Slashdot Mirror


Science Teacher Arrested After Crashing Drone At US Open

An anonymous reader writes: We all had that science teacher growing up — the one who took his classroom experiments a little too far. The one with the potato cannon. The one who made you wonder how he didn't get into trouble in his spare time. Well, it's finally happened for one science teacher from New York City. The 26-year-old man was arrested last night after he crashed a drone into some empty seats at the U.S. Open. He was charged with reckless endangerment, reckless operation of a drone, and operating a drone in a New York City public park outside a prescribed area for doing so. Nobody was injured, but the drone did fly through the arena while a pair of tennis players were in the middle of a match. The game was briefly interrupted when the drone crashed.

179 comments

  1. One more reason we need restrictions on drones... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Idiots like this are why "we can't have nice things"

    Privacy issues aside, morons like this are why the drone-boys are going to be facing some new laws in the not-so-distant future.

  2. Re:Just a harmless drone this time by gsslay · · Score: 1

    What religion was the idiot teacher? I can't see the relevance myself, but you seem to think it plays an important part of the story.

    If a drone is explosive, it's because the pilot is a terrorist.

  3. Re:Just a harmless drone this time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Or worse, Chrisq with a far right fascist propaganda drone.

  4. He was "found at a marina"?? by Viol8 · · Score: 5, Funny

    What was he doing, going around saying "Anyone seen my drone?". Why didn't he toss the controller into the water get the hell out of there with a sign off to the class of "Thats what happens when you don't concentrate kids. Now everyone into the bus, fast!"

    1. Re:He was "found at a marina"?? by operagost · · Score: 1

      That is a good question. It makes me wonder if cops watch these people, waiting for them to crash the drone because it's more fun to arrest someone than to just kick them out with a warning.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    2. Re:He was "found at a marina"?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I personally put my name and phone number on all my RC airplanes and copters in case of a flyaway, but I also call the local airport tower for any flights that will be within 5 miles of them.

      But I also wouldn't ever think of flying over a stadium or other large gathering of people.

    3. Re:He was "found at a marina"?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He probably didn't realize he'd done anything illegal.

  5. Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    These people flying fronts are clueless and dangerous to others. This past July we had 5-6 drones flying over crowds of thousands and into the fireworks. Luckily nothing happened but I'd like to see them arrested for endangering the public as well. Idiots.

  6. Ignorant fucking asshole by BitZtream · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Douches like this prick are why we can't have nice things.

    I fly all sorts of RC aircraft, Quads, fixed wing plane's, Helis, even a flying lawn mower (model, not actually a lawnmower) and I've been doing it for 25 years and never has there been an issue of people getting upset about it until recently.

    You know why? Cheap electronics introducing artificial stability at a price that allows any fucking moron without the slightest clue to buy one and manage to fly it for more than 10 seconds. Before artificial stability (i.e. before there was any hope of an RC quadcopter), pricks like this would have bought one, flown it for 10 seconds, crashed it in his front yard and that would be the end of it because he wouldn't be willing to spend that money again for another 10 seconds of flight time until he learned to fly. He'd never learn to fly because he's not bothering to try, he's just throwing it in the air without understanding how/why/when its going to come down and what effects thats going to have on others.

    When I see assholes like this, I tell them to get their fucking quad out of the air immediately or I'm calling the cops, and I've called them twice, the last for some asshole flying over a high school football game. Guy was a software dev at a large tech company, should fucking know better and understand that a 5 pound object falling on your head from even 10 feet above is WAY beyond potentially lethal.

    So take this worthless fuck out back, string him up by his testicles and keep him the fuck out of RC * so he doesn't fuck it up for the rest of us.

    This shit is why the FAA cares, and I'm 100% with them on it. I don't want additional laws, but this is a real problem in a new arena that previously had barriers to entry that kept idiots out. The modern flight controllers (which I use and love) are like exploit kits for script kiddies. They give ability to do something without the tempering that comes with learning how to do it 'the hard way', or understanding the consequences of what you're doing.

    I don't have a good solution to this problem because the problem is caused by adults who haven't grown up yet or are too selfish/ignorant to care and those are problems we've been dealing with since the beginning of time without solving, but it does have to be addressed, which problem means I'm going to get screwed in the process.

    I can not stress this statement enough: The guy flying that drone was an ignorant fucking asshole. 50 lashes wouldn't be enough.

    --
    Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    1. Re:Ignorant fucking asshole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I think you held back a little on that, tell us how you really feel. ;)

    2. Re:Ignorant fucking asshole by alvinrod · · Score: 1

      It's an eternal September for RC.

    3. Re:Ignorant fucking asshole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yea. Damn people without thousands of spare dollars to spend on learing to fly stuff without artificial stability. They should learn to be rich.

    4. Re:Ignorant fucking asshole by Whatsmynickname · · Score: 1

      I agree 100000000000000% with your statement. Was this "teacher" ignorant? Yes (feel sorry for his students). Fucking asshole? Absolutely! These people will ruin it for the rest of us flyers. Already happening in California.

    5. Re:Ignorant fucking asshole by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      Yea. Damn people without thousands of spare dollars to spend on learing to fly stuff without artificial stability. They should learn to be rich.

      Ah, so people who can't afford an expensive hobby should still get to do the hobby anyway, just irresponsibly?

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    6. Re:Ignorant fucking asshole by PopeRatzo · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You know why?

      I think a big part of it is because the guys who flew RC aircraft over the years have been serious hobbyists and not "I bought this on Amazon" goofballs.

      I walk my 15 year old dog near a park where a lot of these guys fly their rigs. I've never met one who wasn't thoughtful about what he was doing and respectful of others' safety. They don't fly over the kid's playground, they don't fly over the traffic on the surrounding streets. They're human beings. A lot of them bring their kids and teach them the same appropriate behavior, while getting the kids interested in a cool hobby.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    7. Re:Ignorant fucking asshole by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      Ah, so people who can't afford an expensive hobby should still get to do the hobby anyway, just irresponsibly?

      It's a dumb argument anyway, because most people don't have a front lawn into which they can crash their aircraft. Talk about an ivory tower perspective! If they didn't have stability software, then they'd be buying a heli or a plane without stability software, and then taking it to a public park or a school (commonly the nearest open field to a person's house) for their first flight. And they could well harm someone then. Instead, people are taking their first flights with their quads at home, because you can feasibly do that. They're running a greater risk of personal injury or property damage as a result, and odds are greater that they will learn to fly without crashing into things before they go out into public.

      No, the only real difference is the cost barrier is vanishing. Forget all that jazz about stability software; you can literally buy a complete hand-launched glider, all the electronics, and a charger (because you're going to want to run the electronics on a little bitty LiPo for weight reasons) for under $200. A decent radio used to cost that much but now it's only around thirty bucks for a 2.4 GHz 6ch and the programming cable from HK. You can buy a quad off the shelf for about that as well. People were careful with their big fancy RC models back in the day because they built them and tuned them and made them work, and they were expensive. Today's models are cheap. Without that barrier to entry, a whole new class of yahoo may participate.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    8. Re:Ignorant fucking asshole by bigpat · · Score: 2, Funny

      Sure, but the charge should have been trespassing or something like that. The drone hit some seats. This isn't like having a gasoline fight at a gas station kind of reckless.

    9. Re:Ignorant fucking asshole by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Sure, but the charge should have been trespassing or something like that. The drone hit some seats. This isn't like having a gasoline fight at a gas station kind of reckless.

