Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Chinese Tourist's Drone Crashes Into Taipei 101 Skyscraper

Posted by timothy on from the virality-achieved dept.

Taco Cowboy writes that a Chinese tourist has been hit with a fine of $48,000 (NT $1.5 Million) after his drone crashed into the Taipei 101 skyscraper. The tourist, 30-year-old Yan Yungfan, was supposedly attempting to film Taipei's cityscape on Tuesday morning with a remotely controlled Phantom 3 UAV when he lost control of the drone, causing it to hit the side of Taipei 101 at around the 30th floor. No one was injured in the incident and only minor damage was sustained by the building's glass windows, but the video immediately became a viral sensation after it was uploaded online. Taipei 101 said in a statement that there have been three incidents of drones crashing around the building since mid-June, with the first two cases taking place on June 15 and June 20. No injuries have resulted from these crashes, but I wouldn't want to get hit by a 3-pound object falling from that height.

102 comments

  1. We need better legislation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Frankly drones should be regulated as RC aircraft. We don't fucking allow RC aircraft to be flown in the middle of a city, why the hell would we be ok with drones ?
    Use them where it makes sense, in parks, in areas that are predisposed for such things. So that if it falls out of the sky it won't harm/kill someone.

    1. Re:We need better legislation by kheldan · · Score: 3, Insightful

      At the rate this is going, drones available to the general public are going to become a quickly-disappearing fad, as they become outlawed entirely, and you can thank idiots like this Yan Yungfan, and all the idiots here in the U.S. who are getting their toys in the way of wildfire fighters' aircraft, idiots flying them into other restricted airspace (e.g., the White House and environs) and other idiots I'm not aware of, who either aren't capable of being responsible, or can't be bothered to be responsible with their toys.

      --
      Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
    2. Re:We need better legislation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I don't get it. A drone IS an RC aircraft. Why isn't it regulated as one? What is the difference between a drone and an RC aircraft do you mean?

    3. Re:We need better legislation by kylemonger · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think it equally likely that manufacturers will regulate themselves semi-voluntarily rather than be forced out of business. They'll make drones that refuse to fly in restricted locations. They'll make drones that land automatically if their batteries get low or if they lose the control signal or if ambient wind speeds are too high or any of a dozen dicey conditions in order to mollify angry legislators. Drones without the safety "smarts" will be banned.

    4. Re:We need better legislation by Midnight+Thunder · · Score: 1

      The problem is probably not the regulation, but people buying drones who arent aware of the regulations. The onus is on the drone operator to get informed, but until there is an education campaign, people are going to do whatever they think is okay.

      One thing I would like to see come out of this is open data airspace data. Currently you need to pay a hefty fee for this, but allowing drones to benefit from this data would help make better next generation drone, IMHO. It should be optional to use it, but encouraged.

      --
      Jumpstart the tartan drive.
    5. Re:We need better legislation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I doubt that they will be able to do all of the things you mention successfully - at least in a way that makes them a lot more acceptable. For example - landing automatically if they are low on battery or lose the signal. Where do they land? Right in that pristine lake they are currently above? There are all kinds of issues with trying to get some small, cheap electronics like this to actually follow the ever-changing rules around them. Likely they will just become more and more regulated, more and more expensive, and eventually only construction, films, search and rescue and like industries will be using them.

    6. Re:We need better legislation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's... neither an easy nor practical solution, nor does it seem simple enough to ever happen on its own. For economic reasons I can't imagine it happening, well, ever. If I were a drone manufacturer I sure wouldn't be putting dubious AI routines into my drone that limit its functionality in the hopes that stupid customers will be unable to do stupid things that get them into legal trouble. That's the American way. China can do whatever the heck they want.

    7. Re:We need better legislation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

      China is very like to have a more balanced response. The US is likely to go OMG drone hit Tower - declare a war on eveything and divert squidzillions to the war effort!

    8. Re:We need better legislation by janoc · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "Drones" - aka small multirotor helis - are regulated as RC model aircraft in most countries already. Not sure where you are, but perhaps make sure that you actually know what laws are on the books already before calling for more regulation.

      The problem is not lack of regulation but the fact that 99.9% of the owners of these things have no clue about the rules that actually apply to their hobbies. RC model flyers have been rarely caught doing similar stupidities before because:
      a) it is hard to do with a fast moving fixed wing plane,
      b) traditional model helis are tricky to fly and very expensive, few people would risk their toy like this after they have finally mastered it,
      c) few RC models were computerized to the degree that they essentially "fly themselves", including GPS waypoints and what not. RC flying was always about the flying skills, not taking videos for Youtube.
      d) the enforcement was caught flatfooted, the few RC model owners around have newer posed problems but now every yahoo has a gizmo that requires no skills to fly and don't give a shit about any rules (if they are even aware of them).

