Colorado Town Considers Drone-Hunting Licenses

or could it be ... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-19 05:05 · Score: 4, Interesting

a completely illegal destruction of government property?

Re:or could it be ... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-19 05:33 · Score: 4, Insightful

That depends on the DEMOCRATICALLY-ELECTED representatives of the People of Deer.
If the People say they don`t want drones over their heads, and the People`s Representatives truly "represent" vox populi,
THE DRONE ITSELF IS ILLEGAL.
Re:or could it be ... by pspahn · 2013-07-19 05:46 · Score: 4, Informative

Everyone, please! Take this story seriously!
It was actually on the news the other night and they interviewed I believe the mayor, the guy drafting the bill, and some other sheriff or somebody. They clearly stated "this is a symbolic gesture only". Everything about this bill says so. You're only allowed to use a shotgun firing pellets (lot of good that will do with the drone at altitude), and the bounties paid out are nowhere near a practical amount of money for the effort put in.
Besides all that, they even said that they have never even seen a drone over the town.

--
Someone flopped a steamer in the gene pool.
Re:or could it be ... by Luyseyal · 2013-07-19 05:58 · Score: 2

... or personal property? http://diydrones.com/
-l

--
Help cure AIDS, cancer, and more. Donate your unused computer time to worldcommunitygrid.org. Join Team Slashdot!
Re:or could it be ... by minstrelmike · 2013-07-19 06:01 · Score: 3, Interesting

Besides all that, they even said that they have never even seen a drone over the town.
Yes but that was before the town fathers took their anti-USA (Homeland Security) stance.
I suspect the NSA has pulled all the records of the Deer Trail council folks by now.
Re:or could it be ... by JTsyo · 2013-07-19 06:15 · Score: 4, Funny

So you're saying there's a market for cannons that shoot shotguns which in turn has a prox sensor to fire and take out drones?
Re:or could it be ... by ShanghaiBill · 2013-07-19 06:15 · Score: 3, Interesting

... or personal property? http://diydrones.com/
I own a drone (an RC helicopter w/ camera). I fly it in public parks and on my mom's farm. I don't fly it over other people's private property without their permission. If I did, I would have little right to complain if they shot it down.
Re:or could it be ... by pspahn · 2013-07-19 06:20 · Score: 2

Yes but that was before the town fathers took their anti-USA (Homeland Security) stance.
Your intuition meter might need to be serviced. This is not an "anti-USA" stance, it is a gimmick crafted solely to put a few more pennies in the town's coffers. Nothing more. They can wrap it all up in a story that is on many people's minds right now, but that's what gimmicks do.
Do you think those guys at the flea market selling knock off apparel are there because they are genuinely into high fashion?

--
Someone flopped a steamer in the gene pool.
Re:or could it be ... by lymond01 · 2013-07-19 06:51 · Score: 3, Insightful

This is not an "anti-USA" stance,
Indeed. It is actually a pro USA stance, though it is also an anti-US Government stance. Something both sides should do well to remember: the US Government is not the United States of America. When the government starts committing acts in the name of its citizens that those very citizens disagree with, this is when people get voted out in our happy democracy.
Re:or could it be ... by Bartles · 2013-07-19 07:02 · Score: 2

It's anti-surveillance, anti-totalitarian, and anti-authoritarian, but it is in no way shape or form anti-government, as the town government created the law.
Re:or could it be ... by Bartles · 2013-07-19 07:04 · Score: 2

I think a drone armed with remotely fired shotguns would be pretty effective.
Re:or could it be ... by awkScooby · 2013-07-19 07:13 · Score: 2

When the government starts committing acts in the name of its citizens that those very citizens disagree with, this is when people should get voted out in our happy democracy.
FIFY
Re:or could it be ... by cusco · 2013-07-19 07:36 · Score: 3, Funny

If this passes they should carry shotguns in the balloons. They'll be a lot closer to any drone than the guys on the ground will be, and will have a much better shot at the bounty.

--
"Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
Re:or could it be ... by Obfuscant · 2013-07-19 07:36 · Score: 3, Insightful

If the People say they don`t want drones over their heads, and the People`s Representatives truly "represent" vox populi,
So if the majority of the city council decided to condemn your home, tear it down, and sell the land to McDonalds, you'd be fine with that because it was "vox populi"?
The ordinance doesn't say that the drone has to belong to the US government or even be flying at the time. All it has to have is "markings similar to" the markings on a kind of UAV known to be owned by the US. That means if you put a US flag decal on your private UAV, well, that's a marking that meets that definition. If your neighbor sees you holding it and shoots it out of your hand, he gets a bounty. Destruction of private property now nets anyone who does it not jail time but a bonus.
Oh, but nobody owns their own UAV, right? I got one for Christmas, and I've seen them in the stores for about $30.