      No, this was having a baseball game in a crowded park kind of reckless. You could easily wind up hitting someone with a ball (or even a bat) in that kind of environment. This drone was easily heavy enough to harm someone if it fell on them, and he clearly wasn't as in control of it as he thought he was. As well, odds are it was powered by a LiPo, which is a fire hazard. (I have LiPos, I use them, but any time they are outside of their protective storage, you should have an extinguisher ready and you should be able to access any place it might ignite...)

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    10. Re:Ignorant fucking asshole by bigpat · · Score: 0

      Sure, but the charge should have been trespassing or something like that. The drone hit some seats. This isn't like having a gasoline fight at a gas station kind of reckless.

      No, this was having a baseball game in a crowded park kind of reckless. You could easily wind up hitting someone with a ball (or even a bat) in that kind of environment. This drone was easily heavy enough to harm someone if it fell on them, and he clearly wasn't as in control of it as he thought he was. As well, odds are it was powered by a LiPo, which is a fire hazard. (I have LiPos, I use them, but any time they are outside of their protective storage, you should have an extinguisher ready and you should be able to access any place it might ignite...)

      Come on... someone just walking around could knock into someone and knock them over and they could hit their head and spontaneously combust... when someone does something stupid and not allowed in a public place like that the response is usually to simply ask them to stop and not do it again and then only if they are non-compliant then you charge them with trespass. This is a bit of an overreaction or example setting charge because of the word "drone". The fact that he disrupted the event was at issue, like someone running out onto the field. Sure someone running out onto the field could knock someone over and then they could hit their head and even die, but unless someone actually got hit I think the endangerment charge is overblown.

    11. Re:Ignorant fucking asshole by PPH · · Score: 1

      The drone hit some seats.

      So if I brought my pistol to the US Open and fired it straight up, you'd be OK with that if it only hit an empty seat?

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    12. Re:Ignorant fucking asshole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I might have read your comment if you weren't swearing so much. Grow up.

    13. Re:Ignorant fucking asshole by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      http://www.amazon.com/gp/produ...

      Quads are damn cheap now. It doesn't have transmit capability, but it is about the same size as the drone in TFA.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    14. Re:Ignorant fucking asshole by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      If the bullet moved at around a max of 10 mph, sure.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    15. Re:Ignorant fucking asshole by bigpat · · Score: 1

      The drone hit some seats.

      So if I brought my pistol to the US Open and fired it straight up, you'd be OK with that if it only hit an empty seat?

      I'd be more okay with it than if you had shot me in the head. The more relevant example would be if you flew a small toy helicopter in the air that could maybe cause someone to go "ouch" or in the extreme could have caused about as much damage as a baseball or a small rock thrown in the air and it didn't hit anyone.... again... didn't hit anyone. Don't do it again. Have a nice day. End of story.

    16. Re:Ignorant fucking asshole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I missed the part where the falling drone's parachute deployed and prevented it from falling too quickly.

    17. Re:Ignorant fucking asshole by medoc · · Score: 1

      Welcome to my world :) I used to sail to get to quiet places until GPS turned every anchorage into a motorboat parking.

      Moron-enablement is a major drawback of modern tech :)

    18. Re:Ignorant fucking asshole by Kaptain+Kruton · · Score: 1

      The modern flight controllers (which I use and love) are like exploit kits for script kiddies.

      That is one of the best analogies I have heard regarding to this topic.

    19. Re:Ignorant fucking asshole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Absolutely. I fly my little quad copter in a big open field in a park away from other people and never fly it over the parks or baseball fields. Mine is only about 1/4 of a pound and I've slammed myself in the head with it and it fucking hurts and bleeds.

    20. Re:Ignorant fucking asshole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I fly all sorts of RC aircraft, Quads, fixed wing plane's, Helis, even a flying lawn mower (model, not actually a lawnmower) and I've been doing it for 25 years and never has there been an issue of people getting upset about it until recently.

      When I see assholes like this, I tell them to get their fucking quad out of the air immediately or I'm calling the cops, and I've called them twice, ...

      Pinged my irony detector, YMMV

    21. Re:Ignorant fucking asshole by PPH · · Score: 1

      I missed the part where the blades stopped spinning when it got close to people.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    22. Re:Ignorant fucking asshole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Slightly edited version:

      Ignorant fucking asshole (Score:5, Insightful)
      by BitZtream (692029)

      Douches prick

      fucking moron, pricks.

      assholes, fucking asshole fucking.

      worthless fuck keep him the fuck out so he doesn't fuck it up

      shit

      that drone was an ignorant fucking asshole.

    23. Re:Ignorant fucking asshole by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      but unless someone actually got hit I think the endangerment charge is overblown.

      Endangerment doesn't mean "did cause damage", it means "creating a dangerous situation". And "reckless" is an important word.

      You can endanger others on a daily basis, like by driving a car (which creates a danger to pedestrians, for example) but not be guilty of "reckless endangerment" because you are taking appropriate actions to mitigate the risk. You obey the basic speed limit, you signal lane changes, you don't use a handheld cellphone while driving, etc.

      And just like for drivers, "reckless endangerment" doesn't require an actual injury or accident, only the disregard for safety. Someone who speeds through town and leads the cops on a merry chase at high speed may not have hit anyone, but he's certainly committed "reckless endangerment", just like a pilot who buzzes his neighbor's house does.

      when someone does something stupid and not allowed in a public place like that the response is usually to simply ask them to stop and not do it again

      Yes, sans injuries or accident, that is often how such a violation is handled. But when there is an accident, you've reached the point where it becomes appropriate to take some legal action just so the notoriety of the accident followed by no legal response doesn't give people the idea that doing the same thing is ok.

      The fact that he disrupted the event was at issue,

      No, the fact that he operated his drone in a reckless manner that endangered people was the issue. You can disrupt an event without committing "reckless endangerment".

    24. Re:Ignorant fucking asshole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ask the kid who topped himself with his fancy, powerful RC chopper as he was doing a stunt.

    25. Re: Ignorant fucking asshole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is the threshold I take issue with. I see drones being operated in public places all the time now and sometimes they are going to crash. Sometimes they do crash. Lots of people around, not a big deal. I've seen model rc planes lose control and fly for a mile into the woods and crash. Sure you could say that they were taking precautions to make sure they were far away from people, but if it had gone in the other direction it could have hit cars on a road. I've seen this happen at least 3 times in the last ten years and very time it just means some guy loses an rc plane. More people have been seriously injured by flat screen TVs, than by out of control drones.

  7. Re:One more reason we need restrictions on drones. by bev_tech_rob · · Score: 0

    Idiots like this are why "we can't have nice things"

    Privacy issues aside, morons like this are why the drone-boys are going to be facing some new laws in the not-so-distant future.

    Took the words right out of my mouth....

    --
    You're messin' with my Zen Thing, man.....
  8. Re:Just a harmless drone this time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How is the above not downvoted as "Troll"???
    Yes, it's an idiot with a drone. Drone safety is a serious issue. Yes, next time it could be a terrorist with an explostive drone. Terrorism is a serious issue, regardless of ideology. Yes, muslim fundamentalism and freqent lack of integration is a threat to western culture. This is a serious issue. Mixing them up in what can only charitably be called a mental shortcut of "muslim with an explosive drone" doesn't do any good in either of the three debates, and is clearly only inflammatory.

  9. It's idiots like this... by neilo_1701D · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Selfish idiots like this are going to ruin the hobby for all of us. The FAA rules are pretty clear: 5 miles of an airport, nowhere near stadiums.