      As I see it, unless the police is allowed to take these things out by force, then things aren't going to change. Tracking down an owner of a drone hoovering somewhere high in the air autonomously is pretty much impossible unless you are very lucky. They don't need to emit radio signal continuously, the gizmo can navigate by GPS so unless you literally run into a guy with the controller you will not find him.

      And as regulation is concerned - that could actually use to be relaxed quite a bit. E.g. in most of Europe if you want to record video using an RC plane/heli/drone for commercial purposes, the rules are very draconian - you need essentially a full private pilot license as if you were flying a full sized plane, you must always have a spotter next to you, are not allowed to fly beyond line of sight, etc. And this applies regardless of whether you are recording over a crowd of people (which requires additional permits) or only some fields for a local farmer ...

    9. Re:We need better legislation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where to land automatically?
      The (gps-equipped) drone's first priority would be to go back to launch site and land there. If impossible, just land slowly wherever it is. Slowly means less risk for anything that it lands on top of. Ideally, land using a (mandatory) parachute, so people won't get hurt by spinning propellers. Parachutes is also nice in that they work passively - unlike the motors they don't need much power to work. So no high-speed crash when the battery suddenly go dead high up.

      Can they do all this? Sure - it is already done by hobbyists, so manufacturers don't really need to develop anything. All we need is for some of the major producers to include a "safety package" in their bigger drones - and soon enough nobody will want to be without that.

      It won't be perfect safety - but a drone parachuting down onto me sure beats a free-falling one.

    10. Re:We need better legislation by TWX · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The two closest local hobby stores receive their product shipped directly from China. If any drones are manufactured for places without these kinds of restrictions, they will end up in the US supply chain even if 'reputable' companies try to add such controls. Also factor-in unlicensed product copying and I don't think that it's possible.

      It's too bad, really. Back when the barrier to the RC aircraft hobby was high (expensive devices, very high likelihood of crashing and destroying the craft) the number of incidents were low because irresponsible people simply couldn't afford to participate for the most part. Now that it's cheap and easy, a lot of people that shouldn't get into the hobby are able to get into the hobby, and are going to get the hobby banned.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    11. Re:We need better legislation by TWX · · Score: 1

      Probably for the same reason that Uber isn't yet regulated as a taxi service requiring all of the conventional trappings of a taxi service, because the regulatory agencies and the courts usually trail behind developments, based on developments.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    12. Re:We need better legislation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Many opensource controllers (pixhawk, apm) already return to the takeoff position (or somewhere else if you want) on many error conditions.

    13. Re:We need better legislation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Frankly drones should be regulated as RC aircraft. We don't fucking allow RC aircraft to be flown in the middle of a city, why the hell would we be ok with drones ?
      Use them where it makes sense, in parks, in areas that are predisposed for such things. So that if it falls out of the sky it won't harm/kill someone.

      In my area, there are no laws preventing the use of RC aircraft pretty much anywhere. It generally doesn't happen because of the expense and operator's fear of loss of the aircraft and a desire to respect other people. But, the could if they want.

      This drone fell from the sky and no one got hurt.Now, there are knee jerk reactions like Taipei officials searching high and low for ludicrous and unreasonable charges against this person and posts like yours hysterically calling for legislation.

      Give the paranoid drama a rest FFS!

    14. Re:We need better legislation by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      Probably for the same reason that Uber isn't yet regulated as a taxi service requiring all of the conventional trappings of a taxi service, because the regulatory agencies and the courts usually trail behind developments, based on developments.

      Uber IS regulated as a taxi in some areas and as livery in other areas. They just choose not to obey the regulations.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    15. Re:We need better legislation by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      eventually only construction, films, search and rescue and like industries will be using them.

      This is exactly the opposite of what is happening in America. The rules for hobbyists are lax, and the rules for using a drone for anything economically useful are far more severe. The FAA is focused, not on safety, but on minimizing competition with manned aircraft.

    16. Re:We need better legislation by janoc · · Score: 2

      Except it is regulated as one. In fact, most countries don't make any distinction whether the RC model is fixed wing, heli, multirotor or whatever. Once it is unmanned and falls into the "model" category, it is regulated the same.

      That most owners don't know that there are *gasp* laws and rules that apply to their toys is not the problem with the laws, unfortunately.

    17. Re:We need better legislation by mwvdlee · · Score: 1

      How are RC plane owners currently informed of the regulation?
      Perhaps the drone producers could devote a page of their manuals on this subject (they probably already include "don't be a dick" notes anyway).

