Slashdot Mirror


Why Developers Are Important To the Drone Industry (sdtimes.com)

dmleonard618 writes: There is a new market that industry leaders think developers should take advantage of: Drones. While drones are becoming more and more popular, the industry is just opening up and it needs developers to take it to the next level. "Drones are the next mobile," said Thomas Haun, a VP from PrecisionHawk. Haun went on to explain that like mobile, drones are going to completely change how we go about our lives. And if that doesn't attract developers, COO from Skyward added: "How often do you get to invent a new industry?"

122 comments

  1. Drones are the next mobile by U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M · · Score: 3, Interesting

    No they're not. I've never had a smartphone crash on my head, break through my window or spy on me from above. And the air space is regulated in most countries, so drones aren't anywhere near the next mobile.

    Drones have their place, but not in the hands of everyone.

    1. Re:Drones are the next mobile by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And you hit the nail on the head as to why Republicans love drones. They know drones, like guns, hurt people.

    2. Re:Drones are the next mobile by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 1

      Helo style drones are highly energy inefficient for transportation. Once the greenies realize that, the party is over.

    3. Re: Drones are the next mobile by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And why the Republicans won't allow the FAA to pass reasonable, common sense laws wrt drones.

    4. Re: Drones are the next mobile by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And how many more children are going to be hurt by the Republican's refusal to do what is right? People are flying drones over parks. Over parks.

    5. Re:Drones are the next mobile by Morgon · · Score: 1

      To be fair, have you actually had a 'drone' crash on your head, break through your window, or (legitimately) "spy" on you from above? I'm not saying it doesn't happen, I'm simply suggesting that such broad, kneejerk reactions to this technology are not constructive.

      --
      [DISCLAIMER: This post is a work of satire and should not be misconstrued as a holy text upon which to base a religion.]
    6. Re:Drones are the next mobile by brad3378 · · Score: 1

      Inefficient compared to what?

      Driving a 6000 lb. delivery truck from stop sign to stop sign to deliver a few envelopes?
       

      --

    7. Re:Drones are the next mobile by Lumpio- · · Score: 1

      What comes to spying, your smartphone is probably more capable of doing that than a drone. Doesn't even need to follow you - you keep it with you all by yourself!

    8. Re:Drones are the next mobile by U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M · · Score: 1, Troll

      Twenty years ago, the only people who had computers were people who knew how to use computers.

      Today, all stupid assholes have one and we have things like Twitter and Facebook, viruses, trojans, ransomware, etc.

      Now imagine drones in twenty years, following you around trying to sell you stuff, taking photos of every second you're outside trying to capture that one awkward moment that could be used against you, recording your every move to know your daily routine and selling that information to thieves. That nightmare has to be stopped NOW before it's too late.

    9. Re:Drones are the next mobile by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The republican drones follow him around all day photographing him. They have drones equipped with special sensors that watch him through walls and read his thoughts. They are reprogramming him.

    10. Re:Drones are the next mobile by JoeMerchant · · Score: 1

      More importantly: regardless of how cool the product is, the cashflow in the industry is not only restricted, but also unpredictable - not a good combination for a stable career.

    11. Re:Drones are the next mobile by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 1

      Inefficient compared to what?

      Driving a 6000 lb. delivery truck from stop sign to stop sign to deliver a few envelopes?

      Probably yes. The energy for a drone to deliver that truckload of envelopes is probably more than you think. Drones must not only stop and start, but they must lift as well, and maintain lift throughout the delivery path. Once a truck is rolling it takes very little energy to keep it rolling.

    12. Re: Drones are the next mobile by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Great analogy. Our drone laws are as bad as our gun laws.

    13. Re:Drones are the next mobile by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      Helo style drones are highly energy inefficient for transportation.

      A 2 ton truck delivering an 8 ounce package is even more energy inefficient.

    14. Re:Drones are the next mobile by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      re 'And the air space is regulated in most countries"
      The US mil has been trying drones for years. From the 1970's efforts with NITE GAZELLE NITE GAZELLE and the DASH prototypes.
      Battlefield UAVs of the United States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
      The gov/mil/contractor drone "industry" has been running in the US for decades just not for the wider public.
      As for the "agriculture, search and rescue, journalism, real estate, oil and gas, insurance, infrastructure surveying, photography, and videography industries" most of that is covered by lots of regulations, or established well funded and protected work for helicopters, sat and traditional aircraft.
      States are also considering their Ag-gag or anti-whistleblower bills
      Deploying Drones To Get An Overview Of Factory Farms (JULY 19, 2014)
      http://www.npr.org/sections/th...
      Some state wish to criminalize collection of "resource data" (photos and video), have local laws about no access to any "non-public area", "making secret recordings", to take pictures by photograph, video camera, or other means...
      State laws, just been 'near' a mil sites, flight height issues makes drone use interesting in the USA until legal clarifications cover drone flight height and what can be done federally and per state over public and private land.
      Re "but not in the hands of everyone"
      DSB (Defense Science Board), Intelligence Advanced Research Projects Activity (IARPA) have been interested in backing, understanding emerging drone like projects for a while.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    15. Re:Drones are the next mobile by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 1

      I'd like to see the math on this.

      A truck only uses about 16% of its energy for forward motion, the rest is released as heat.