    Quads fall out of the sky. A motor fails, a battery unexpectedly dies (or explodes), a sensor goes haywire... the number of things that can cause a quad to quit working is endless. If something quits, it drops like a stone - and a responsible pilot know that.

    I hate the idea of an R/C license... but if it keeps the selfish idiots grounded then it's probably the way to go. Unfortunately.

    1. Re:It's idiots like this... by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I hate the idea of an R/C license... but if it keeps the selfish idiots grounded then it's probably the way to go. Unfortunately.

      Is this like how we keep drugs off the streets, guns out of the hands of criminals, and unlicensed drivers off the road?

      How many times...

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    2. Re:It's idiots like this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It's how we keep people that don't know about radios on cell phones and not amateur radio bands.

    3. Re: It's idiots like this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You used to need one.
      For the radio. Not to fly.
      I still have it somewhere.

    4. Re:It's idiots like this... by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Not to make excuses for them (especially in the prohibition arena), but it is how we keep garbage from accumulating in front of your house. And even though it gets dirty again, we still regularly change the oil in our cars, don't we? I believe the word is 'maintenance'.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    5. Re: It's idiots like this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, I wouldn't miss them if they were banned.

      I agree with you, but everytime I bring up banning idiots people jump on me that retards have rights too and that those terms aren't politically correct any more. Actually I'd go as far as banning idiots, imbeciles and morons.

    6. Re:It's idiots like this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The unfortunate difference is that the vast majority of the population has precisely 0 interest in amateur radio, they think we're a bunch of nerds and are happy to leave us be, while many thousands if not millions of people would love to have a drone to play with.

      Regulation is so effective in amateur radio mostly because the user base is relatively small, operators tend to know each other, and we're aggressive about keeping morons out. Plus, hobbyists who aren't all that dedicated have multiple outlets like CB that they can play on and get their jollies with consumer level equipment, legally and without interfering with reserved bands. There are still random losers who warrant the occasional "fox hunt" though.

      73 de K-rad

  10. Re:Just a harmless drone this time by BitZtream · · Score: 5, Informative

    ...

    It wasn't harmless.

    A quad with any camera worth a shit on it is going to weigh in at 5-10 pounds minimum. A drop of even 10 feet, at 5 pounds, onto your head, with any sort of good sharp edge ... your skull is going to be split open. This is a simple matter of physics. Gravity does all the work. The propellers aren't what you're afraid of, its one of the support arms or screws jabbing into your brain that you should be worried about.

    There are many many many ways it can hurt you in that fall that don't involve a lethal injury that you wouldn't enjoy at all either.

    You don't need explosives for a quad to be lethal, this idiot was more than enough to seriously wound or kill someone due to nothing more than shear ignorance.

    Best part ... he's a fucking science teacher who should understand the basic laws of physics well enough to not do something this stupid.

    --
    Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
  11. Re:Just a harmless drone this time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    If a drone is explosive, it's because the pilot is a terrorist.

    Or that Sony manufactured the battery.

  12. Make the punishment fit the crime. by queazocotal · · Score: 1

    Your drone is first flown into your face at maximum forward velocity.
    It is then dropped on your head from 30m, powered off.

  13. Go away scaremongerer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    These toy drones can barely carry a camera let alone a payload and yet you want people to be afraid of them?

    I think you had your "muslim = bomber" agenda and just wanted to tack it onto any story as a bit of scaremongering.

  14. So what was the experiment? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The summary states that the teacher was in the middle of an experimen when he crashed the RC aircraft. Was there an actual experiment, or was the submitter just trying to pad the story into something bigger than it really was?

    1. Re:So what was the experiment? by Kkloe · · Score: 1

      experiment or not, that he was arrested shows that he didnt have permission to fly there

    2. Re:So what was the experiment? by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      The summary states that the teacher was in the middle of an experimen when he crashed the RC aircraft. Was there an actual experiment, or was the submitter just trying to pad the story into something bigger than it really was?

      Apparently the Science teacher was doing a Social experiment.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    3. Re:So what was the experiment? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who in the hell would have permission to fly there? At any rate, it's clear by now that the submitter is full of shit, trying to pad his story into something more interesting than it really is. TFA states that the guy is a science teacher, but nothing more. The submitter then takes that tiny, irrelevant bit of information and re-writes an entirely new story, and nobody here gives a damn? That's journalism in 2015 -- about as trustworthy as the National Enquirer.

  15. Re:Just a harmless drone this time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Until a drone is constructed entirely out of fabric, there is no such thing as a "harmless" drone (and even a fabric drone can be dangerous in certain odd circumstances).

    This is something the drone-nuts don't seem to understand. At least model airplane enthusiasts understand that they are directing a rigid object at moderate speeds with (usually) open propellers rotating at high rpm. A proper understanding of what you are doing leads to some level of caution and respect for people around you. I have seen neither from any of these drone stories, not even the Amazon delivery one suggests that they will include safeguards to protect people from their drones.

  16. It's all about me! by sizzzzlerz · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's the US Open, watched in person by thousands, and on TV by millions but rather than making it all about the tennis players, this dipshit feels that the Open should be all about him and his toys. So he flys his drone over the stadium and ends up crashing into some seats, causing a delay in the match-in-progress, lucky not to have hurt someone in the stands. He's yet one more example of an adolescent in adult form who is incapable of recognizing that this is not an appropriate place to play and not too overly concerned about its ramifications. Fines and a little jail time are exactly what he deserves.

  17. Re:One more reason we need restrictions on drones. by Capt.Albatross · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Idiots like this are why "we can't have nice things"

    Privacy issues aside, morons like this are why the drone-boys are going to be facing some new laws in the not-so-distant future.

    Furthermore, behavior like this gives us an idea of what would happen if 'flying cars' were ever readily available.

  18. Re:Just a harmless drone this time by ArsenneLupin · · Score: 1

    If a drone is explosive, it's because the pilot is a terrorist.

    Or that Sony manufactured the battery.

    North Korea seems to think that Sony are terrorists...

  19. Science Teacher? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I don't see what his being a science teacher has to do with any of this. The summary makes it sound like he was doing something kooky to teach his kids in a unique way, but he wasn't doing this to teach anything. He was just another irresponsible dumbass with a drone.

  20. Re:One more reason we need restrictions on drones. by PopeRatzo · · Score: 0

    Furthermore, behavior like this gives us an idea of what would happen if 'flying cars' were ever readily available.

    Also "autonomous" vehicles (which aren't really autonomous, after all).

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  21. Drone Licensing by chazchaz101 · · Score: 1

    It's looking more and more like something akin to ham radio licensing should be required for drone over a certain size and/or range.
    Even an easy exam would insure people have basic safety knowledge and establish a minimum level of accountability.

    1. Re:Drone Licensing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      No respecting private property and enforcing property laws is what is needed.

      Him crashing is not what is relevant.
      Him flying over private property is what is relevant.

  22. We all had that scient teacher... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    that made science interesting and got the whole class paying attention, who erred, as humans often do, drawing the ire of many a melodramatic, pretentious pussy who can't put events in perspective. Tens of thousands of people die every day from preventable situations and the big fucking deal is someone interrupted your self-indulgent couch potato time?

  23. Re:Just a harmless drone this time by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 5, Informative

    A quad with any camera worth a shit on it is going to weigh in at 5-10 pounds minimum.