THE DRONE ITSELF IS ILLEGAL.
What utter and complete nonsense. You may have the opinion that the use of a UAV in a certain manner may violate the constitution using your own interpretation of same, but claiming that "the drone itself is illegal" is just pathetic. In fact, your claim to "vox populi" shoots you in the foot on this one, since there is no "vox populi" laws making them illegal.
Re:or could it be ... by ShanghaiBill · 2013-07-19 08:04 · Score: 2, Insightful

I don't fly it over other people's private property without their permission. If I did, I would have little right to complain if they shot it down.
So a gust of wind comes up and your drone is blown over your next door neighbors property, and he pulls out a shotgun and blows it away. And then takes the parts down to city hall and gets a bounty for it. How cool is that?
If I don't have full control over my drone, then I shouldn't be flying it. I get along fine with my neighbors, but in principle, I think they have a right to defend their privacy.

Or he sees it flying at the park and shoots it down.
Park land belongs to the government, and if they say "no drones", then I have no right to fly it there. I don't live in Deer Trail. I live in San Jose, California, and here flying drones in a park is fine. While flying my drone, I was only once approached by a police officer. He watched for a while, and then chatted with me about buying one as a birthday present for his son. Then he got on his bike and left.

You like that law? You think your drone is illegal just by itself?
My drone is not, and should not be, illegal. But flying it over other people's property without their permission, should be illegal.
Re:or could it be ... by Jawnn · 2013-07-19 08:11 · Score: 3, Funny

You're only allowed to use a shotgun firing pellets (lot of good that will do with the drone at altitude), and the bounties paid out are nowhere near a practical amount of money for the effort put in.
Well of course shootin' 'em at altitude makes no sense. Waste of birdshot. And sluicin' 'em (shooting them at rest on the ground) ain't sportin'. That's why I got my brother-in-law working on some decoys right now, and I fired up the ol' cassette recorder to practice my drone callin'. See, you want to catch just as they're coming in low over the decoys.
Might have to find me a bigger bird dog, though.
Re:or could it be ... by Obfuscant · 2013-07-19 08:25 · Score: 2

If I don't have full control over my drone, then I shouldn't be flying it.
I didn't say you didn't have full control over your drone. I said a gust of wind blew it.

Park land belongs to the government, and if they say "no drones", then I have no right to fly it there.
Another non-response. They didn't say you can't fly your drone there, this is a law that says someone else may shoot it down and take it to the city hall and get paid for it.

I don't live in Deer Trail.
Sigh. So pretend you live in Deer Trail and this law is being discussed, and you realize that your personally owned property can be shot out of the air just because you own it. Do you approve of that law now?

My drone is not, and should not be, illegal.
That is the attitude expressed by at least one person here.

But flying it over other people's property without their permission, should be illegal.
The airspace is controlled by the federal government. Interstate commerce. Why should it be illegal for your UAV to go over someone else's property? Why should they have the right to destroy it because it drifted off course for a few seconds? Should it be illegal for me to fly my manned aircraft over someone else's property? Was it ok for the soviets to shoot down KAL007 because it was over "their property"?
Re:or could it be ... by VortexCortex · 2013-07-19 10:38 · Score: 2

So you're saying there's a market for cannons that shoot shotguns which in turn has a prox sensor to fire and take out drones?
Well, my History Channel official Civil War Reenactment kit did come with a few Ancient Aliens. You call 'em what you like, but them's UFOs to me, sonny.
Re:or could it be ... by wierd_w · 2013-07-19 10:45 · Score: 3, Interesting

I realize that this is a joke, but it might not be.
Hear me out here:
Drone operators send their drones to LOOK for something. Usually, out in rural america land, that thing they are looking for is "illegal marijuana farms".
So, to decoy the drones, all you have to do is make marjuana plant decoys made out of silk, and stake them out in secluded pastures and clearings. Spread some rumors about pot farming happening in the area you are staking out.
Then, when the drones fly in to investigate and take pictures, you pop them.
Re: or could it be ... by oxdas · 2013-07-19 10:55 · Score: 2

Pot is legal to grow for personal consumption (or to give freely to others) in the state of Colorado (although it is still against Federal laws). As a consequence, it is more out in the open than in other states, so I doubt this would draw attention from drones. How about a "I support Snowden" poster instead?