      A drone gets to take advantage of alternating current to provide motion, which is a LOT more energy efficient.

      I can understand that the truck carries more, therefore using scale to increase its energy efficiency, but unless we've got a good mathematical model we can't really rule out drones as being less energy efficient.

    16. Re:Drones are the next mobile by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 1

      A 2 ton truck delivering an 8 ounce package is even more energy inefficient.

      When does that happen? Trucks leave distribution centers full of packages and bring them to a remote delivery area where they are distributed. In only one trip all those packages are near their delivery destination.

      There may be rare cases where a truck is rolled solely to deliver one small package. I suppose in those cases drones will be a better choice. Now on to the other 99.99% of deliveries.

    17. Re:Drones are the next mobile by AndyKron · · Score: 1

      My drone crashed on my head when it was low on juice. Good thing it was palm-sized.

    18. Re:Drones are the next mobile by 0123456 · · Score: 1

      Helo style drones are highly energy inefficient for transportation. Once the greenies realize that, the party is over.

      History doesn't care what reactionary Greenists think, and drones are the wave of the future. They'll be more common than cellphones in a couple of decades.

    19. Re:Drones are the next mobile by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 1

      Drones would have to overcome the tremendous energy it takes to maintain lift with their efficiency. Have you ever seen what it takes to lift a single person for a few minutes using a helo style system? Those batteries could easily move 10 people an equivalent distance or more in a rolling vehicle. If you took the battery from an electric bike with a 2 mile range, how far do you think a drone could fly you with that?

    20. Re:Drones are the next mobile by 0123456 · · Score: 1

      Note that drones don't necessarily have to fly. I was looking at a demo video of a spider drone on the web a while back.

    21. Re:Drones are the next mobile by 0123456 · · Score: 1

      I've crashed mine into me a few times. Lucky I bought a pack of spare propellers.

    22. Re: Drones are the next mobile by fyngyrz · · Score: 2

      You should see what my dog does in parks...

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    23. Re:Drones are the next mobile by phantomfive · · Score: 1
      If they need developers, there's a way to get them. Pay enough.

      COO from Skyward added: "How often do you get to invent a new industry?"

      Oh, that's the kind of thing you say when you don't pay enough. Problem solved.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    24. Re:Drones are the next mobile by willworkforbeer · · Score: 1

      No they're not. I've never had a smartphone crash on my head, break through my window or spy on me from above.

      You weren't standing close enough when I threw my last &%$# phone.

      --
      Pretending this is my office full of bitter coworkers..
    25. Re:Drones are the next mobile by Morgon · · Score: 1

      Might wanna loosen that tinfoil hat a bit.
      Not one of these things will happen. Especially not to you.

      --
      [DISCLAIMER: This post is a work of satire and should not be misconstrued as a holy text upon which to base a religion.]
    26. Re:Drones are the next mobile by Morgon · · Score: 1

      I'm a DJI fan, but have been thinking about getting one of those smaller ones just for dicking around with. What do you normally fly?

      --
      [DISCLAIMER: This post is a work of satire and should not be misconstrued as a holy text upon which to base a religion.]
    27. Re:Drones are the next mobile by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds like a great opportunity to get in on the ground floor of developing a ton of new technologies, strike it rich, then retire to a less-technological country. I'll make sure to double your assigned complement of spy-drones when I can finally attach a face and identity to "U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M". Sound good? OK, 20 years it is, then =)

    28. Re:Drones are the next mobile by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 1

      It's fine to speculate, but without a mathematical model, you can't conclude one way or another.

      For example, the energy required to lift with batteries probably doesn't produce much heat at all, meanwhile just to turn the truck engine on you're expelling a LOT of energy as heat. Acceleration will produce even more heat.

      You're also not taking into account that a drone would likely be able to just rely on its momentum most of the time, expelling minimal energy to keep itself in motion (depending on the drone type, of course.) Meanwhile a truck has to deal with constant stop and go traffic.

    29. Re:Drones are the next mobile by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Drones have to constantly fight gravity. That is not a minimal energy task.

    30. Re:Drones are the next mobile by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 1

      Electric motors do produce heat. Feel a drone motor and you'll realize how hot it gets. Now, scale that up and heat scales up as well.

      Yes, it would be better to have the numbers, but that does not mean we can't apply experience and make a judgement call. Again, I'd as you to think about the tremendous energy it takes to keep something aloft in a helo style vehicle, I don't think you appreciate just how much energy that is.

      A truck also is an efficient way to take a large load of items from a distribution center to a delivery area. All the starting and stopping happens once the truck is in the delivery area, which can be several miles from the distribution center (aka post office). A drone would need to make a round trip to the distribution center for each item. Maybe a drone could carry two or three, but not a truckload. So you also spend energy on multiple round trips.

    31. Re:Drones are the next mobile by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 2

      Here is a reference point with real numbers;

      http://www.personal-drones.net...

      This copter can carry two people for 30 minutes on a fully charged 17.5 KWh battery.

      http://www.walmart.com/ip/4070...

      This electric scooter can carry two people and has a range of 40 miles per charge, so lets assume two people is closer to 25 miles, and at 15 miles per hour that would easily be over an hour of travel time. The battery for this is only 0.8 KWh.