    I have a quad-copter with a 4MP camera, that is good enough to do roof / solar-panel inspections. It weighs less than one pound. The cell-phone-quality camera weighs two grams (about the weight of a penny). The only significant weight is the battery, and that can also be light if you are willing to sacrifice flight time.

  24. Is this a ploy to get anti-drone legislation? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Anyone else wondering if this "science teacher" is really working for someone like the FAA, and pulling this stunt to prove the need for anti-drone legislation?

    Sadly, I find it easy to believe that it's really an idiot who thought he could get some "awesome footage of the US Open" for YouTube, but maybe it's really a conspiracy by an evil government agency?

    1. Re:Is this a ploy to get anti-drone legislation? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have no doubt that there is a campaign to push for "common sense" legislation to severely restrict if not outright ban personal drones, but I don't think the FAA needs to engineer situations to get the political ammunition they may want. They just need to embellish the situations that are already out there, avoid mentioning the lack of danger in most of the encounters and throw in a bunch of off the wall "what if" scenarios. There may even be a few in the FAA who don't have a problem with drones, or at least haven't caught on to the desired storyline. There was a situation a couple months back where a police helicopter (NYPD?) claimed that they were threatened by reckless flying of a drone. The FAA confirmed that their story was a massive fantasy and that they went after the drone not the other way around.

    2. Re:Is this a ploy to get anti-drone legislation? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you may have put the shiny side facing inward on your tinfoil hat. Rather than reflecting the "mind control rays" your tinfoil hat is now reflecting the "stupid rays" emitted by your brain directly back in causing positive feedback and massively amplifying the stupid you are capable of. It has rendered you "super stupid' so to speak.

      Turing word: enfeeble

    3. Re:Is this a ploy to get anti-drone legislation? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anyone else wondering if this "science teacher" is really working for someone like the FAA, and pulling this stunt to prove the need for anti-drone legislation?

      This time, no, because they caught him. I think this one is really just a dumbass with a drone.

      All the "drones" supposedly flying in airport ILS approaches, interfering with firefighting operations, etc... Yes, I do think many of those are likely to be fabricated in order to sway public/legislative opinions. COTS UAVs are pretty limited in range, the operator needs to be nearby to effect any control. You can't park your car miles away from the airport, deploy your Phantom 2, and start wreaking havoc with the pattern. You have to be close enough that you'd be visible and detectable. This goes double for aerial firefighting. Someone would have to hike way out into desolate and dangerous terrain, perhaps miles from any road, in an active freaking wildfire area, and know in advance where the tankers are going to be flying, which is not discernible just from reading TFRs. After putzing around causing "near misses" with aircraft, you'd then have to hike all the way back out (as a highly visible return on FLIR) without anyone noticing. It doesn't add up, especially when nobody ever gets caught.

  25. Re:One more reason we need restrictions on drones. by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 5, Insightful

    morons like this are why the drone-boys are going to be facing some new laws in the not-so-distant future.

    He was arrested. Why do we need "new laws" when his behavior is already illegal under existing law?

  26. Re:Just a harmless drone this time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    " shear ignorance"

    LOL

    Your entire post reads like a hysterical rant from an old man. That was just frosting on the cake!

  27. Re:Just a harmless drone this time by fustakrakich · · Score: 2

    They don't make Nerf Drones yet?

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  28. The good old days by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Even I had a science teacher who would probably be jailed/fired for the stuff they did. We built catapults/trebuchets for our final project one year, one of the more ambitions students I think built one about 15ft tall that could throw a pumpkin a few hundred feet. Another year he taught us about "combustion" by literally putting together what would probably be called an IED by modern law enforcement by putting a cup of finely milled flour in a paint can with a candle and blowing air through a hose to aerosolize the flour and cause a flash fire which imprinted the paint cans lid into the ceiling tile. Sad that in the "land of the free" every generation seems to have a story about something that was done by practically everyone in their generation but is a jail-able crime by today's society.

  29. Re:One more reason we need restrictions on drones. by drinkypoo · · Score: 0

    Furthermore, behavior like this gives us an idea of what would happen if 'flying cars' were ever readily available.

    Whether it's an excuse or not, you really have to agree with Moller (sp?) here. If you get a flying car, it really has to fly itself. A roadable airplane, not so much, but that's a whole other beast (and you can buy one already.)

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  30. Good the asshole got arrested. by AndyKron · · Score: 0

    I'm glad to see that asshole get arrested. He, and others like him are ruining it for the rest of us who USE OUR FUCKING HEADS.

    1. Re:Good the asshole got arrested. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The government set a bad example, it's hard to blame him. I'm sure if he had a bigger battery he would have crashed it into a family in Yemen instead. They need to be better role models.

  31. Re:Just a harmless drone this time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I bet you are a big Lee Marvin fan.

  32. Drones are the new laser pointers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Drones are the new laser pointers

  33. And yet by stabiesoft · · Score: 0

    The guy who lost his permitted king cobra in florida has had nothing happen to him. The guy in texas who lost his cobra was killed by it. And then there is the guy in california who was bit by the rattlesnake he was playing with. So should we ban all snakes?

    1. Re:And yet by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      So should we ban all snakes?

      We should probably require that people who want to keep venomous snakes demonstrate the ownership of a sufficient enclosure.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:And yet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes.

      Danger Noodles: The slithery killer.

    3. Re:And yet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bad example, Bicycles cause around 700 deaths per year. Ban them. I'd laugh about all of this "controversy" surrounding drones if it wasn't so sad that people can so easily latch on to something that causes next to no deaths (what? one or two a year and those are usually the operators) while glazing over far more serious preventable situations like medical malpractice (~200k deaths), Diabetes (~75k), Suicide (~41k) and others.

  34. Re:Just a harmless drone this time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My hairdryer is a turbine screaming out of control, run for the hills.

  35. Ah, potato cannons! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Many years ago when I worked as a night mechanic we built a tennis ball cannon - some exhaust tubing with a firing hole drilled it in. We could load a rag + tennis ball into the tube, add oxygen + acetylene as propellant, and then ignite it. It was AMAZING how far that tennis ball would fly! I quickly realized that these improvised mortars could also propel more dangerous loads, so I quit the "experiment". I didn't want to hurt anyone.

    1. Re:Ah, potato cannons! by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Pansy.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    2. Re:Ah, potato cannons! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't need O2/Acetylene. PVC Plumbing tubes, a piezoelectric sparker and hairspray works just fine. Also, potatoes are much better ammunition - they are self sealing as they are rammed into the bore.

  36. Re:Just a harmless drone this time by kheldan · · Score: 1

    For your consideration: "ChrisQ". Just an idiot racist with an inane first post, but next time it could be much more explosive verbal diarrhea. Retroactive birth control, anyone?

    Now, back on topic..
    Remember, kids, don't hate your lawmakers when they take away consumer access to your toy drones, hate the idiots who can't play with them responsibly.

    --
    Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
  37. Re:Just a harmless drone this time by bigpat · · Score: 1, Informative

    It wasn't harmless.

    It was harmless. As in, according to the story, there was no harm caused.

  38. Re:Just a harmless drone this time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For your consideration: "Kheldan" is just an idiot who either thinks that islam is a race or is trying to give a cruel and violent belief system protection it does not deserve by deliberately presenting it as a race.

  39. Re:Just a harmless drone this time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If a drone is explosive, it's because the pilot is a terrorist.

    Or that Sony manufactured the battery.

    North Korea seems to think that Sony are terrorists...