I hope it happens. by intermodal · 2013-07-19 05:06 · Score: 5, Interesting

There's no good reason to allow a surveilance state, and I support any government entity that helps the populace fight back against it in such efforts.

--
In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!

Re:I hope it happens. by i+kan+reed · 2013-07-19 05:10 · Score: 4, Informative

And there's certainly no legitimate uses for aerial devices besides spying on people. I'm given to understand that missing persons cases never crop up in rural Colorado. And I certainly can't envision using aerial drones to help with wildfire control. Or environmental surveys. Or mapping. Or weather. Or any number of legitimate government functions. It's all to spy on intermodal
Re:I hope it happens. by Immerman · 2013-07-19 05:22 · Score: 5, Insightful

Do you honestly believe that once establish such surveillance would not be abused? If so I have an NSA to sell you...

--
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
Re:I hope it happens. by Beardydog · 2013-07-19 05:24 · Score: 4, Insightful

If the federal government wanted to use drones for science and fire control, they shouldn't have broken trust with the American people vigorously and repeatedly, to the point that no one believes anything they say about their own motives or operations. I mentally append "and spying" to every described use they offer. "On intermodal" is a childish straw man.
Re:I hope it happens. by Natales · 2013-07-19 05:26 · Score: 2

We are at the very beginning of this technology. You can't possibly say there is no legitimate uses only because you haven't thought of any. Besides, the image you have in your mind of a drone can change radically in the next few years (think insect-sized drones for example).
Re:I hope it happens. by Grishnakh · 2013-07-19 05:31 · Score: 3, Insightful

You're absolutely right that there's legitimate uses for this technology, however as Beadydog says above, the federal government has completely broken trust with the American people, so as far as I'm concerned, there's NO legitimate uses as long as they're the ones operating the drones. They simply can't be trusted.
Re:I hope it happens. by Kaenneth · 2013-07-19 05:47 · Score: 2

Frank Herbert is my favorite Sci-Fi author not because of Dune, but because of the BuSab.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bureau_of_Sabotage
Re:I hope it happens. by im_thatoneguy · 2013-07-19 06:13 · Score: 2

Should the federal government have guns? They've misused those. Should the federal government have cars? Police have run over more people than the NSA has wiretapped (I would rather be wiretapped than run over). Should the federal government not be allowed to have computers since the NSA misused them? Should we not perform the census since Hitler used it for evil? Should we not let the police have helicopters?
The NSA has proven that they don't need drones to spy on you. Maybe the federal government should only be able to use horses and parchment.
Re:I hope it happens. by JTsyo · 2013-07-19 06:32 · Score: 2

Don't forget brooms.
Re:I hope it happens. by Kilo+Kilo · 2013-07-19 06:39 · Score: 2

This just goes to show how much of a buzzword "drone" has become. The average American fears drones. Why? Because that's what he sees on TV doing all these horrible things. This has become so ingrained that any drone is instantly a boogeyman.

The problem is that the govt is spying on its own people and blowing them up without trials. How they do these things doesn't really matter. The fact that they think it's perfectly OK and don't plan on stopping anytime soon is the problem.
Re:I hope it happens. by i+kan+reed · 2013-07-19 06:48 · Score: 2

Seriously? That's your argument? It's so incredibly stupid it's hard to know where to begin. The basic format of your argument is that because the government has abused other technologies, this arbitrary one shouldn't be allowed.
The government used military force in the past without sufficient justification? Intermodal's solution: completely disarm.
The government has had allowed prison abuse in the past? Intermodal's solution: release all prisoners.
The government has inappropriately audited someone in the past? Let tax cheats get away.
The government has ruled questionably on a court case? Do away with courts, let people solve their problems with shootouts.
The solution to curtailing abuse is surprise: punishing the abusers, not dismantling the basic structures of society.
Re:I hope it happens. by intermodal · 2013-07-19 07:13 · Score: 2

It's true. I believed Obama that one time when he called Kanye West a jackass.