      As you can see, its not even close.

    32. Re:Drones are the next mobile by KGIII · · Score: 1

      Well, to be fair, a delivery truck must also constantly fight gravity.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    33. Re:Drones are the next mobile by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 1

      Umm...you compared an electric scooter with a drone. An electric scooter is invariably going to be more energy efficient than a 6,000lb truck that runs on diesel or petrol for the same reason that an electric car is more energy efficient than a petrol car.

    34. Re: Drones are the next mobile by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      Having your drone walk the dog and not pick up the dog poop in the park isn't polite.

    35. Re:Drones are the next mobile by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 1

      I did that comparison to show the difference in energy required to maintain a cargo load airborne vs rolling it in a vehicle. The two items chosen for comparison have a similar load capacity, and therefore it serves perfectly for that comparison. I chose both being electric so that the real energy difference is not lost in confusion over motor/engine efficiency. So, what I have demonstrated is that, regardless of motor technology, it requires much more energy to transport a given load with a helo type vehicle than a rolling one. That difference is central to my point. It illustrates what I think you don't appreciate, and that is just how much energy is required to fly a load.

      It does not matter what the engine/motor technology is. The energy required to fly the load helo-style is much greater than to transport via wheeled vehicle. The energy difference from efficiency of the motor/engine technology is miniscule by comparison. You are stuck on electric vs ICE for some reason.

      As for comparing a drone to a 6,000 lb truck. What drone would you suggest we use to provide a useful comparison? One that can carry an equivalent amount of cargo? If so, you'll get a similar answer as the comparison I presented. If you want to compare a drone that can only carry an 8 oz cargo to a truck, you'll have to reconcile the fact that the truck is carrying a bunch more, and divide by average loading during the route, factor in the multiple trips and therefore much greater distance the drone would need to fly to complete all those deliveries, etc. Not to mention the huge performance hits on a drone during driving wind, rain, or snow.

      But in the end, you can't overcome the simple physics of it, it simply takes much more energy to fly a load helo-style.

    36. Re:Drones are the next mobile by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some people have the ability to understand the laws of physics and apply them to reality.

      Try pushing a 100lb box on a cart with wheels 100 feet
      Now try lifting that 100lb box and carrying it 100 feet

      Which do you feel like took more energy?

    37. Re:Drones are the next mobile by ubrgeek · · Score: 1

      > or spy on me from above

      True. They do it from right next to your ear.

      --
      Bark less. Wag more.
    38. Re:Drones are the next mobile by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 1

      And at the same time, you're outright dismissing the much greater energy density of petrol, which is completely consumed when it combusts, and very little of it converts to kinetic energy. At any rate, Jeff Bezos seems pretty confident that it will use less energy. Does that make him right? I don't know, but the points you're making don't seem conclusive.

    39. Re:Drones are the next mobile by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 1

      Are you trying to argue that ICE is less efficient than electric, or that flying is less efficient than trucking? I am talking the latter and my point was made solidly. I don't give a flying crap what you think Bezos thinks, or if you want to go on ignoring the laws of physics. My point is obvious to any engineer. You can power drones with petrol or electric, trucks with petrol or electric, and my point still stands. You do know that you can have an electric truck, right?

      Have you got any quantitative input into this discussion, or are you just going to keep saying "I think this, I think that, he thinks that,.......?".

    40. Re:Drones are the next mobile by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 1

      Let me simplify this for you. As I've show in my comparison above, it takes over 25 times (and that is being generous) the energy delivered to the propeller shafts of a drone than delivered to the drive shaft of a rolling vehicle to transport an equivalent load for an equivalent time/distance. If you think you can make up for that elsewhere in the engine or motor part of the system, good luck.

    41. Re:Drones are the next mobile by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 1

      Are you trying to argue that ICE is less efficient than electric

      Yes.

      Have you got any quantitative input into this discussion, or are you just going to keep saying "I think this, I think that, he thinks that,.......?".

      I'm looking for quantitative input. You meanwhile are saying "I think this, therefore I absolutely 100% confirm that, and I base it on absolutely nothing" and then adding a temper tantrum in the mix.

    42. Re:Drones are the next mobile by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 1

      I showed the numbers that compare flight energy to vehicle energy, that is substantive and applicable. If you want to ignore it fine. There is a reason a guy can run 100 miles on a bike, but the human power helicopter flight record is 88 seconds. If you don't get it, I can't explain it to you.

    43. Re:Drones are the next mobile by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 1

      I showed the numbers that compare flight energy to vehicle energy, that is substantive and applicable. If you want to ignore it fine. There is a reason a guy can run 100 miles on a bike, but the human power helicopter flight record is 88 seconds. If you don't get it, I can't explain it to you.

      First of all, human powered flight requires an external construction that weighs almost as much as the person powering it.

      Second of all, you just demonstrated that you don't even have anything even remotely close to resembling reliable mathematical model. Think about it, your first comparison (which isn't a good one, by the way, because the chair is likely designed for being able to still work after long distances rather than speed) shows a 25 fold difference, and now this one is dramatically higher.

      Likewise, I imagine that for a very small workload, that relationship will change.