    They might be on to something. Sometimes you do really need a new perspective on things.
    Sony is bad, Sony is criminal, Sony is a terrorist organisation.

  40. Harmless mass: Harmful people by tomxor · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It weighs less than one pound.

    :P Then i guess by "BitZtream's" definition: your quad copter isn't "worth a shit"

    This really has nothing much to do with drones or technology though, and everything to do with mass and stupidity... or is it mass stupidity?

    Replace "drone" with "heavy object" and "flight" with one or more of various other mechanisms available to give heavy objects gravitational potential energy and or momentum. This can be an idiot throwing rocks at people, a psychopath dropping pennies off the Eiffel Tower or a clumsy buffoon flying a heavy drone around in public... you can replace the things but not the people.

    1. Re:Harmless mass: Harmful people by KGIII · · Score: 1

      This, being in NYC, is one of those times I'd have not shot the drone.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    2. Re:Harmless mass: Harmful people by U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M · · Score: 1

      This really has nothing much to do with drones or technology though, and everything to do with mass and stupidity... or is it mass stupidity?

      A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it. - Kay

    3. Re:Harmless mass: Harmful people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well considering it takes about 196lbs of force to crack a human skull we can compute approximately the weight of a drone needed to kill someone by a free fall from 10feet.

      Force = Distance (inches) * weight (lbs) / Distance moved during stopping (inches)

      Weight lbs = .025in (there is about 1/4 of flesh padding in the skull / 120 inches of free fall * 196lbs of force to break a human skull

      Weight required to kill someone from a free fall of 10 feet = .04 lbs

    4. Re:Harmless mass: Harmful people by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      Weight required to kill someone from a free fall of 10 feet = .04 lbs

      You must be kidding. .04 lbs is 18.1 grams and change. 3 quarters totaling 17.01 grams, plus a dime at 2.268 grams, are plenty more than 18.1 grams. So you're suggesting that if I tape 3 quarters and a dime together and drop it on someone's head from 10 feet I'm going to kill them.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    5. Re:Harmless mass: Harmful people by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      a psychopath dropping pennies off the Eiffel Tower

      Pennies have a terminal velocity between 30-50 mph in light wind and weigh 2.5g. Go ahead, do the math to imagine what it would feel like to get hit by one. Here's your "psychopath" dropping pennies.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    6. Re:Harmless mass: Harmful people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't need to do the math. People get hit by baseballs all the time. The average pitching speed for an 8 year old is 39 mph. Sometimes people do die from being hit by baseballs. But it's not that common. I've personally been hit by rocks thrown off a 100 foot cliff. I'm not going to deny that it stings.

    7. Re:Harmless mass: Harmful people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      considering it takes about 196lbs of force to crack a human skull

      Meaningless napkin scribbling calculations from someone who doesn't know what they're modelling. Next, you'll go on to "prove" that kangaroos use more energy to move around than they consume. My personal favorite from my youth was the educational magazine that used math to "prove" that dragons would not have been able to fly based on the fact that they wouldn't have been able to produce downward thrust equal to their own weight (all of this was based on hypothetical wingspans, etc.) Even as a child I understood that there was something fundamentally wrong with their model.

  41. Ah, science teachers by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 5, Interesting

    My abiding memory of science teaching was the chemistry teacher who wanted to demonstrate the reactivity of phosphorous with air. He pulled a large stick of phosphorus (oxidised on the outside) out of a jar of water and carefully sliced off a small section. He then rushed to drop the rest of the stick back into the jar of water, but he missed and it bounced off the rim of the jar, landed on the table and promptly burst into flames and began to fill the room with fumes.

    Science!

    --
    systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    1. Re:Ah, science teachers by penguinoid · · Score: 1

      At least he didn't harm the kids. Not like those boring teachers who manage to get their whole class to permanently hate the subject. Wish someone would arrest some of those.

      --
      Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
    2. Re:Ah, science teachers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My science teacher was demonstrating a device, I forget what it was. Magnetron? Cathode ray gun? Something like that.

      Anyhow he spent a good 10 minutes getting it running (the students were getting restless) and finally it started operating correctly. And then and only then did he mention that it "wasn't very safe" and "emitted X-Rays!"

      Picture 30 high school kids suddenly leaning backwards in their desks.

    3. Re:Ah, science teachers by Mike+Van+Pelt · · Score: 1

      Heh... My favorite science teacher back in high school blew out the fume hood with a zinc dust/sulfur reload of an Estes model rocket engine. One of his demos had two police officers bursting into the room. (That one was actually completely harmless; he was demoing electrolysis of water, bubbling the stoichiometric results through soapy water, and lighting the bubbles to the delight of all. Made a crack like a .22. It just so happened that there had been some riots earlier, so there was police presence in the school, and when they heard what sounded like a .22...)

      The last straw, I think, was the accidentally dropped bottle of butyric acid. Harmless enough, but... the smell... He didn't come back the next year, alas. He was enrolled in a PhD program last I heard.

  42. Re:One more reason we need restrictions on drones. by operagost · · Score: 0, Troll

    The same reason we need new gun control laws once someone breaks them to commit a crime with a gun. I guess people think when you break a law, it needs to be fixed, like your dishwasher.

    --

    Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
  43. Re:One more reason we need restrictions on drones. by KGIII · · Score: 1

    You're mistaking "need" for "going to be facing." You won't need new laws. You're going to get new ones with harsher maximum penalties even if you don't need them. I tried mentioning this and was modded to oblivion quite some time ago when people were first insisting that they could do anything they wanted with them. Good luck with that.

    --
    "So long and thanks for all the fish."
  44. Re:Just a harmless drone this time by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

    This is a simple matter of physics.

    There's your problem. This guy must be chemistry.

    --
    systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
  45. Exactly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I said the same thing in the comments above, but nobody seems to care if the story is real or not. The fact that he was a science teacher is absolutely irrelevant to the story, and the submitter flat-out lied by implying that it was some kind of "experiment".

    1. Re:Exactly by OverlordQ · · Score: 1

      It's relevant because as a science teacher he should understand the physics involved and why what he was doing was REALLY STUPID. It's just as relevant if pointing out that a Ponzi scheme victim was an accountant. They should be trained well enough to realize what the hell is going on.

      --
      Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
    2. Re:Exactly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I keep hearing this and it's very much not true. A physics professor would understand this, a high school chemistry teacher won't have the faintest clue.

    3. Re:Exactly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It just said he's a science teacher. He could teach biology. Still has nothing to do with flying a drone.

      Hell, being an airline pilot doesn't necessarily mean someone would be more competent with a drone.

      Not to mention, most of us commenting here are not physicists, but we know what a stupid idea this was. No special experience required.

  46. Crashed it in the open? Who cares? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Drones are going to crash, that's just going to happen. People are only caring now that it's happening out in the open in the U.S.? It's been happening all over for a while now. Seriously. This is only news now?!

  47. Re:Just a harmless drone this time by KatchooNJ · · Score: 1

    I am far from defending this dopey teacher, but there is a chance he was at least careful enough to not fly it over areas where people were. It did say that it crashed into a section of empty seats. Not sure he entirely deserves it, but we could give him the benefit of the doubt that he had at least a bit of common sense in his flight of stupidity. I want to believe that there was a nugget of smart in there.

    --
    "Never give up, for that is just the time and place when the tide will change." -Harriet Beecher Stowe ^_^
  48. Re:One more reason we need restrictions on drones. by selectspec · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Firearms are protected by the 2nd amendment. I am afraid drones are not. I guarantee in 10 years, to buy a drone you will have to...