--
In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
Re:I hope it happens. by mcrbids · 2013-07-19 07:20 · Score: 4, Interesting

All this banter about the NSA = bad or Echelon = bad or the requirement of warrant is entirely missing the point. The truth is that this fundamental lack of privacy is guaranteed to happen. We live in an era when recording data is so cheap and so easy that it's happening accidentally, automatically, as a daily part of living life. Last time I had contact with the police, my phone recorded the entire thing from my pocket. Audio quality was quite good, too. With 32 GB of space on my phone, I could literally record my entire day, every day, and keep days worth of audio on hand in case something "interesting" happened. Oops! What happened to the privacy of those around me?
But, the problem isn't the computers recording your every move, it's the secrecy with which it's being done and the lack of accountability that secrecy gives rise to.
This was predicted years and years ago and the brilliant, understandable answer to avoid abuse is simple: transparency .
I don't think that cops should have the option of wearing cameras; I think that no arrest should ever be done without them, and simply lacking the arrest footage should be enough to dismiss the case. Any and all public places should be open to be recorded without further notice. And all recordings of public places or of public officers in the performance of their duties should also be public. (with an appropriate time delay)
Some areas are already experimenting with these ideas and the result is nearly 90% reduction in police misconduct complaints. The privacy of our actions is far less important than the abuse of the information collected.

--
I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
Re:I hope it happens. by raymorris · 2013-07-19 07:45 · Score: 2

> Maybe the federal government should only be able to use horses and parchment.

That might not be such a bad idea. That should be roughly sufficient for them to perform the enumerated powers, the only things they are Constitutionally allowed to do.

Yes, that would mean the local and state governments would need to take over some responsibilities, as the founding fathers designed it. You can call your local mayor if there's a problem, though, and cities would compete.
Re:I hope it happens. by Wookact · 2013-07-19 08:31 · Score: 3, Insightful

They often beat innocent people.

The only reason they do not use the heli to spy on people, is because it is cost prohibitive. The claim is removing that cost, will allow them to abuse the tool. Much like tasers are often abused by police officers.
Re:I hope it happens. by Wookact · 2013-07-19 09:57 · Score: 2

I probably should have posted the link, my bad. http://www.ebay.com/bhp/helicopter-live-video

Proof it's U.S. Government owned by SeaFox · 2013-07-19 05:06 · Score: 4, Informative

Encouraging destruction of government property...

With a population of 550, Deer Trail, CO could suddenly find itself a bunch of empty buildings if Washington wished it.

Re:Proof it's U.S. Government owned by Grishnakh · 2013-07-19 05:33 · Score: 5, Interesting

Well the DHS has purchased over a billion rounds of ammunition, plus lots of tanks and coffins, so they're ready to brutally put down an uprising.
Re:Proof it's U.S. Government owned by The+Grim+Reefer · 2013-07-19 05:47 · Score: 5, Insightful

Encouraging destruction of government property...
With a population of 550, Deer Trail, CO could suddenly find itself a bunch of empty buildings if Washington wished it.
At which point the government will have made those crazy ass militia types some of the most sane people in the country.
Re:Proof it's U.S. Government owned by Daniel+Dvorkin · 2013-07-19 06:32 · Score: 3, Insightful

Then they will have another town to go after because where I am from, we will take up the cause if Deer Trail goes down.
There's a story from Desert Storm about an Iraqi commander who, when asked why he surrendered his unit so quickly, said it was because of the B-52 strikes.
"But your position wasn't hit by B-52's," the puzzled interrogator said.
"No," he replied, "but I saw one that was."
It's easy to talk big about what you would do. Once you saw the results if the US government decided to go all-out on Deer Trail, you might not be quite so inclined toward chest-thumping.

--
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
Re:Proof it's U.S. Government owned by Daniel+Dvorkin · 2013-07-19 07:36 · Score: 2

Are you suggesting they'd be capable of doing the same thing, against 300,000,000 (300 million) people in a country that is roughly 10 times the size of Iraq and Afghanistan combined?
No, I'm suggesting that not more than a tiny fraction of those 300 million would actually engage in armed, organized resistance against the government of the United States. And you may recall that the last time even a not-so-tiny fraction tried, it didn't end well for them.

--
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.

Nope by Sparticus789 · 2013-07-19 05:08 · Score: 2

This is not a gimmick, this is 'Murica!

Although, given an average altitude of 8,000 feet for a drone, this is not an easy shot. Nor is the fact that the drone will be flying at ~100 MPH and winds at that altitude could easily be 50 MPH. It would be a hard task for even the best shot. And that math would be terrible.