    44. Re:Drones are the next mobile by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 1

      I don't need to prove anything to you. I've given you enough information to at the least significantly doubt your assumption that drone flight requires much more energy than wheeled vehicular transportation. The fact that you come up with excuses to ignore the examples tells me more about you than anything you've stated about the technical topic at hand. I don't mind trying to help people that don't have a technical background understand the factors involved, but when that person becomes obstinate I am done.

      Example, you discount human flight example because the craft must be near the weight of the load. But you will find that with drones and cargo, the drone will weight an amount similar to the load it can carry. So, you've dismissed that example based on a faulty assumption. Based on your past behavior, I know you will dismiss this statement as well, even though you can go find examples on our own, if you were willing, that back up my point. But you won't do that, you will just dismiss it.

      With that said, I am done with this discussion. I much more enjoy discussions with people that are not intent on dismissing facts. Anybody with a bit of physics or engineering knowledge knows that flight transport is much more energy intensive than wheeled vehicle transport. The fact that you can't understand or just refuse to want to believe is something I can't change. Goodbye.

    45. Re:Drones are the next mobile by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 1

      No, a delivery truck does not have to constantly overcome gravity. The system is vertically static. There is no ability for the load to move downward, therefore there is no force needed to keep it from moving downward. Think about how much more work it is to carry a load in your arms versus rolling it in a cart. Your arms can move up and down, therefore you must expend energy to hold up the load. In a cart, the load is held up by the vertically static system, no energy required.

    46. Re:Drones are the next mobile by KGIII · · Score: 1

      For every action there's an equal and opposite reaction - when you push against the wall, the wall pushes back. If the truck wasn't constantly fighting gravity, it'd be flat. :D

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    47. Re:Drones are the next mobile by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 1

      The truck puts no work into fighting gravity, therefore expends no energy fighting gravity. It is simple, basic, elementary school physics.

    48. Re:Drones are the next mobile by KGIII · · Score: 1

      Of course it does - or it'd be flat. Just you sitting there means you're exerting force just like the truck. It's not a hard concept - perhaps you need to retake physics?

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    49. Re:Drones are the next mobile by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 1

      Read my words.. work, energy....get it? A truck sitting there is not using energy...get it? I did not say there were no gravitational forces, of course there are forces, but a static vertical system does not need to work to overcome gravitational force. There is no work being done by the truck to compensate for gravity, and therefore no energy required to perform that work.

      Either you don't comprehend that simple rule of physics, or you are just trying to be a smartass by avoiding the terms we are discussing.

    50. Re:Drones are the next mobile by KGIII · · Score: 1

      Are you incapable of reading? Allow me to quote...

      Drones have to constantly fight gravity. That is not a minimal energy task.

      To which I replied...

      Well, to be fair, a delivery truck must also constantly fight gravity.

      To which you've gone off the rails asserting that such is not true. That's only made more amusing because you're trying to tell me that I don't understand basic physics. No, a delivery truck must also constantly fight gravity - all the time, no matter what. If it didn't then it would be flat. I'm trying to make sure this is nice and easy.

      If you have problems with the big words ask. Seriously, I'll help you out. Go put your hand on the wall. The wall is exerting force against your hand. If it didn't then it would fall over. It's applying an equal and opposite force. This is pretty basic.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    51. Re:Drones are the next mobile by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 1

      fight is not a physics term, it has no meaning. If your intent was to use that term to change the context of the discussion to something completely irrelevant to it, then you succeeded.

    52. Re:Drones are the next mobile by KGIII · · Score: 1

      Would you rather "applies an equal and opposite force against the gravitational forces?" Which, while painfully obvious, was the intent? 'Cause we can type that out if you want or you can just quietly slink away and feel silly. It's okay - I've made countless stupid mistakes online. They're still surely there in all their glory. I usually don't double or triple-down on them but, hey... It's all good. The truck must always apply an equal and opposite force against gravity - it must "fight" those forces.

      That was the subject, is the subject, and will be the subject. It's not changed - those are the quotes that show *exactly* what the subject is and was - in its entirety. That is, well, until you came along and decided to jump in and rant while, it seems, not actually understanding either physics or the conversation. That's okay though. I've done stupid shit before and won't hold it against you.

      Trying to weasel out now won't help. *chuckles* The thread's here forever but nobody will ever read it again. So, your secret is safe with me.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    53. Re:Drones are the next mobile by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 1

      The topic was clearly on the point of energy usage of drone vs vehicle. Your "fight" point was clearly not on that topic, added nothing to the discussion but rather used a subjective term to confuse it. If it makes you feel better to blame that confusion on me, then I guess you feel better.

    54. Re:Drones are the next mobile by KGIII · · Score: 1

      You must be new here. What's this topic thing you speak of? ;) No, I understood the topic just fine. That's why the "In all fairness..." was included.

      But, more to the new point, topic? Heh... No... No... *shakes head sadly* We throw poop and screech like howler monkeys. We find statements like how a drone is the one that is fighting gravity, even more so - though the forces are indeed close enough to equal though the methods of opposing those forces are very different, and engage in howler monkey screeching and poop flinging.