      --
      Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    18. Re:We need better legislation by bluescrn · · Score: 2

      But where do you draw the line between banned 'drones', and, say, Air Hogs toys (lightweight toy-grade RC aircraft)

      There's toy quadcopters as light as 11.5g now (Hubsan Q4 Nano) - they're great fun to fly around the living room or office. Do these get banned, too?

      What about the 'powered paper airplane' kits? are they now 'drones' too?

    19. Re:We need better legislation by kheldan · · Score: 1

      On further consideration I think it might just end up being the case that there will be more than one 'class' of drones, the easiest to obtain having severely limited (by law) range of remote control and perhaps limited altitude. You go out of range of the control signal, and it just shuts down and drops to the ground, which won't be much of a problem because it'll only be a few dozen feet off the ground anyway. Larger and more complex drones would require a permit or license of some sort, and definitely registration, and there would need to be some sort of education and testing (similar to what you have to do to get a drivers license) before you'd be allowed to get your drone. The largest and most complex drones would require more extensive (and expensive) permit(s)/licensing/registering, with commensurately more comprehensive education and testing, and perhaps even requiring a justification for it's use and/or a business license to obtain.

      ..and anyway, that's what I think is going to end up happening, based on my gut feeling for how our government works. Fair? I don't know, but I will say this: you can thank the idiots making a nuisance of themselves for it if and when legislation like this comes about. Personally I wouldn't have a problem with things shaking out as outlined above, but I also don't have and don't particularly want or need a drone anyway.

      --
      Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
    20. Re:We need better legislation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Finally someone that noticed.

      If the industry wasn't driven over seas, maybe there would be money and interested parties working on making them safe, and establishing sensible rules.

      The drone industry was killed in the cradle, so only rich pilots and rich hobbyists get a say so in the FAA. Neither one of those groups knows shit from Shinola about automation and it's capabilities and limitations.

      People were told this would happen a long time ago.

    21. Re:We need better legislation by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      Not just the open source ones, either.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    22. Re:We need better legislation by ScentCone · · Score: 2

      In the US, yes. It makes no difference if it's a 50-pound Octo carrying a Red Epic shooting a Mercedes commercial, or a 15-gram kid's toy. In places like all of the US's national parkland, rivers, and coasts administered by the Park Service, they are all 100% banned. Likewise for 30 miles around Washington DC, without any regard to size or range. And no, it's not about "drones," it's about all RC (or autonomous) flying contraptions of any type or size, period. And they're just getting started.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    23. Re:We need better legislation by NewtonsLaw · · Score: 1

      That is already being done. Many "store bought" drones will refuse to fly within the regulated "no fly" distance from documented airfields and most reasonable craft *do* have an auto-land facility that kicks in when the battery gets low.

      There's no more point in banning drones than there is in banning butter-knives. Both are useful and very safe ways to perform a task -- however, both can be MISUSED when in the hands of idiots. Far better that we simply make sure that any idiot who misuses *any* technology is dealt with appropriately. The only alternative to ensuring public safety is to have us all fitted with straightjackets and locked into our own private padded rooms -- for our safety.

    24. Re:We need better legislation by AK+Marc · · Score: 0

      Take your bigotry elsewhere. "Poor people are irresponsible" Yes, and I'm sure they deserve to be poor because they are lazy, or are ugly.

      --
      Learn to love Alaska
    25. Re:We need better legislation by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

      China is very like to have a more balanced response. The US is likely to go OMG drone hit Tower - declare a war on eveything and divert squidzillions to the war effort!

      Oh quit exaggerating. All Americans want to do is whip out our guns and fire up in the air at any drone without considering the consequences of doing so. Much more reasonable.

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    26. Re:We need better legislation by dougmc · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure which country you're referring to, but in the US, the typical multicopter (what you call a "drone") *is* a RC aircraft, and is regulated like one.

      In general we do allow R/C aircraft to be flown in the middle of a city, as long as it's not in controlled airspace, though some cities may have laws against it. (Though the FAA claims dominion over such things, so I'm not sure how the cities get around that.)

      In general, in the US hobbyist use is largely unregulated, and it's commercial use that's tightly regulated. This is changing, largely due to the explosion of quadcopters being flown by inexperienced pilots in places where they probably shouldn't be and the common (but generally incorrect) perception that they're all equipped with cameras and being used to spy on them. (When the reality is ... many may have cameras, but in general people are just trying to take pictures of landscapes, buildings, etc. and any people that are in the pictures are generally so small as to be unrecognizable unless the craft is very close to them.)

    27. Re:We need better legislation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, RC flying for many hobbyists was mostly about building, maintaining and repairing the model aircraft. Actually going out to fly them was a rare treat (and happened in remote, open areas).

    28. Re:We need better legislation by stephanruby · · Score: 2

      Frankly drones should be regulated as RC aircraft.

