Slashdot Mirror
Injured Man Is First Person Saved By a Police Drone In Canada
AchilleTalon writes "As the US continues to grapple with the idea of letting drones fly through the country's airspace, our neighbors to the north have reported a new milestone for unmanned aerial technology: the first life saved using a drone. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police in the province of Saskatchewan announced yesterday that they successfully used the small Draganflyer X4-ES helicopter drone to locate and treat an injured man whose car had flipped over in a remote, wooded area in near-freezing temperatures. Zenon Dragan, president and founder of the Draganfly company that makes the drone, said in a statement: 'to our knowledge, this is the first time that a life may have been saved with the use of a sUAS (small Unmanned Aerial System) helicopter.'"
They are a powerful technology, for good, or evil.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
When they are used for search and rescue. The problem is that our police force has been lobbying to get them for law enforcement, to be used to further spy on and exert control over the populace. If law enforcement wants to have drones for the sole and limited purpose of search and rescue thats fine by me. Id prefer if I didnt need to worry about some agency watching my every physical move.
Interesting point, but I have to disagree. The V1 was a missile, not a drone. The V1 itself constituted the attacking weapon. I think the distinction with a drone attack would be that the drone itself isn't the attacking weapon, but rather it carries weapons to attack. Example: The Predator drone which carries Hellfire missiles.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
The man's life was saved by a policeman using an infrared camera which happened to be mounted on a drone.
It's important to get the gist of the story right here, because the decision to use drones domestically is a matter of trade offs. So it makes a difference whether you draw the spurious lesson "drones save lives", or the correct lesson, "infrared cameras save lives, drones save money in deploying such cameras in comparison to conventional helicopters or fixed-wing aircraft." One might reasonably choose to risk civil liberties because of certain life-or-death situation, but not choose to do so if its a matter of another ten or twenty bucks a year on your state or provincial taxes.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
The V1 had a rudimentary guidance system consisting of an anemometer in the nose that track distance and tipped the missile into a dive at the proper range.
So yes it was the first guided drone.
There are commercial satellites with the resolution to read your license plate
Satellites are not comparable to drones. To achieve good resolution, satellites need to be in near earth orbit, which means they are moving overhead at thousands of km/hr. They can take a snapshot, but they cannot loiter and observe continuously, and they cannot zoom in real time. They are an expensive and limited asset, which means they are not available to the local cop who has a grudge against you because you are dating his ex-girlfriend.
but when the police department does it, it's evil?
The government has the power to ruin people's lives, so the implications are far different. Furthermore, the information would be available to the entire government, not just a single person.
And unmanned drones are different from helicopters (and I don't think helicopters should be spying on anyone, either) in that they can be used en masse far more easily.
but realistically you're not that important or interesting to begin with.
Nothing to hide, nothing to fear. As long as the government doesn't abuse me, all is well!
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!