      If you're expecting on-topic, relevant, or even coherent that's down the hall on the right. You're also, more specifically, quite unlikely to find anything on-topic from me. After all, Slashdot is my personal blog. *nods*

      Anyhow, like I said, nobody will read this but you and I. Your secret's safe with me.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    55. Re:Drones are the next mobile by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 1

      So, in your mind saying the magic words "in all fairness" should mean to everyone else that the point you are making irrelevant and should be ignored? Sorry for not catching on to that. My fault entirely to miss something so obvious. Had I read that properly, I would have appropriately ignored your irrelevant comment.

    56. Re:Drones are the next mobile by KGIII · · Score: 1

      Pretty much, yes. In fact, I've no idea why you spent all this time over a trivial reply that was purely in jest and meant only to poke a little fun at the person who implied that a truck needn't fight gravity. But, hey, it kept you amused/bemused or otherwise engaged for a few minutes, so there's that.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    57. Re:Drones are the next mobile by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 1

      In all fairness, I am fighting to not laugh.

    58. Re:Drones are the next mobile by KGIII · · Score: 1

      That took all too long to come about. Sheesh. You'd think with a UID as low as yours you'd have seen some of the gibberish I post, by now. I have no idea how I have "excellent" karma. Hell, I usually leave my karma bonus off. I have it on at the moment because I'm busy frustrating someone who's taken a shine to following me around and voting me off-topic. I mean, hell, almost all of my posts are off-topic. I can tell when they get mod points - it's five at a time and all in a day and I think I know who they are because they don't post in those threads. I'm greatly amused by it. You have no idea how much fun I have just waiting to see the moderation happen and then blowing it out with a huge wall of text about my day, my life, or a trivial subject that hasn't a damned thing to do with anything.

      Hell, I don't know why they don't ban me except I'm polite and personable and know a few handy things but I'm just a retired geek who has too much time on his hands. Sometimes, I am actually on-topic but I don't make it a habit.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    59. Re:Drones are the next mobile by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 1

      Just remember, people say stupid things on here and stand behind them. When you post things that are easily misinterpreted due to a choice of words that can be interpreted in different ways than you intend, and given the likelihood someone will assume that you are staying on topic when you are not, you bear some responsibility. It would be nice if you understood that, but I'm not sure you do.

    60. Re:Drones are the next mobile by KGIII · · Score: 1

      Oh, it happens from time to time. Slashdot, don't take it serious. ;-) I do try to make it clear but I don't always remember to use the /s 'markdown/markup.'

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
  2. Are you high? by Opportunist · · Score: 2

    Drones are by no means the next cellphone. I know that you have to come up with a new gadget, trinket or toy every other year so people buy some new crap once the former market is saturated, but the very LAST thing this world needs is a bunch of morons who think they can program writing stuff for tools that can literally hit you over the head if handled improperly!

    Find another toy to make it the Next Best Thing, ok?

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    1. Re:Are you high? by s.petry · · Score: 1

      I was picturing the other kind of "Drone" in "Drone industry" It parallels what they are attempting to do by flooding the market with high school grads capable of coding.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    2. Re:Are you high? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Drones are by no means the next cellphone. I know that you have to come up with a new gadget, trinket or toy every other year so people buy some new crap once the former market is saturated, but the very LAST thing this world needs is a bunch of morons who think they can program writing stuff for tools that can literally hit you over the head if handled improperly!

      Find another toy to make it the Next Best Thing, ok?

      Name 100 incidents of a drone ever harming a person.

    3. Re:Are you high? by U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M · · Score: 1

      Since "drone" seems to apply to almost anything these days, I'll submit "smart missiles" to your query.

    4. Re:Are you high? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_drone_strikes_in_Pakistan

    5. Re:Are you high? by JoeMerchant · · Score: 1

      I keep hearing about the 8-10lb cargo delivery drone for Amazon, UPS, whoever... Do you know what that monster is going to look like to be able to carry 8-10lbs any distance at all? Blades that will shred small to medium sized animals, for a start.

    6. Re:Are you high? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Just wait 'til the dufus crowd that now clogs the "App" Market gets a hand on it. And I'm not even talking about those that deliberately create bogus programs.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    7. Re:Are you high? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Blades that will shred small to medium sized animals, for a start.

      And, that is why the Republicans are fighting common-sense regulation of drones. They love mayhem and anarchy. Somalia is their idea of "freedom."

    8. Re: Are you high? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And hate children. Children are the ones hurt most often by drones. Just like their attempts to end WIC, their lack of drone regulations show how much they hate children.

    9. Re:Are you high? by Luthair · · Score: 2

      Well, clearly the CEO of a drone company is going to try to convince everyone drones are the next big thing.

    10. Re:Are you high? by bioteq · · Score: 1

      Exactly what I mentioned in my comment elsewhere here. The idea of HS grads who took a small course on "intro to JAVA" writing drone software scares the living crap out of me. And for good reason.

    11. Re:Are you high? by Dutch+Gun · · Score: 1

      Small to medium sized animals will have sense enough to stay the hell away from things like that. People... not so much. And maybe hawks.

      --
      Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
    12. Re:Are you high? by GrumpySteen · · Score: 1

      Name 100 incidents of nuclear bombs ever harming a person.

      Sure, you'll come up with a few (two at a bare minimum, I'll bet), but you can't come up with 100 of them.

      Nuclear bombs are the next cell phone and everyone should have one!

      Or, you know, we could recognize the potential for danger ahead of time like we're an intelligent species or something.