      The guy might be fined the equivalent of $48,000.

      Unless the guy is a multi-millionaire, it sounds like they're being regulated just fine.

    29. Re:We need better legislation by TWX · · Score: 2

      It isn't just poor people that are irresponsible, it's that people are irresponsible when things do not cost them very much. People do not respect things that are inexpensive to them.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    30. Re:We need better legislation by recharged95 · · Score: 2

      is not lack of regulation but the fact that 99.9% of the owners of these things have no clue
      Not only that, but the companies whom heads “don’t think it’s a big deal,” and providing no real solution to the evident growing problem, yet turn out software and hardware bugs... (every vendor is guilty). The game and the players are basically moving too fast, all because of those investor dollars. It's a technology that even the professional still doesn't understand yet.

      a) it is hard to do with a fast moving fixed wing plane,
      Considering some autopilots can run on fixed wing nowadays--being hard is not so hard anymore, especially with FPV.

      b) traditional model helis are tricky to fly and very expensive, few people would risk their toy like this after they have finally mastered it,
      Again, some autopilots can let you flip a switch and they will hold on a dime to keep you out of trouble.

      c) few RC models were computerized to the degree that they essentially "fly themselves", including GPS waypoints and what not. RC flying was always about the flying skills, not taking videos for Youtube.
      Heck R/C cars can do waypoints now...

      Just wait folks, the world is getting started with mobile robots (which R/C is becoming) that can be autonomous from a path control standpoint.

    31. Re:We need better legislation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More nanny-state nonsense from the "think of the children" crowd.
      --
      roman_mir

    32. Re:We need better legislation by JeffOwl · · Score: 1

      Don't be obtuse. Irresponsible people can't afford it because they crash a lot and have to buy a new, expensive aircraft and/or components over and over. The only irresponsible persons that could have afforded it would be the irresponsible rich kids who seem to have other priorities like crashing their BMWs while driving drunk or stoned.

    33. Re:We need better legislation by mbeckman · · Score: 1

      The rules for hobbyists are not lax: line of sight and below 400', not over populated areas or structures. That pretty much means in a mile-square or smaller open field.

    34. Re:We need better legislation by mbeckman · · Score: 1

      As with firearms, the problem isn't that we need more laws. We need enforcement of existing laws. LEOs inexplicably refuse to intervene when rogue droners recklessly operate the toy they carelessly use to endanger others.

    35. Re:We need better legislation by uninformedLuddite · · Score: 1

      The problem is that there are morons that buy them not realising that in some cases they are essentially flying a lawnmower with no blade guards. I fly RC helicopters and fly them only on my 60 acre block. The injuries these can cause are horrific and their have been several part and full decapitations. Look at this thread to see some of the fun and games.

      --
      The new right fascists are bilingual. They speak English and Bullshit.
    36. Re:We need better legislation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think it equally likely that manufacturers will regulate themselves semi-voluntarily rather than be forced out of business. They'll make drones that refuse to fly in restricted locations.

      This is simply not practical. Although they appear in the news horror stories more than most, your average "hobbyist" drones are not the semi-professional $900 Phantom II or $1,200 Phantom III's, they are the $50 ones you can pick up at your local hobby shop that weigh only a few ounces. These are way too small to carry all that electronic GPS crap. I am not concerned that I'm operating around 2.5 miles of an airport because my drone has a maximum range of 100 feet and an air-time of about seven minutes. It can't physically leave my property. I'm not on any regular flight paths, if there is an airplane down below 100 feet above my property I think I'm smart enough to figure out there is an emergency in progress and hard-land my toy (if necessary) to get out of the way. If I rammed my drone into a skyscraper I doubt anyone would even notice as there is literally a 0% chance of even scratching the paint, and if they did notice I would be standing pretty much at ground zero with an R/C controller in my hands and easily pointed out to the police. All this "we must regulate the h??? of out of drones is just coming from a greedy government agency that wants money from "licensing fees" and has nothing to do with safety. If you want to regulate people doing aerial surveying and life-saving search-and-rescue fine. Just don't call them hobbyists.

    37. Re:We need better legislation by tlhIngan · · Score: 2

      There's no more point in banning drones than there is in banning butter-knives. Both are useful and very safe ways to perform a task -- however, both can be MISUSED when in the hands of idiots. Far better that we simply make sure that any idiot who misuses *any* technology is dealt with appropriately. The only alternative to ensuring public safety is to have us all fitted with straightjackets and locked into our own private padded rooms -- for our safety.

      The easy way is licensing.

