracking for wifi, voice/audio, visual, heat ect.
      Stories in the media filter back to the US and local populations understand what is going to be used on them and the long term new funding they will have to find.
      On the other side you have the manufacturers, public/private maintenance, public/private maintenance training, flight schools, regulators and visions of huge boondoggles.
      States want to set up drone "universities" to cover all the needs of drone use- seeing export and wide scale US use bringing funding to their areas.
      Political leaders pushing for more drones need good news stories- then they can fund more drone roll outs and hope for donations back as massive state/federal cash flows in .

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  6. FAA authorized? by theNAM666 · · Score: 2

    Did they get FAA authorization? Enquiring bureaucrats want to know.

    1. Re:FAA authorized? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      from TFA: yes

      =P

    2. Re:FAA authorized? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sure they'll answer to a properly filled out FOIA request.

    3. Re:FAA authorized? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure did. Emergency issued COA in 48 hours. Even had an FAA observer from Flight Standards on site helping and learning about the issues and capabilities with the hopes of taking it back to DC to help move things along for all.

  7. Propaganda. by Beelzebud · · Score: 1

    This entire article is a case study in propaganda.

  8. The Daily had a reporter there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    NOME, Alaska — As a Russian fuel tanker begins the final and most delicate phase of an emergency delivery to this ice-shackled city, the ship is getting help from a polar icebreaker, 85 Coast Guard sailors and one robotic drone.

    The vessels have chopped their way through hundreds of miles of sea ice to bring an unprecedented mid-winter gas shipment to Nome’s 3,500 residents, starved for fuel after weeks of record-breaking subzero temperatures. Once the tanker ship Renda finds a safe spot to drop anchor about a mile off shore, workers will set about the tricky business of piping 1.3 million gallons of fuel across a last stretch of ice to storage tanks beside the harbor.

    http://www.thedaily.com/page/2012/01/15/011512-news-arctic-drone-rescue-1-2/

  9. Nome? by readin · · Score: 1

    I have a brother in Alaska. Nome? Sure, he's my brother. I mean Nome in Alaska. I'd know 'em anywhere! (Thank you Abbott and Costello)

    --
    I often don't like the choices people make, but I like the fact that people make choices. That's why I'm a conservative.
  10. Reminds me by Dunbal · · Score: 1

    I'm confused now, what was it again? Oh yes. Two legs good, four legs baaaaaaaa-ad. Drones are good now, right?

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  11. I live in Nome by ghettoboy22 · · Score: 1

    And this comment is spot on in my book. I have no problem using drones for science, nature and wildlife purposes, and the like. But drones for police matters? There is a reason I live far away from most government.....

  12. You can't drive to Nome by ghettoboy22 · · Score: 1

    There is no road pad to Nome that you could use to drive on or make an ice road out of. The nearest road is 500 miles away.

    1. Re:You can't drive to Nome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You don't understand. These are the Ice Road Truckers . They can drive anywhere. I'm serious. I saw it on TV.

  13. Total propaganda piece by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Really reaching to find something good to say about drones that will for the most part be used to watch American citizens.

  14. How was the delivery by russotto · · Score: 1

    The good news is the drone guided the fuel delivery to the town. The bad news is the delivery was done by aerosolizing the fuel over the town, then igniting it. Oops, must have left some of the military code in there by mistake.

    1. Re:How was the delivery by helipod · · Score: 1

      first go the freedoms, then goes the US

  15. a quote for all you who think this is wonderful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "...But it was all right, everything was all right, the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself. He loved Big Brother."

  16. Find Bigfoot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hopefully one day drones will be cheap enough for bigfoot researchers to afford to use them.

  17. So do we know it was the drone? by jakartus · · Score: 2

    Or would the geek in us just like to assume it?

    From http://dec.alaska.gov/Spar/renda/index.htm

    01/11/2012 - The T/V Renda and CGC Healy have not travelled any significant distance since noon yesterday. The vessels remain approximately 100 nautical miles from Nome. An experienced U.S. ice navigator hired by Vitus Marine as a technical advisor arrived safely on board the Healy around 4:00 PM today. He may transfer to Renda after assessing the challenges from on board the Healy.

    01/12/2012 - The vessels worked until approximately 12:30 am this morning and made good progress. They are currently about 70 miles from Nome and hopeful for continued good progress today. (updated 10:15am)

    01/13/2012 - At this time, the Renda is staying offshore while the Healy is making runs to test the ice and determine the best place for the Renda to moor for the fuel transfer.

  18. Perpetual "eye-in-the-sky" by wisebabo · · Score: 3, Interesting

    So here's a question for the skilled do it yourselfers in the slashdot crowd.

    I figure that one of those "micro-drones" only use a few(?) watts of power right? How much does the Parrot quad copter use?

    Well, could you (sorry, not me, unfortunately I don't have the hacking skills :( attach a solar panel facing DOWN on one of those drones and then affix a little infrared LED on the drone. A modest ground based telescope would track the LED and continuously point a medium(?) powered laser at the solar panel. (That's one place where the hacking comes in, to have a motorized base track the drone and to provide safeties in case the laser lost "lock").