    13. Re:Are you high? by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 1

      > the very LAST thing this world needs is a bunch of morons who think they can program writing stuff for tools that can literally hit you over the head if handled improperly!

      And yet there are hundreds of thousands(?) of people writing software for other stuff that have worse outcomes.

      There is a reason for things like DO-178. It's so people can write code for aerospace.

    14. Re:Are you high? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why are you so convinced that drones can't be the next big thing? Look at twitter and facebook - are they marvels of technology? Other than the scale they operate at, hardly. Yet hundreds of millions of people use them. Why is that? Can drones fill a similar void but in physical space?

    15. Re:Are you high? by jasno · · Score: 1

      The drone bikes/skateboards/small cars will come first. Especially easy when the cars are also driving themselves, however, cars currently integrate pretty well with bicycles, so I see no reason they couldn't integrate with a self-driving, smaller sized vehicle.

      There's no reason to send a package via air unless speed it the utmost priority. Even when Amazon can offer drone delivery by air, they'll likely deliver more packages via ground based drones. I see a future of skateboard-sized vehicles which grab your package via a vacuum. They roll up to your house, wait, and when you pick up the package they roll on. You could standardize a (inductive?) charging system too, so they can charge while they wait.

      For efficiency, I could see a larger vehicle like a UPS truck which deploys the smaller package delivery vehicles.

      --

      http://www.masturbateforpeace.com/
    16. Re:Are you high? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Nope. What's their usefulness for Joe Random? Cellphones allow him permanent availability and the ability to get on everyone's nerves via telephone even if they are not home. Facebook scratched that "I wanna be important" itch, allowing people to tell everyone what they had for dinner and how great the crap was they had afterwards.

      What's drones going to be to people? Not only does it require at least minimal skill to fly them (and if you don't have any, it can be costly in more than one way), there is also no immediate gratification for having one.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    17. Re:Are you high? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Flying will be done automatically. I'm going to tell it what I want to have and the drone will go get it for me, all at the click of a button. Immediate gratification is having effortless delivery to/from wherever I want. My own personal 'errand boy', if you will. Maybe I want to give Aunt Sally a book. Or pick up some milk. Or have it follow me and record an event.
      As for affordability, they could be rented or hired out instead of purchased. Perhaps I run my own drone company and people pay by the delivery/distance/runtime.
      Am I convinced it will be the next big thing? No. But it has the potential if we put away some of our current assumptions and hit the fast-forward button a little.

    18. Re:Are you high? by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      These days its probably Python as the programming language.

    19. Re:Are you high? by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      Besides the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the atmospheric testing in the South Pacific and Nevada, the nuclear submarine incidents of the Cold War, and the various mishaps at civilian nuclear reactors? That's more than 100.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_and_radiation_accidents_and_incidents

    20. Re:Are you high? by GrumpySteen · · Score: 1

      Submarines and nuclear reactors aren't nuclear bombs. The only two incidents involving nuclear bombs on the page you linked to were Hiroshima and Nagasaki. That's two, and only two, incidents (large though they may be).

      My point, which you completely missed, is that you don't have to name 100 incidents where people have been killed in order to recognize that something is dangerous.

    21. Re:Are you high? by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      U.S. and Russia conducted 500+ atmospheric tests after World War II, exposing thousands of civilians and soldiers to radiation poisoning as it wasn't well understood in the early days. Many died from cancer, sooner or later. I think 500+ is larger than 100.

    22. Re:Are you high? by GrumpySteen · · Score: 1

      You sure are determined to keep missing the point and demonstrating your idiocy in public.

    23. Re:Are you high? by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      You seemed to miss my point entirely. You wrote 100 incidents involving the bomb, I gave you 500+ incidents from atmospheric testing of the bomb. Your point is invalid. The only public idiocy is your own.

    24. Re:Are you high? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      I'd guess it would have the same problem with success as the flying car. Yes, it would be nifty to have, well, at least kinda-sorta. But there are two main problems. First, there is already similar technology that is working sufficiently well. If I wanted to send information to someone, I would rather send an e-mail or call him than shipping a physical object. If I have to send a physical object, I can use the postal service or, if time is important, hire a bike courier. Then there is the accident problem. Things that fly have this nasty gravity thing to deal with in case something goes south. And we, as humans, are not used to looking up when trying to detect harm and trouble. People would be afraid of them because they can suddenly drop on you out of nowhere. The resistance would be incredibly big.

      Yes, I can see your vision, but the problem is that the potential problems outweigh the potential benefits by some margin. Think Google Glass. Good idea in general, but the public outcry and backlash made it a dud.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  3. Why Dildos Are Important to Closeted Republicans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Dear Republican Drone Operator,

      Thank you for your interest in joining the Gay Wigger Association of DICE* (GayWAD)! GayWADs worldwide are happy that you'd like to become part of our

    constantly enlarging member ship (come sail away 8======D~~)

    Unlike other geek fraternities you might have heard about, GayWAD accepts members of all races, creeds, and colors. We don't even have a technical inclination requirement. As our founders stated in the Annals of GayWAD, Chapter 1: "You don't have to be a geek, as long as you like it Greek." They were, of course, referring to the penis in anus style of sexual relations. Don't despair, as attaining full fabulous lifetime status in GayWAD is easy. The only prerequisites for membership in Gay Wigger Association of DICE* are that you meet all of the following conditions:

    1. 1. Ownership of a penis, an anus, and/or both

    To submit your Gay Wigger Association of DICE* Membership Application, simply do nothing. Congratulations, you're now a GayWAD!