    - mandatory background check
    - mandatory 3 hour online drone safety course that costs $100 and has to be renewed with a new course every 5 years
    - mandatory annual safety inspection of the drone that costs $50
    - mandatory national registration markings on the drone tied to you in a federal database

    No joke.

    --

    Someone you trust is one of us.

  49. Re:Just a harmless drone this time by U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M · · Score: 1
  50. Re:Just a harmless drone this time by U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M · · Score: 2

    Just an idiot teacher with a harmless drone this time.

    The newspapers are revising the title of their story: "Teacher with a mostly harmless drone."

  51. Re:Just a harmless drone this time by U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M · · Score: 1

    If you think your hairdryer is a turbine screaming out of control, you've never used a Dremel 395 at maximum speed.

  52. Re: One more reason we need restrictions on drones by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As we have seen time and time again, people cannot be trusted to use drones responsibly and drones need to be banned or at least heavily regulated.

    One needs quite a bit of training and licenses to fly an aircraft. At least the same should be for for drone owners and operators.

  53. Re:Just a harmless drone this time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sheer ignorance is your language use.
    You shear English into pieces.

  54. Re:One more reason we need restrictions on drones. by Minwee · · Score: 1

    Unless the drone had a gun attached to it. Then you would be able to walk right out of the corner store with a hunting drone under one arm and a case of beer under the other.

    Because otherwise the evil British would be able to take over the country and quarter soldiers in private homes or whatever it is that you're supposed to be protecting against.

  55. Re: Just a harmless drone this time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If I threw a one-pound rock at your head, that would be assault. If I launched it mechanically at 30 miles per hour, that would be attempted murder. If it hit you, you'd likely be maimed or dead. You would then not be able to make such silly arguments.

  56. birdie to win and par ties by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    take your drop and go to the playoff

  57. Re:Just a harmless drone this time by grep+-v+'.*'+* · · Score: 1

    At least model airplane enthusiasts understand that they are directing a rigid object at moderate speeds with (usually) open propellers rotating at high rpm.

    But at least the (RC) airplane actually flies. If you lose an engine it still has some semblance of control. A drone has exactly the same flight capabilities as a helicopter ... or a brick.

    Of course if you lose contact with the device it's then flying on it's own -- and you better hope it's smarter than you are.

    Just a harmless drone this time

    I thought we were supposed to learn from our mistakes. And being human even understand how NOT to make them. Or am I expecting too much from adults?

    Looking around at Politics ... Never Mind.

    --
    If the universe is someone's simulation -- does that mean the stars are just stuck pixels?
  58. Re:One more reason we need restrictions on drones. by PPH · · Score: 1

    Why do we need "new laws"

    Because the existing laws don't seem to be preventing this sort of behavior. In reality, its more of a statistical effect. Where the large increase in the number of drones (RC aircraft, etc.) in the hands of morons result in such incidents occurring more frequently.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  59. Re: Just a harmless drone this time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How is the above not downvoted as "Troll"?

    Ok. Try this:
    "The next time it could be a liberal socialist who puts a bomb in a drone and flys it into a crowd of innocent people."

    Because Bill Ayers.

  60. it might have been a bomb. by morgauxo · · Score: 0

    "Her initial reaction, she said afterward, was that it might have been a bomb."

    Every time I hear crap like that I get a little sadder and hate people just a little more. I cannot fully express just how stupid I think it is that so many people today respond to anything they don't expect and recognize by thinking that it is a bomb. You would think that everyone was a PTSD scarred veteren of some particularly horrible war even though most have never been threatened by anything like that.

    1. Re:it might have been a bomb. by Ken+D · · Score: 1

      That quote is from the tennis player.

      She's in the middle of playing in the US Open when the match is halted and there a bunch of police staring at the seats in an empty section of the stadium.

      What do you think they are checking out? A box of donuts? An escaped water buffalo? The latest iPhone?

    2. Re:it might have been a bomb. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, some of the tennis players are from area of heavy turmoil and tell stories of having to take cover during tennis practice as kids because of bombs or shooting. Also the major tournaments provide everyone a briefing with suggestions on where and when to interact with fans so security is properly maintained. Tennis has been dealing with elevated security since the Seles stabbing in 1993. Tennis also deals wih the challenge that there are so many countries involved in an event that is greatly increases the potential pool of nut jobs. It isn't as nearly as bad as the Olympics but it is a harder job than many of the other large venue sports.

    3. Re:it might have been a bomb. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In this case, it is your view that is narrow. Any venue where large groups of people gather have always been targets for nefarious groups and individuals. A grand slam tennis tournament in New York qualifies as one such place.

      The athlete you are bashing is one of the top tennis players in the world at one of the biggest tennis tournaments in the world. She is concentrating on her job and is interrupted by an unidentified and unknown object. It is not unreasonable for her to feel unnerved about the incident.

    4. Re:it might have been a bomb. by morgauxo · · Score: 1

      No. She said she heard it fly by. That is a reference to the 'drone' itself. The police staring at an empty seat would have occured some time after that. All she was reacting to was the sound of a quadcopter. Have you ever heard one? A reasonable thought might be that it was a hummingbird, a really big bee or... a fcking quadcopter! How many bombs fly around making a buzzing noise before they finally go off?

      If you wonder what you are hearing.. apply Occam's Razor FCOL! What is more likely.. a bomb, a quad copter, wildlife such as a bird or a big bee or even just some random thing you haven't thought of yet because even those are probably more common than bombs?!?

    5. Re:it might have been a bomb. by morgauxo · · Score: 1

      Did she have to take cover often growing up in Romania? I have Romanian friends and they have never shared stories like that with me!

    6. Re:it might have been a bomb. by morgauxo · · Score: 1

      i never said it was unreasonable to feel unnerved about being interupted by something unidentified in the middle of such a big tournament.

      It is totally unreasonable however when the first thing coming to one's mind as soon as there is something unidentified is BOMB. She just heard a noise at that point! Imagine all the things it could be. Add bomb to the list. Add "not a bomb but something I haven't thought of yet" to the list. Apply Okam's Razor. Is bomb still up there?

      if so then do you ever go to big high profile events? Ever attend a concert? When in large groups do you worry that every little blurred movement in your perephieral vision or every little sound that you might not have heard right is a BOMB?

      How do you live like that?

  61. Re: Just a harmless drone this time by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

    That kind is too dumb. They blow themselves up trying to build it. Often skip step 0 of any bomb building plan: 0. Sober up.

    See also 'The Weather Underground'.

    Darwin never sleeps.

    --
    John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  62. Re:Just a harmless drone this time by HornWumpus · · Score: 3

    And you have never had a tuned pipe glow engine running 90%+ nitro-methane spinning a 9 inch propeller at 25kRPM+.

    It's a beautiful noise.

    --
    John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  63. Re:Just a harmless drone this time by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

    A helicopter can auto-rotate. Quads just drop.

    --
    John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  64. I don't get it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    RC flying hobby craft have been around for decades, why the sudden spike in idiot douchebags flying them into places they don't belong?

    1. Re:I don't get it. by speedlaw · · Score: 1

      Because now that you have a camera you can post your videos. The guy who spent days building a perfect P-51 replica isn't going to buzz the US open with it. The guy who bought it on line and had a box truck deliver it will. Likewise the guy who causes water planes to divert from a fire run out west. They can't think beyond "getting a shot".