--
sudo make me a sandwich

Re:Nope by ohnocitizen · 2013-07-19 05:46 · Score: 2

I wonder who would be hurt or what would be damaged by a falling drone...
Re:Nope by Grishnakh · 2013-07-19 05:54 · Score: 5, Informative

No, they're much, much larger. Look up at a 747 flying overhead (assuming you're not near an airport and in the flight path): it's tiny, to you. Now fly one of those 4-rotor "quadrocopter" R/C toys at 20 feet over your head. It's not that small, and would be pretty easy to hit with a shotgun, certainly much easier than a clay pigeon. Clay pigeons travel faster than R/C vehicles.
Re:Nope by CanHasDIY · 2013-07-19 06:15 · Score: 2

It probably wouldn't be beyond the realm of conceivability that some smart ass "Engineer In A Garage" doesn't build a guided model rocket with visual or other acquisition tech with off-the-shelf technology - and at least manages to splash the thing with paint. No high-explosive - just a way to say "You've been pwned!"
I know some guys who are working on a DIY drone-based EMP platform; essentially, the drone will identify other drones, fly within range, then set off an EM burst and take itself and the target down. I suggested using a HERF gun instead of making the drones disposable, but apparently the equipment would be too heavy for the airframe.

--
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese

NO ONE ANSWER THAT QUESTION! by kawabago · 2013-07-19 05:13 · Score: 2

They'll hear!!!!!!!!

I read it wrong.... by Orleron · 2013-07-19 05:13 · Score: 4, Insightful

I thought they were saying a license to hunt animals using drones. THAT would be awesome! :P *pew pew* *deer falls down*

Re:I read it wrong.... by datavirtue · 2013-07-19 05:47 · Score: 3, Funny

IT's COMING RIGHT FOR US!!

--
I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock

If it's done right by AliasMarlowe · 2013-07-19 05:13 · Score: 3, Insightful

There should be nothing left on which a bounty could be claimed.
Obviously, there is no need to buy a license, either.

--
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire

Re:Inciting rebellion by Sponge+Bath · 2013-07-19 05:13 · Score: 3, Funny

We promise we're not brain-dead morons.

Good enough for me. I've got my Ted Nugent brand bow and am ready to take down a predator! Cat scratch fever! Duh duh duh! Cat scratch fever! Dur dur dur!

Re:Cool by h4rr4r · 2013-07-19 05:15 · Score: 2

More likely a bunch of nutbags.

How will you feel when that drone was being used for weather research, mapping, searching for lost people, fire fighting, surveying, or another normal government function? How dare they use new technology to do an old job in a new way and save the taxpayer money!

Drones aren't deer. by PhxBlue · 2013-07-19 05:19 · Score: 4, Insightful

Shoot at these things enough and they will get equipped to shoot back. And their aim's a lot better.

--
!#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.

Re:Drones aren't deer. by rsborg · 2013-07-19 05:45 · Score: 3, Interesting

Shoot at these things enough and they will get equipped to shoot back. And their aim's a lot better.
An armed drone firing at an american citizen on american soil might be a PR bigger victory for the anti-drone libertarians than taking down the drone itself. Of course, I'm not sure I'd want to be the one to get precedented.

--
Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
Re:Drones aren't deer. by WaffleMonster · 2013-07-19 05:45 · Score: 4, Informative

Shoot at these things enough and they will get equipped to shoot back. And their aim's a lot better
I can think of no better way to get all drone programs shut down post-haste.

Not a joke by smarkham01 · 2013-07-19 05:20 · Score: 3, Insightful

Visit the West once or twice and you won't need to ask. Individualists were driven West by the crowds of "help me, I'm being picked on". Three are still a lot of them out there and when it comes to stopping illegal government actions, they don't joke around a lot. AC though "a completely illegal destruction of government property?" would result, but that's OK, see the illegal activities of the government have always been fair game:-). You do need a license though, the town has to know who's shooting up the sky.