    If you require a membership number for purposes such as framing, adorning your docking station, or prestigious inclusion upon your business cards and resume, please complete the following survey by replying to this post, indicating affirmative responses with an X in each appropriate box:

    GayWAD Membership Survey (OPTIONAL)

    [ ] I am gay
    [ ] I am a wigger
    [ ] I have used SLASHDOT VIDEO to find a sex partner

    After completion of this optional survey, your Slashdot post ID shall serve as your unique Gay Wigger Association of DICE* membership number. This ID proves your fully extended member status within the GayWAD organization.

    Your GayWAD membership kit** is on its way!

    * GayWAD is neither affiliated with nor endorsed by DICE or DHI.

    ** GayWAD membership kit no longer includes HIV self-test catheter.

  4. Re:Why Dildos Are Important to Closeted Republican by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What we need is ejaculating dildos.

  5. I can't wait to spin up some drones by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I can't wait to just grab some drones from the local area and deploy them upside down to mow my lawn. Maybe next they can drive my car for me or do my taxes....

  6. All we need. by bioteq · · Score: 2

    I like the concept of drones.

    I write software. Daily. I've worked with a lot of software writers. I've worked with a lot of good ones, and even more bad ones. The concept of "more people writing drone software" scares the living hell out of me.

    We have "the brightest minds" working on automotive software and seem to have problems getting that right and now we want these same people (Read: My comment is sarcastic. Automotive software is shameful. Or, rather, its design is.) writing drone software? No, thanks.

    I am ALL FOR open design. I am all for people being able to write what they want. But I am not all for mass production of flying objects with crappy code. And the worst part is, I can see it now: "New, in 2016, DRONE-X runs JAVA! Calling all JAVA Devs!" and then, "New, 3rd QT of 2016: DRONE-XX3 runs Windows 10D (drone)! Calling all MS metro devs!"

    Please, be smart about this and do not ruin it like everything else is being ruined, software wise. Be mindful and be smart. Leave hardware and software design to the pros, not the children out of HS who took half a semester of "Intro to JAVA" and must be a super-star!

    On a side note, this is a great opportunity for senior programmers to teach the new kids (Stay off my lawn!) how to properly code and how to be mindful of security practices. But keep their code out of the sky. And off our roads. For now.

    1. Re:All we need. by neminem · · Score: 1

      > "(Stay off my lawn!)"

      Literally! (Cause they'll be flying their drones onto your lawn by accident; see what I did there?)

    2. Re:All we need. by bioteq · · Score: 1

      Haha.

      Indeed!

      I feel for the poor sap who flies his drone in to my yard. I have three large dogs who would love to play with such a piece of....plastic. One of which whom LOVES to ingest it. And if neither one of them provide enough substantial damage to said drone, it may suffer some stone-age style wrath (A brick. And then I will make use of the left over hardware after they come looking for something that no longer exists)

    3. Re:All we need. by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      On a side note, this is a great opportunity for senior programmers to teach the new kids (Stay off my lawn!) how to properly code and how to be mindful of security practices. But keep their code out of the sky. And off our roads. For now.

      Well this should be fun. What'll really make you pucker is that most of this code is written by amateurs. I'm about to build a 450 quad and the very first thing I'm gonna do to my control board is reflash it with Multiwii because the packaged software is poop. Actually, it's not even a drone with the stock software, just a quadcopter. It can't do anything more intelligent than self-level. Multiwii has GPS support, and support for "actions" like Return To Home. But hilariously, it's also a whole lot better at just flying than what comes with the control board.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    4. Re:All we need. by bioteq · · Score: 1

      I will admit, freely, that I know very little, outside of the basics of electronics, about drones. I know how they work, but that's about it.

      Hearing that the control systems are made by amateurs really does not surprise me. I've seen a trend lately of more and more people with no real clue of what they're doing, getting in to hardware/software design. Which, on its own, is AMAZING to hear; I love knowing more people are learning the trade. But stick with the Pi, arduino and other small systems. When you're competent enough, then move in to the flying / driving realm. Unfortunately, it won't happen that way - They'll go straight to the drone world because, frankly (and, again, sadly) that's where the money is right now. It's all about trends and what's 'popular.'

      I would LOVE to see what a well trained engineer /software writer can do with a purposely designed and well programmed drone. Outside of the military, that is, as their stuff is top notch.

      We already require license to fly planes, even remote controlled ones. It's time to require them for drones (if they don't already) and to require code certification for any object flying more than 10 meters off the ground. Certification is required for cars and planes, logically it should be for drones. This way a child can learn to code below 10m and hone in his / her skills as a programmer but when you are ready to go full scale, you have full accountability. I can already see a drone software certification coming. DCERT, maybe?

    5. Re:All we need. by 0123456 · · Score: 1

      We already require license to fly planes, even remote controlled ones. It's time to require them for drones (if they don't already) and to require code certification for any object flying more than 10 meters off the ground.