    2. Re:I don't get it. by bobbutts · · Score: 1

      Quadcopters with flight controllers and other fancy features along with much improved battery technology. A short time ago there was nothing anywhere near as capable and easy to fly at such a low cost.

  65. Re:Just a harmless drone this time by tehcyder · · Score: 1

    It wasn't harmless.

    It was harmless. As in, according to the story, there was no harm caused.

    If I dropped a tarantula on your lap, but it was a bit sleepy and didn't try to bite your cock off, would you still say it was harmless?

    --
    To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  66. Re:Just a harmless drone this time by tehcyder · · Score: 1

    there is a chance he was at least careful enough to not fly it over areas where people were. It did say that it crashed into a section of empty seats.

    I think the key word there is "crashed".

    --
    To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  67. Re: Just a harmless drone this time by dilvish_the_damned · · Score: 1

    Fundamental or muslim extreamists mixing explosives with crowds is not an unknown event (type 'bomb' in google news). Likewise the mixing of drones and bombs is also known (Type in 'US drone strike' in google news). It's easy to understand how someone might get confused and think these could be related in some way and be a little concrened about 'US muslim drone bomb' becoming a valid search some day soon.

    Although it might be worth noting that your view and what is really happening are two very seperate issues and its dangerous to mix those two together. So, umm... As you were.

    --
    I think you underestimate just how much I just dont care.
  68. Re:Just a harmless drone this time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't run any statistical analysis on recent terrorist bombing suspects and their associated religions. You'll have a harder time making snide comments at the culturally insensitive data than at culturally insensitive slashdotters.

  69. Re:Just a harmless drone this time by Coren22 · · Score: 1

    Yes, as by definition a tarantula is harmless to a human. They don't bite us, and even if they did, their bite is not especially harmful to us.

    --
    APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
  70. Re:Just a harmless drone this time by Coren22 · · Score: 1

    It didn't look damaged in the video I saw on CNN, so it must not have "crashed" too bad.

    --
    APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
  71. LOL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    as a science teacher he should understand the physics involved

    LOL.

    "Your honor, please hear me out. Despite being a science teacher, I didn't have a solid understanding of gravity, and that's why my plane crashed."

    If only he had paid attention that day in school, he could have averted the disaster.

    Again, LOL. This story has absolutely nothing to do with science or being a science teacher.

  72. Re:One more reason we need restrictions on drones. by Coren22 · · Score: 1

    Except that isn't the way the gun laws work anywhere in the US.

    Work in reality, not in your assumption of how reality works.

    --
    APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
  73. Re: Just a harmless drone this time by sjames · · Score: 1

    The same can be said (especially in the U.S.) for fundamentalist Christian extremists.

    Also agnostic crazies with an agenda.

  74. Swat it down by tomhath · · Score: 1

    Couldn't one of the tennis players just knock it down? Heck, even Chimpanzees can figure out how to do that

  75. Re:One more reason we need restrictions on drones. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Because the existing laws don't seem to be preventing this sort of behavior.

    How do you know how much of a problem this would be if competent science teachers didn't worry about consequences?

  76. Re:One more reason we need restrictions on drones. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Furthermore, behavior like this gives us an idea of what would happen if 'flying cars' were ever readily available.

    Yeah, I mean look at all the automobiles recklessly driven through parks, sidewalks and sports fields. If only we had some way to designate areas where they could and couldn't go.

  77. Jeeze by fred911 · · Score: 1

    It it was a DRONE, it probably wouldn't have crashed and wouldn't be flying manually controlled. Title should be "Numbnut crashes his quadcopter at the Open" with a photo of the him titled "Would you let this man teach your children?".

    --
    09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B - D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
  78. Re:Just a harmless drone this time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Mixing them up in what can only charitably be called a mental shortcut of "muslim with an explosive drone" doesn't do any good in either of the three debates, and is clearly only inflammatory.

    That's because it's easier to get worked up over mysterious sci-fi inspired drones, rather than track down every muslim grandmother that buys a pressure cooker.

  79. Re: Just a harmless drone this time by smooth+wombat · · Score: 1

    Or this:

    "The next time it could be a deranged former member of our military who puts a bomb in a drone and flies it into a school yard full of children."

    Timothy McVeigh

    --
    We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
  80. Re: Just a harmless drone this time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Great, and now I'm on a list. Thanks Google!

  81. How high is up? by westlake · · Score: 1

    I have a quad-copter with a 4MP camera, that is good enough to do roof / solar-panel inspections. It weighs less than one pound.

    How high a roof?

    If a strike from 5 lb drone falling 10 ft can be lethal, how safe is it to be caught standing unawares beneath your 1 lb drone as it falls 30 to 40 ft?

    1. Re:How high is up? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A strike from 1/2 of lb from 10 feet can be lethal. See Lawn Jarts.

  82. Re:Just a harmless drone this time by slew · · Score: 1

    This is a simple matter of physics.

    There's your problem. This guy must be chemistry.

    Apparently, he's a "science" teacher at the Academy of Innovative Technology in NY (magnet school K618) who moonlights as a photog with the handle "TheDVimage"

    K618 is a school that specializes in teaching kids gaming, web design and applications programming. I imagine that a "science" teacher at this school is really just a technology instructor (not chemistry nor physics)

    FWIW, K618 (rated by Great Schools as 2/10 based on stunning performance in standardized test scores) is a remnant of the defunct Franklin K. Lane High School that had the distinction of being crowned the City's Worst School (which is quite an accomplishment in NYC) just before it was closed permanently in 2012. As another note, FKLHS had John Gotti as one of its distinguished alumni (well, technically not, as he dropped out at 16).

  83. Re:Just a harmless drone this time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If I dropped a tarantula on your lap, but it was a bit sleepy and didn't try to bite your cock off, would you still say it was harmless?

    Actually just the mention of spiders causes me to become very afraid and elevates my heart beat. What if I had a heart condition. Oh no... Stop... Your words are causing me great distress. I am going to call the cops on you for endangering my life with your very scary hypothetical scenario.

  84. Re:Just a harmless drone this time by Mike+Van+Pelt · · Score: 1

    Well, due to all those Hollywood movies which portray tarantulas as deadly, and a pretty high level of arachnophobia being widespread anyway, and those things inherently generating a " HUGE SPIDERS!!!!" reaction in the unsuspecting... they may be harmless (for getting jabbed with fangs the size of icepicks, regardless of their venom being ineffective on humans levels of harmless) but in the words of Ray Stevens hilarious song "Sittin' Up with the Dead"... they can sure make you hurt yourself.

  85. This is nothing. Charges seem reasonable. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No laws can prevent stupidity - and sometimes it is the police and/or AD being stupid.

    Back in high school, our physics teacher had us bring our firearms to school for class after we learned about momentum. Parents had to OK it, the firearms were left with the assistant principal until class time. The teacher maintained control of every round until just before firing. No danger at all.

    The entire class walked outside through the door in the physics class room and we shot different firearms at different targets - all on school grounds - standing 20 ft from the building.. When a shotgun round hits a full milk jug and when a rifle round hit is are 2 very different things. A 9mm handgun and a .45 are different too. Not everyone brought guns that day, so we shared.

    Thanks to some luck for the class, a student was able to bring a dead hog in that day which couldn't be eaten/sold and we all got to shoot at that too. Makes it pretty clear what a firearm can do to a person. Should be mandatory for all firearm training classes, IMHO. Sorta like those drivers ed movies with all the accidents.

    Turned me off of hunting, but I still like to target shoot. Drones would be fun targets.