Re:Not a joke by whistlingtony · 2013-07-19 05:41 · Score: 4, Interesting

I live in Oregon. That's as west as you can get. :D Does that mean I'm a rugged individualist? Does that mean Texas is full of Help Me People?
Maybe we should stop stereotyping. Maybe you need to talk to a hippy and see what they have the government just as much as you, and probably for much better (and much more real) reasons.
Maybe these crowds of "Help me, I'm being picked on" people are just a stereotype that's been fed to you, so you dismiss lefties as whiners. Maybe because if lefties and righties got together and realized that they all hate what's being done in their name.... something would get done.
Sorry, I'm being unfair here. I'm a little peeved. I spent last night listening to lefties talk(at a political meeting) about surveilance state, politics, the problems with our systems, and how Obama is continuing Bush policies if not making them worse. They're pissed off. And this morning, I endure a rant from a righty about how all lefties do is lick Obama's ass.... while he sat on the couch doing nothing but whining.... It has me a little annoyed, and your post prodded that.
Re:Not a joke by PhxBlue · 2013-07-19 05:44 · Score: 4, Funny

Does that mean Texas is full of Help Me People?

Yes. They're called state Republican legislators, and they clearly need help. :P

--
!#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.

Re:Cool by Immerman · 2013-07-19 05:25 · Score: 2

There are some causes worth not saving money over. I would rank liberty as one of them. And if there's one thing history has shown repeatedly it's that corrupt government agents/agencies will end up abusing any information sources at their disposal.

--
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.

Not all 'drones' are drones.... by TimO_Florida · 2013-07-19 05:29 · Score: 4, Interesting

Before you grab your shotguns and crossbows, remember that there are nearly a half-a-million radio-control plane enthusiasts out here in the countryside and we're NOT trying to spy on you. But we will send you a lawsuit and a big bill if you shoot down our planes.... ;-)

All joking aside by RevWaldo · 2013-07-19 05:32 · Score: 3, Insightful

A friend of a friend once got shot in the leg and face while on a passenger jet because some yahoo on the ground took a shot at it while it was coming in for a landing. Taking pot shots at low-flying aircraft is something we may wanna discourage.

.

--
Prisencolinensinainciusol. Ol Rait!

Re:Not sure if it's a gimmick, but... by Rockoon · 2013-07-19 05:33 · Score: 2, Insightful

I just am getting tired of seeing libertarian drivel on Slashdot. I'm seriously sensing infiltration by the Koch brothers here or something. I mean are you seriously a tin-foil hat wearing conspiracy theorist that honestly believes "they" are 'out to get you'?

Yes, your "sensing the infiltration by the Koch brothers" makes you a tin-foil hat wearing conspiracy theorist. Funny how you folk always seem to attribute to others what you are actually the guilty party of.

--
"His name was James Damore."

Re:free vacation by CanHasDIY · 2013-07-19 06:42 · Score: 2

It's probably a twofer.

The town of Deer Trail will give you $100

The USA Federal Government will give you an all-expenses paid vacation to the water treatment facilities at Guantanomo Bay.

Do you honestly believe the personality types that would open fire on a government drone would willingly submit themselves for detention in an illegal government torture facility? Or that the feds would be able to 'disappear' people in a town that is 100% hostile to their presence (i.e., without compliance from local law enforcement)?

To some folks, the phrase "give me Liberty, or give me Death" is more than just words they're forced to hear in history class.

And that's a good thing, despite all the hand-wringing and attempts at demonization.

--
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese

Re:Cool by Kenoli · 2013-07-19 06:53 · Score: 3, Interesting

How are drones supposed to fight forest fires? With missiles? They sure can't carry enough retardant aloft to even put out a sizable bonfire.

Sure they can. There's no reason a drone couldn't carry as much as any manned aircraft.
The RQ-4 is designed for high altitude and long endurance, rather than heavy payload, but even so it can carry 3000 lbs, which is comparable to existing light firefighting aircraft:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerial_firefighting

Its surveillance capabilities have already been used to assist firefighters:
http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123073731

Re:Inciting rebellion by Applekid · 2013-07-19 07:20 · Score: 2

So, damaging US Federal Government Property by deliberately firing your gun at it is free speech now?

About as much as permanent domestic spy programs are authorized by interstate commerce.

--
More Twoson than Cupertino

I wonder by Kingston · 2013-07-19 07:24 · Score: 2

how many of these people realise that just driving around with a smartphone gives away more information about your movements than a squadron of drones could ever collect. You would be better off shooting your phone instead.

Re:Not sure if it's a gimmick, but... by kaatochacha · 2013-07-19 09:28 · Score: 2

So you notice it when you disagree, but don't notice it when you agree...

Slashdot Mirror

Colorado Town Considers Drone-Hunting Licenses

66 of 341 comments (clear)