    Voila! As long as the drone stays in line of sight of the base (and as long as power doesn't give out) you've got a modest little perpetual aerial surveillance platform. Can lasers of the requisite power/frequency be purchased without too much of a headache from the authorities? Can small drones fight gusts and high winds so that they'll stay up most of the time?

    This reminds me of the floating "golden eyes" used by Larry Niven as surveillance tools in his novels. Someone in Japan made a spherical drone that did this but I think it could only stay up for 10 minutes on one battery charge. If the solar cells were light enough/laser was powerful enough perhaps that drone could be used.

    Is the visible/infrared the best part of the spectrum to use? Would a maser (with microwave power receiver) be better in terms of efficiency or safety?

    1. Re:Perpetual "eye-in-the-sky" by stephanruby · · Score: 1

      Here are some numbers to get you started on your calculations. That test was done indoors.

    2. Re:Perpetual "eye-in-the-sky" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Check out http://www.lasermotive.com - A Seattle company doing exactly this.

    3. Re:Perpetual "eye-in-the-sky" by wisebabo · · Score: 1

      Thanks! I've actually heard (a little) about these guys before in context of the space elevator beaming competitions.
      Anyway, maybe it's just their web page but their stuff looks kinda expensive (no prices!). I was kinda hoping that the technology was accessible enough that a sufficiently skilled slashdotter could do it in their spare time. :)

    4. Re:Perpetual "eye-in-the-sky" by recharged95 · · Score: 1

      Ar.Drone example.
          1A@11.8V (3 cell lipo), 10C rating == 10A*11.8 == 118Watts continuous max discharge.... a 100+W solar panel is $$$ and weigh over 8lbs.

          The Ar.Drone cannot fight headwinds period. You'll need way more powerful motors, like any of the open source UAVs. Basically a few lbs. Most of the DIY UAVs can fight a Beaufort 4 wind, but not reliably.

          IR? No thanks.

          Laser? No thanks (unless you want to shoot something down).

          Military uses microwaves, but their UAVs can carry 100lbs, and are not micro... and cost a lot...

      We're still about 6-8yrs away from a "Golden Eye".

    5. Re:Perpetual "eye-in-the-sky" by Agripa · · Score: 1

      It's not quite that bad. The panel can be optimized for the wavelength used and the culminated source can be considerably brighter than the sun. You still need a high power infrared laser.

  19. Go Canada! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'd just like to point out that the Aeryon Scout drone mentioned in the article is Made In Canada. Aeryon Labs is based out of RIM's hometown, Waterloo Ontario.

    Got a chance to see the Scout up close at the local Hackerspace meetup a couple months ago (Kwartzlab - http://www.kwartzlab.ca) and I was very impressed. Looked like a solid little performer.

    GO CANADA!

  20. nets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How high are we allowed to build?

    I propose the erection of various nets skywards. And net tossing robotic arms.

  21. Alaska needs oil? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So, a state that produces 2million barrels/day of oil for the US, needs an 'emergency delivery' of oil?
    There's some irony in that.

    1. Re:Alaska needs oil? by petermgreen · · Score: 1

      The thing isou can't just drive a convoy of oil trucks from one of the big well-connected cities further south to Nome because the roads don't exist. You could fly fuel in but afaict doing so is a VERY expensive option and it wouldn't surprise me if the airport capacity simply didn't exist to move enough. So the normal thing to do is to bring fuel in by sea in the summer and store it for the winter.

      Which is great until someone miscalculates demand and they run out of fuel in the middle of winter. Presumablly someone looked at the options and decided that using icebreakers to bring a russian fuel tanker in was the least bad one.

      * I have no idea about the frozen north of other places

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
  22. It's not simply for living there? by YesIAmAScript · · Score: 1

    Oh, well then what do you have to do to qualify to receive it?

    Live there.

    --
    http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
  23. Iditarod by splutty · · Score: 1

    Funny how things like this make the news.

    I recognized the name because Nome is/has been the end of the Iditarod dogsled race for quite a while.

    Only way to get there is normally by plane (or dogsled, obviously), so this made me chuckle quite a bit.

    http://www.iditarod.com/

    --
    Coz eternity my friend, is a long *ing time.
  24. Blow Free or Die by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 1

    Might turn out the only future enclaves of freedom and privacy in the US will be where there is near-ubiquitous wind.

  25. Forgive my ignorance... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...it sounds like nuclear power. Tax dollars FTW.

  26. BzzzztThankYouForPlayng... by Gription · · Score: 2

    Traffic courts are the end point of a revenue supply stream. Judges do not make, "Gee, was there a valid reason?" types of decisions. They make "Is it humanly possible to apply this law here and are all the 'T's crossed?" types of decisions.