    1. Re: This is nothing. Charges seem reasonable. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Excellent! Which hill in Kentucky is this school located?

  86. Re:Just a harmless drone this time by Nyder · · Score: 1

    Until a drone is constructed entirely out of fabric, there is no such thing as a "harmless" drone (and even a fabric drone can be dangerous in certain odd circumstances).

    This is something the drone-nuts don't seem to understand. At least model airplane enthusiasts understand that they are directing a rigid object at moderate speeds with (usually) open propellers rotating at high rpm. A proper understanding of what you are doing leads to some level of caution and respect for people around you. I have seen neither from any of these drone stories, not even the Amazon delivery one suggests that they will include safeguards to protect people from their drones.

    Drones don't kill people, bullets do.

    --
    Be seeing you...
  87. Fear Of New Things by JimSadler · · Score: 1

    Drones are a major development and as such need to be compared with other major developments as far as issues like safety are concerned. Yes, peaceful drones will kill or harm people in accidents from time to time. In the near future we will all know someone who was smacked and harmed by a drone. Now compare that with automobiles. Automobiles are a recent development in this world and they kill people every day. How about motorcycles? We all know people who have died or suffered a serious injury from the use of motorcycles. Or how about locomotives? The same thing applies. Or how about vacation cruise ships? So maybe we should only compare drones with things we feel we really don't have to have. How about private air craft used only for a hobby? How about gymnastics or throwing a frisbe or baseballs or bats? What we are seeing right now are knee jerk reactions to a new kid on the block. Yes drones will have some negative side effects like every other thing that comes down the pike. But we have no great reason to be concerned at all until we can quantify the degree of harm or benefit that may be determined over time and the answer may be quite complex. For example we know how much good personal computers have done but we do not know how human health may have suffered due to over use of personal computers. And don't even go there with smart phones. The body count on smart phones is high. Some people simply can not drive without talking on their smart phones and the crashes are well documented. The commentary on drone negatives really is sort of silly in my opinion.

  88. Re:One more reason we need restrictions on drones. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Except that you are wrong because in some states you can at a Wal-Mart do exactly that. You can buy a rifle, ammo and a case of beer. So maybe before you go correcting people, you should know what you are talking about.

  89. Re: Just a harmless drone this time by Stan92057 · · Score: 1

    I don't think they will use a bomb i think it will contain a deadly virus like what was sent in the US mail. Everyone sees a cute RC chopper then POOF cloud of white power is released at some event with lots of people their. just saying.

    --
    Jack of all trades,master of none
  90. Re:Just a harmless drone this time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Until the wind takes it.

    Heck the 2 most popular drones are just shy of (2KG, 4.4lbs). and anything over 12mph winds will easily push that thing away..... Hence those small ones are less less vertical projectiles but more horizontal projectiles.

  91. What he should have done: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If only he'd killed some brown people, he'd be fine and maybe the President could brag about it.

  92. Re:One more reason we need restrictions on drones. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What do you have against beer?

  93. Re:One more reason we need restrictions on drones. by PPH · · Score: 1

    if competent science teachers

    Because being a science teacher (competent or otherwise) isn't a precondition for a drone operator's license.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  94. Re:One more reason we need restrictions on drones. by operagost · · Score: 1

    How is it that this jackass says something so foolish, and I'm the one who gets modded down "Troll"?

    --

    Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
  95. Re:Just a harmless drone this time by kheldan · · Score: 1

    Hi ChrisQ,
    You know your comeback is pretty weak and pathetic, right? Why not just admit that you're mad that you've been called out for your small-minded, hateful ways and move on?
    Most Islamic peoples are like most other people in the world in at least one respect: they just want to live their lives. They don't want to dictate to everyone else how they live, and they just want to be left alone. It's the extremists that ruin thing for everyone else, Islamic or otherwise. And guess what? YOU are an extremist, YOU are ruining things for everyone else. Get correct, son, the world is too small a place anymore for people like you to be allowed anymore, we don't need you and your bullshit. Seriously, you're not any different fundamentally from those 'islamic state' assholes that are running around cutting off people's heads and blowing up archaeolgical sites; the only real difference between them and you, is you haven't worked yourself up to the point of actually hurting anyone yet (or at least I hope not).

    --
    Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
  96. Easy Loophole - "not a drone" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Drones illegal? no problem, it's no longer a drone, it's a R/C multi-tor with a camera on it.

    I wonder what the legal definition of 'drone' is.

    I suspect they will require licensing / registration for R/C which is fairly laughable for enforcement.

  97. Re:Just a harmless drone this time by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

    It was harmless. As in, according to the story, there was no harm caused.

    I do not think the word means what you think it means.

    I have an old unexploded mortar shell from WWII. Since it hasn't exploded -- yet -- it is harmless. Yes?

  98. Re:Just a harmless drone this time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Get correct, son

    English motherfucker. Do you speak it? Get correct? What the fuck does that even mean. "PC Load Letter" makes more goddamn sense than you do.

    YOU are an extremist, YOU are ruining things for everyone else. Get correct, son, the world is too small a place anymore for people like you to be allowed anymore, we don't need you and your bullshit. Seriously, you're not any different fundamentally from those 'islamic state' assholes that are running around cutting off people's heads and blowing up archaeolgical sites; the only real difference between them and you, is you haven't worked yourself up to the point of actually hurting anyone yet (or at least I hope not).

    Oh. So now you're the authority on the kind of people allowed in the world. Any you call him an extremist? Want to see an extremist? Pull your fucking head out of your ass and go look in the mirror.

    Goddamn dhimmis acting all high and mighty.

  99. #dontbeadickwithyourdrone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Subject says it all...

  100. Re: Just a harmless drone this time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He's a US school science teacher. It's probably all magic and god's will that the drone flies..

  101. Re:Just a harmless drone this time by minstrelmike · · Score: 2

    ...Drone safety is a serious issue. Yes, next time it could be a terrorist with an explosive drone. Terrorism is a serious issue, regardless of ideology.

    You're obviously not paying attention. If it's a Christian American crazy (such as Timmy McVeigh), then we say it's just a crazy. If it's a Muslim crazy killer, then we say it's part of an international religion with one billion believers and we piss in our pants.

    It's a problem of social perspective which is _always_ based on ideology.

  102. Re:Just a harmless drone this time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm less concerned by the bite of a tarantula and more concerned about the irritant hairs that they could emed in the skin. They can supposedly cause irritation for years.

  103. Re:One more reason we need restrictions on drones. by Capt.Albatross · · Score: 1

    Absolutely. I was thinking in terms of the popular fantasy of what having a flying car would be like, and one more reason why the reality could not be anything like that.

    My guess is that automation of the flying of flying cars would be a simpler problem than the automation of road vehicles, but there are a host of more difficult problems to be solved before such a vehicle is feasible. One of them is noise.

    For those of us who like to fly, the advent of flying cars would probably be the end of our hobby.
     

  104. Re:Just a harmless drone this time by Chrisq · · Score: 1

    Oh. So now you're the authority on the kind of people allowed in the world.

    He's a Muslim, what do you expect? In countries they control they kill or enslave people they don't like.In they rest of the world they use insults, violence and intimidation and feel hard dun by that others are equal to them in the eyes of the law.

  105. Re:One more reason we need restrictions on drones. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's completely missing the point of not knowing how bad it would be without the existing laws. If this is newsworthy, then it's rare... and any law that prevents 100% of occurrences probably has costs that outweigh its benefits.