      Right now the regulations are a bit cumbersome, but they're there - they're aircraft, and to fly an aircraft, you need a license. Or rather, you need a license, a medical, and a radio license. (It's important to note that the whenever any civil aviation authority wants to ground a pilot, they don't actually take away their license. Since the three documents are required to legally fly, they take away the medical certificate. (And the medical is often temporarily suspended - either by the pilot or a doctor on other occasions, so it's not a big deal and incurs minimal to no paperwork on either party's side)).

      Since there's no current syllabus for drone pilots, they're lumped in with every other pilot as well.

      That's the most likely end result - and I'm sure the FAA and others are looking to see what the trend is. And I'm sure the RC groups are going to have their say as well because they're also seeing the same news reports, and they know if it keeps up, even their hobby can be regulated. They may actually champion an industry-standard form of self licensing - better they do it than the government).

  2. Chinese Tourists, Of Course by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They are, by far the worst tourists in the world. Pushy, loud, aggressive, shitting and doing whatever the fuck they feel like because they think they're still back in the PRC.
    They need to be taught that the rest of the world isn't a shithole like their home country, that we have manners and rules they must follow. Otherwise, they need to get the fuck out.

    1. Re:Chinese Tourists, Of Course by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Uh, Taipei is in the PRC.

      Uh, Taipei is in the ROC.

    2. Re:Chinese Tourists, Of Course by Nidi62 · · Score: 1

      They are, by far the worst tourists in the world. Pushy, loud, aggressive, shitting and doing whatever the fuck they feel like because they think they're still back in the PRC. They need to be taught that the rest of the world isn't a shithole like their home country, that we have manners and rules they must follow. Otherwise, they need to get the fuck out.

      Uh, Taipei is in the PRC.

      Depends on who you ask. To most of the West and Asia it is in the ROC.

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    3. Re:Chinese Tourists, Of Course by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Close enough.

    4. Re:Chinese Tourists, Of Course by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They are, by far the worst tourists in the world. Pushy, loud, aggressive, shitting and doing whatever the fuck they feel like because they think they're still back in the US.
      They need to be taught that the rest of the world isn't a shithole like their home country, that we have manners and rules they must follow. Otherwise, they need to get the fuck out.

      Changed one word and fixed it for you. No thanks necessary.

    5. Re:Chinese Tourists, Of Course by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Close enough.

      Not even close. One is a democracy (Taiwan, Formosa), the other is a political communist state (Cina).

    6. Re:Chinese Tourists, Of Course by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I feel the same about English and Italian tourists.

    7. Re:Chinese Tourists, Of Course by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You are fucking clueless. Try travelling outside of your country some time.

    8. Re:Chinese Tourists, Of Course by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, it does not. Taiwan is regarded as the Republic of China globally. The controversy comes about when trying to determine whether China rightfully belongs to the RoC or PRC.

    9. Re:Chinese Tourists, Of Course by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not even close. One is a democracy (Taiwan, Formosa), the other is a political communist state (Cina).

      Communist? Hardly.

    10. Re:Chinese Tourists, Of Course by TWX · · Score: 1

      What about "One China Policy"?

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    11. Re:Chinese Tourists, Of Course by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not even close. One is a democracy (Taiwan, Formosa), the other is a political communist state (Cina).

      Communist? Hardly.

      Yes they are communists. Don't be fooled by their "market" approach to things.

      There is only one political party.
      You have no human rights
      The state can act arbitrarily, imprison you, kill you and you have no recourse
      You cannot critize the party.

      Just because the western world has prostitued itself to Cina for the "benefit" of low cost trinkets to be sold back to us doesn't mean Cina is a civilised country. They are a stalinist state in all but name. A little more polished than North Korea really.

    12. Re:Chinese Tourists, Of Course by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thought we were talking about tourists not nativesd - comprehension fail bitch go back to your US #1 education peasant.

    13. Re:Chinese Tourists, Of Course by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's your first problem, you thought using your puny mind. That brain is only going to get you into more trouble.
      Don't be jealous that I'm a US citizen, something you only wish you could be.
      I win yet again. Stop trying to match wits with me, boy. I almost feel bad humiliating you like this.

    14. Re:Chinese Tourists, Of Course by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      While your characterization of China's government is (mostly) correct, he is correct that they are more capitalist than communist. Communism is an economic system, what you describe is a political system. Where you get it confused is that communist countries' governments typically (as in every one that has ever existed) are totalitarian. But that's technically a fallacy of composition. Just as capitalist dictatorships can exist, so can communist democracies. We've just yet to see one actually work out on the large scale.

    15. Re:Chinese Tourists, Of Course by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yes, and the "tourist" is suspected of collecting intelligence. He trashed his SIM card to avoid having his communications traced.

    16. Re:Chinese Tourists, Of Course by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 1

      The people who live in Taipei don't think they're part of the PRC. I kinda figure it's their decision.