    The enforcement and fee structure of our traffic laws are based on extremely low chances of getting caught. If every possible infraction was enforced in every possible instance the average driver's license would be ticketed to the point of suspension within an hour. The policeman is the point were discretion should be applied to decide, "Should I enforce this", and the idea that infractions should be blanket enforced by an automated, 1984ish, mechano-fascist system is insane.


    Also there is a general "knowledge" that speed is the ultimate "safety sin" that is so far from correct. The government's own NHTSA report that was released after 10 years of the "55 mile-an-hour limit" had background data that when analyzed (by someone other then the government) showed that the safest speed to be traveling was 5 to 10 mph faster then the general flow of traffic. That same study "proved" that 55 saved lives: after ignoring any other possible source for a reduction in deaths per mile such as much safer cars, massive improvements in tire safety, seat belt laws, etc... So after going with the spin that nothing else could have effected the number of fatalities, the best number they could come up with worked out to it costing an additional 150 man/years (from the reduced speeds) on the roads for every life saved. (One independent analysis pointed out that you could get the same expected reduction in fatalities by increasing the actual tire pressure in all cars by about 2 psi.)
    When a more sensible look is made at the data, it is pretty clear that once you factor out increases in passenger car safety, tire safety, and seat belt use, it shows that drivers had become worse, most likely because they had lost driving ability and when at a slower pace it encourages people to do "other things" besides drive.

    Lets be serious. Traffic enforcement is about revenue. Speed is easy to prove, it is fun/interesting for cops to enforce and the public has been led to believe that SPEED is the big scary thing, ... and lets be honest, there is something in the back of the average person's head that doesn't want someone to pass them. If speed was the CAUSE of an accident then there would be a speed where when you reached it the accident would ensue.
    If traffic enforcement was about "safety" there would be a mandate to enforce the laws as they relate to the generation of accidents: Failure to yield right-of-way, inattentive driving, and just plain incompetence.

    ----
    Oh, and the correct civilian use of drones is to create an open source project of mesh networked drones to monitor our government...
    And that includes detecting speed traps from above!

    1. Re:BzzzztThankYouForPlayng... by cyberchondriac · · Score: 1

      Traffic courts are the end point of a revenue supply stream. Judges do not make, "Gee, was there a valid reason?" types of decisions. They make "Is it humanly possible to apply this law here and are all the 'T's crossed?" types of decisions. Also there is a general "knowledge" that speed is the ultimate "safety sin" that is so far from correct. The government's own NHTSA report that was released after 10 years of the "55 mile-an-hour limit" had background data that when analyzed (by someone other then the government) showed that the safest speed to be traveling was 5 to 10 mph faster then the general flow of traffic. That same study "proved" that 55 saved lives: after ignoring any other possible source for a reduction in deaths per mile such as much safer cars, massive improvements in tire safety, seat belt laws, etc... So after going with the spin that nothing else could have effected the number of fatalities, the best number they could come up with worked out to it costing an additional 150 man/years (from the reduced speeds) on the roads for every life saved. (One independent analysis pointed out that you could get the same expected reduction in fatalities by increasing the actual tire pressure in all cars by about 2 psi.) Lets be serious. Traffic enforcement is about revenue. Speed is easy to prove, it is fun/interesting for cops to enforce and the public has been led to believe that SPEED is the big scary thing, ... and lets be honest, there is something in the back of the average person's head that doesn't want someone to pass them. If speed was the CAUSE of an accident then there would be a speed where when you reached it the accident would ensue.

      I wish I still had mod points. This is exactly it. It's far harder to prove that someone was tailgating, or driving erratically or aggressively a mile back, or failing to use their turn signal. I cant' believe how many people are too lazy to flick their finger to let the other people in their proximity, also operating a moving 2 ton vehicle, know that they have an intention of changing direction. That kind of crap causes more accidents than speeding ever will, unless the speeding is truly excessive and reckless -which usually, it isn't.

      --

      Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
    2. Re:BzzzztThankYouForPlayng... by Pope · · Score: 1

      55mph limit was to reduce gas consumption after the oil crisis. Driving faster increases gas consumption at the square of the speed due to drag.

      --
      It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
  27. Propaganda Machine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I see the propaganda machine running at full speed. A Drone was used to guide a tanker, but leaving out that it's used in many other ways.

    Maybe that drone should be used exclusively for guiding tankers and left at the Marina, while all the other drones end up getting shot down by the lawful citizens.

  28. They didn't miscalculate demand ... by garyebickford · · Score: 2

    Which is great until someone miscalculates demand and they run out of fuel in the middle of winter

    Actually what happened, IIRC, is that the normal last-before-winter-ice delivery scheduled in November had to be cancelled due to a big storm. Then they had the logistical problem of getting a tanker AND an ice breaker there at the same time.

    --
    It's easier to be a result of the past, but more fun to be a cause of the future! http://www.spacefinancegroup.com/
    1. Re:They didn't miscalculate demand ... by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      According to the article as well, before this delivery, they would have run out in March or April...not like next week, so it wasn't even a big deal; though getting the oil in before the ice got too thick was good.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?