    17. Re: Chinese Tourists, Of Course by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds a lot like the USA

    18. Re:Chinese Tourists, Of Course by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      None of the things you state are related to "communism". Communism doesn't mean lower personal rights, political rights, or anything like that.

      In practice, China is a capitalistic democracy with high taxes. They have as much choice for political office as we do, the difference is that in the US, we still put on a show. The government doesn't decide what's made and where, but requires that it be "owner" of it. This is functionally a tax system, not a communistic central planning system.

      But we have to have a declared enemy, and some reason why we hate them, so we make up lies about them.

      --
      Learn to love Alaska
    19. Re:Chinese Tourists, Of Course by KGIII · · Score: 1

      Tell that to Tibet.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    20. Re:Chinese Tourists, Of Course by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 1

      No, the people of Tibet know they're part of the PRC. It's just that a lot of 'em don't want to be.

    21. Re:Chinese Tourists, Of Course by KGIII · · Score: 1

      Also, things have improved for them in many ways. They do not have autonomy but they do have electricity. i say this as a Buddhist even. We're a pragmatic bunch.

      Anyhow, you made me chuckle. Then I felt bad. Then I realized I am a Buddhist and not a fucking monk. Laughing is good for the body and mind. (And he was enlightened.) So, thanks.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
  3. Drones don't cause property damage and injuries! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    People cause property damage and injuries...with drones

  4. Death of drone play by Will.Woodhull · · Score: 1

    I had been saving my pennies to buy a drone that would work as a good camera platform, prob'ly around $1100 including the videocam. It would be fun, and could pay for itself if I peddled my services to weddings, real estate offices, etc.

    But now I've got to set that aside as an unrealistic fantasy, until the regulations on drones are written up, and I can know what will be allowed.

    It is too bad, but a few total assholes are ruining things for all of us who are early adopters, or would like to be early adopters. Too many incidents of drones crashing into buildings, getting in the way of fire fighters, etc-- the need for regulations is now obvious.

    Thanks a lot, assholes.

    --
    Will
    1. Re:Death of drone play by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      No, you need to put that little dream aside until you learn about airflow in cities, around tall buildings, updrafts from heat or wind channeling, etc. This is why its a problem to fly drones in cities and over events, most operators have no idea why their cute little hobby toy just flipped in mid-air and divebombed the taco tent and plead innocence and ignorance when they are held responsible for it.

      This is why professionals are considered... professionals. They pay attention to details, including learning how the thing they fly through the air will react when the air is not fit for flying in.

    2. Re:Death of drone play by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If it isn't illegal yet, then you can do it all you want.

      If you don't do it because you think it will become illegal, you can be pretty sure it will.

      Keep on fighting the good fight, huh?

    3. Re:Death of drone play by TWX · · Score: 1

      Right now, it is illegal to use drones for commercial purposes. There have even been stirrings of prosecuting those who post monetized videos on Youtube because they're profiting on the use of the footage only collectable through the use of the drone.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    4. Re:Death of drone play by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Its 2015. The time of "early"adoption" ended in 2012.

    5. Re:Death of drone play by Will.Woodhull · · Score: 1

      I'll let people with deeper pockets than I have do that fight. Especially since the need for regulating drones, and probably licensing drone operators, is so obvious.

      --
      Will
    6. Re:Death of drone play by Will.Woodhull · · Score: 0

      Take your b.s. elsewhere.

      A lot of us know our limitations and understand the need to push them back through education and training. My complaint is not about that.

      My plaint is that idiots who don't know what they are doing are flying drones where they should not be flown, and causing problems. And the only way to solve those problems is to regulate drone operators so that each one has a minimum level of proficiency. Which means getting into the game is going to cost probably a year of classes at a community college, then licensing fees, then operator's insurance. What might have been a nice hobby is going to be a cash sink instead. No thanks.

      I had hoped it would be possible to study at home vs. a certified drone operator school, and get hands-on experience around the fields, forest, and hills of a 160 acre ranch. But now that kind of approach is not going to fly.

      --
      Will
    7. Re:Death of drone play by Will.Woodhull · · Score: 1

      Yes. There are a couple of operators around here who are skirting the legal issues by selling their time on site and giving away the video files. This works fine for producing armchair tours of ranches, etc, for real estate offices. It can be very hard to arrange an adequate tour of a 640 acre ranch to the busy people who could afford to buy the place.

      --
      Will
    8. Re: Death of drone play by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, you take your little dreams elsewhere. Do you think you're the only genius who thought of droning weddings and real estate. No barriers to entry = no profits. The only people making money in this scenario is the drone maker. But that's what consumerism is all about... buy, buy, buy. You would do better taking your $1100 and investing it instead of running out and buying the latest shiny toy. Cow.

    9. Re:Death of drone play by TWX · · Score: 1

      That argument wouldn't hold up in court. Prostitutes try to use it and get convicted anyway. Even "escorts" get busted if they're actually caught engaging in sexual acts, it's just that they're more discreet so they're harder targets.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
  5. In other news.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Drones run by democratic and freedom-loving countries assassinate people on internet-published kill-lists while on foreign soil and without due process.

  6. Re:Air Regulations Are For Cows by kheldan · · Score: 1

    You know what? You may be right.

    I had thought you were just another of the 'first post' guys, with nothing better to do.. but what if people are turning into cows? Or more accurately: cattle? Think about it: We keep moving towards more 'conveniences': machines to do everyday things for us, instead of people actually learning to do those things for themselves. Even automobiles: there is a segment of the population (thankfully, it seems to be a small segment) that doesn't even want to learn to drive themselves, doesn't care if there are even controls in the car for them to use (which frankly is insane of them to want). Imagine a potential dystopian world of the future, where the only things humans actually do for themselves, is eat and reproduce, everything else is done by machines, or robots, or AIs. Some short-sighted and/or lazy people would consider that a utopia, but in reality it would be a total disaster waiting to happen: when things break down, or malfunction, suddenly you have people who can't even do basic things for themselves, let alone complex things. The human race becomes like cattle, incapable of determining their own destiny; not even living, but just existing, no purpose, no direction, just consume, consume, consume, reproduce, and die.

    No thanks. I'll stick to actually knowing how to do things for myself. Don't worry, though, I'll remember to drop off feed for the rest of you into your corral.

    Moo.

    --
    Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
  7. Another "I hate multirotors" article. by koan · · Score: 1

    The interesting thing in the video is that some suspect the pilot of espionage, and couple that with the recent Chinese army drill on a close copy of a Taiwanese presidential office.
    http://qz.com/461110/video-a-c...

    The issue as always isn't multirotors, it's human behavior.

    --
    "If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
    1. Re:Another "I hate multirotors" article. by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Multirotors are horrible! I prefer single rotor

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  8. That's OK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's OK. So long as they aren't looking at me sunbathing in the nude.

    What 8,000Lbs. helicopter?

  9. Flying Cars by SuperKendall · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So the wave of drone accidents and regulations being reported on recently are starting to paint a great picture of why we don't have flying cars yet, nor will we.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Flying Cars by spire3661 · · Score: 1

      A proper consumer level flying car would have a hell of a lot more redundancy and would be able to self land safely at all times.

      --
      Good-bye
    2. Re:Flying Cars by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      And would be almost as likely to be grabbed by wind currents circulating through a city. Imagine a Buick crashing through the window of your office tower.

      Flying cars for consumers will have to be almost totally autonomous. We will have autonomous drones first as a step toward that technology.

    3. Re:Flying Cars by SuperKendall · · Score: 0

      able to self land safely at all times.

      Really looking forward to the day when mechanical failure is utterly impossible and physics can be dialed down to any level desired!

      --
      "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    4. Re:Flying Cars by spire3661 · · Score: 1

      Really looking forward to the day when i dont have to actively list obvious counter arguments every time i try to make a point. Mechanical Failure is always a given unknown that cant be stopped, only mitigated.

      --
      Good-bye
    5. Re:Flying Cars by CanadianMacFan · · Score: 1

      Really, I thought it was just taking a look at the idiots driving around on the ground.

    6. Re:Flying Cars by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      So the wave of drone accidents and regulations being reported on recently are starting to paint a great picture of why we don't have flying cars yet, nor will we.

      The difference between a drone and a car:

      Car:
      1. Study rule book.
      2. Sit exam on rules and get learners permit.
      3. Spend months learning under the guidance of another driver and in many districts professional drivers, sometimes requiring log-books to be filled out.
      4. Sit professional driving exam.
      5. Go spend a LOT of money on something very expensive for most 18year olds, or buy a beat up shitbox for still several thousand dollars.
      6. Spend years on a provisional license.
      7. Do whatever the fuck you want, but know that there are police who make money by catching you doing something wrong.

      Drone:
      1. Spend $300 on a drone
      2. Do whatever the fuck you want without risk of being caught unless you do something REALLY stupid.

      There's no reason why flying cars would follow the latter process instead of the former.

    7. Re:Flying Cars by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

      So in other words the original suggestion was as stupid as I made it sound in my sarcastic reply! Thanks for the confirmation!

      --
      "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  10. Re:Air Regulations Are For Cows by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh, hi "sexconker (1179573)", you missed a few articles. Don't don't forget last week's mistake of forgetting to tick the AC box:

    http://news.slashdot.org/comme...

  11. Re:Air Regulations Are For Cows by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oops. Clicked wrong button. GP AC cow-troll is sexconcker, not the reply.

  12. WHO World Health Organisation data by Max_W · · Score: 1

    http://www.who.int/violence_in...
    Nearly 3 400 people die on the world's roads every day, it means more than a million per year. Tens of millions of people are injured or disabled every year.

    How many people are injured by the civil drones? One or two per year, if any? Still commercial drones can in perspective free roads in a city by carrying urgent documents and parcels, instead of delivering by cars.

    1. Re:WHO World Health Organisation data by eulernet · · Score: 2

      You should compare the rate of accidents, not two unrelated values.

      Maybe there are 10000 drones in the world, and 100 accidents every year, which gives a ratio of 10%.

      How much cars do we have in the world ?
      I very much doubt cars have such a high rate of accidents.

      Perhaps if you multiply the number of drones by a factor of 10, you'll be able to count deaths.

    2. Re:WHO World Health Organisation data by Max_W · · Score: 1

      Cars are moving in 2D, UAVs - in 3D, so the risk of crossing, i.e. an accident, is times less. Besides, it is much easier to create a collision avoidance system in 3D.

      Significant part of cars are transporting paper documents and light parcels in a city. UAVs can do it much faster and with less energy consumption, freeing roads by this.

      What I meant is that cars with 400 horse powers and speed of 300 km/h, does not cause any concern, but light commercial UAVs do. Probably, military drones give a bad image to all UAVs, unfortunately.

  13. How about a sensor or three to prevent this by bsdavidson · · Score: 1

    These RC's have a ton of very sophisticated electronics to allow brain dead flying on the owners part, why not add some sensors to prevent collisions? If a Roomba can do it, I would think it should be possible for a drone to detect a building and stop forward movement.

  14. Thanks for the link - NOT! by AndyKron · · Score: 1

    Thanks for the full volume bullshit link

  15. Re: Air Regulations Are For Cows by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Cow.

  16. If a drone flies over my property... by sgage · · Score: 1

    ... the shotgun comes out. And I'm a good shot. Who the hell gave these clowns the right to fly their drones wherever they please? It's getting absurd - it's gotten to where they are shutting down wildfire-fighting efforts out West by buzzing the firefighting aircraft. They should shoot them down, find the owner, arrest their ass, and throw them in jail for a few months to think about what utter shitheads they are. Recently some asshole mounted a handgun on a drone with a solenoid mechanism to fire it. WTF? He needs some quiet time to think as well.

    No, I see a drone, it's shoot first and ask questions later.

    1. Re:If a drone flies over my property... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... the shotgun comes out. And I'm a good shot.

      Challenge Accepted. Now only if I knew where you live, I would have a good day (or two).

    2. Re:If a drone flies over my property... by Jack+Griffin · · Score: 1

      No, I see a drone, it's shoot first and ask questions later.

      Even if there are people in the area? That's responsible gun ownership right there...

  17. Parachutes by kaptink · · Score: 1

    I was going to ask if this was viable but looks like it is already a product - http://www.fruitychutes.com/

    Should be mandatory in built up areas as a minimum requirement along with a license and possibly a permit if flown in or around the centre of town. This should include everyone - even government departments.

    --
    Those who can, do. Those who cannot, sue.
    1. Re:Parachutes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is Gene with Fruity Chutes. We have been selling into the drone recovery market for about 5 years now and is driving our growth through the roof. We do expect at some point there will be a huge adoption of parachute safety systems as the various countries aviation authorities mandate this. Many countries already have in the EU. The FAA is still lagging in this respect but we do expect if for certification of drone use over populated areas. It is a must!

  18. No legislation needed. Just enforcement. by mbeckman · · Score: 1

    I don't know about the laws in Japan, but the U.S. now has enough in the way of FAA rules to prosecute illegal drone operators. But it isn't doing it. I've read many stories of idiots and their flying lawnmowers (and I say that as a drone builder myself) ignoring common sense safety measures by flying their drones in cities, over crowds, and even at (!) airports. Japan has the right idea in fining violators thousands of dollars, but why is law enforcement waiting for crashes -- in either country? Cite illegal drone operators on sight. I've personally reported several incidents to local law enforcement (while we were operating our drones safely in a safe area and below 400'). They did nothing.

    Is a citizen's arrest feasible in these situations?

  19. Thing I noticed.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the government agencies respond to this the way an actual democracy should: there isn't actually a law on the books but if needed perhaps one would need to be submitted for legislation. Sadly I can't imagine the post-democratic-now-oligarachy US government being so calm and rational. This is the kind of evidence I submit when people deny the US has become a police state - a non-police state acts like Taiwan, not like the US police, US homeland security, US government agencies, US presidents, etc.