      Yeah, let's totally cripple a new industry by requiring kids to get a pilots' license for a drone that weighs an ounce and flies for five minutes between charges.

      This kind of knee-jerk reaction to innovation is the reason America is in deep decline.

    6. Re:All we need. by bioteq · · Score: 1

      I am referring to the ones that, obviously, weigh more than an ounce, especially considering I stated "higher than 10m."

      I am referring to the drones that actually fly hundreds of feet in altitude and hundreds of feet (or more) from the user. I am not for crippling it. I am for safe guarding it. With logic.

      A $40.00 drone from walmart? Fly it all you want.

      A $4,500 drone, purpose built to fly quite a ways, with strong motors, big power supplies and capable of carrying payloads of different types? License and certifications for programming.

      Did you even RTFP?

    7. Re:All we need. by 0123456 · · Score: 1

      I am referring to the ones that, obviously, weigh more than an ounce, especially considering I stated "higher than 10m."

      1. You said 'drones'. You didn't say 'drones that cost $40 or less' (and, BTW, my tiny drone cost a lot more than $40).
      2. You clearly know nothing about drones, because mine weighs about an ounce and can climb to around 50m before it loses signal.

      So you don't know what you're talking about, but believe you have the right to tell everyone else what to do. If you're not a politician already, you're clearly a prime candidate.

    8. Re:All we need. by bioteq · · Score: 1

      I am not going to get in some dick waving argument with some random troll on slashdot. So I will leave with this:

      1) I clearly stated that I know little to nothing about drones, aside from their software and electronics. Nice attempt at an insult. if you had read the post, you would have noticed this.
      2) Your attempt at blasting my logical attempt at stating common sense license and certifications for hardware and software that are -capable of causing damage- (Drones larger than an ounce and fly for more than five bloody minutes, as you like to state) is falling way behind.
      3) If you cannot agree that certifications for a FLYING OBJECT capable of carrying MULTIPLE PAYLOADS and traversing THOUSANDS OF FEET from the controller, with tons of chances of interference and software defects / user error is a good idea, then perhaps you're the type of person who should be the politician. As you seem to only care about yourself.

      Good day.

    9. Re:All we need. by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Yeah, let's totally cripple a new industry by requiring kids to get a pilots' license for a drone that weighs an ounce and flies for five minutes between charges.

      You can buy a RTF 450 quad for under two hundred bucks, like one someone would actually want to own. I'm building my own and only saving fifty or so, although if you used a $4 Chinese arduino nano and a flea market-sourced motionplus and nunchuck for (pretty crappy but functional) sensors and built a couple of 3S1P Li-Ion packs from scavenged cells*, then used a $10 eBay frame and a $30 (with its specific USB to serial cable) HK 6ch 2.4 GHz radio, and a $55 set of motors/ESCs/props you could get it to maybe $110. And you'll end up with something around two pounds that moves pretty goddamned quick. So while I agree with you, it would be stupid and pointless to try to require certifications for this stuff, we're talking about things that weigh more than an order of magnitude more than an ounce, and for very little money.

      I'm mostly worried about fire safety. But I guess people don't set the woods on fire with their quads too often. It's probably a bigger threat with my plane, which is made of polystyrene foam. If the LiPo catches fire, it will certainly set the plane on fire... and stop providing power to the electronics at the same time.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    10. Re:All we need. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More specifically, you shouldn't be allowed anywhere near autonomous vehicle software unless you're writing for a real memory machine. The level of discipline for a real memory machine is the same as required for life safety critical software, and very little life safety critical software (outside of the uncertified hellhole which is automotive) is written for virtual memory machines. Malloc can fail; your software shouldn't.

  7. Not even a good try by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The next mobile? More like the next cabbage patch dolls. Don't remember them? Exactly.

  8. Or paraphrasing by Livius · · Score: 1

    Why software is important to hardware. (I think we had that one figured out decades before the first computer.)

    Drones are not the next mobile, but they might find an unexpected niche and surprise us.

  9. Which are they, good or bad? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm confused. I hear articles say drones are bad. Now they say they are good. I can't tell the good ones from the bad ones without a program.

  10. VW threw software engineers under the bus... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... and I expect a drone firm would do exactly the same.

    The first time a drone causes a major problem, management will blame it on the developer(s).

    I would NEVER work for a drone company, unless I had a lawyer review my contract to ensure the company shouldered 100% of the liability in case of any trouble.

    1. Re:VW threw software engineers under the bus... by bioteq · · Score: 1

      I don't even think I would devote my time and skill to a company, even after a lawyer has went over every bit of the contract. The liability, and ethical (and moral, I assume) reasoning alone prevents me from wanting to.

      Don't get me wrong - I think they're cool ideas, in the right hands. But as a mass commodity and spy usage really gets on my nerves. We cannot get code right for automobiles, on the ground. How can we get code right for drones in the sky?

    2. Re:VW threw software engineers under the bus... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then your supposed ethical and moral outrage must also keep you from working for any automotive company. Automobiles have killed more people than guns. (Yeah, yeah, I know. Flamebait. LOL.)

    3. Re: VW threw software engineers under the bus... by bioteq · · Score: 1

      Absolutely. And it does prevent it. I would turn down any opportunity from an automotive agency.

  11. Re:Why Dildos Are Important to Closeted Republican by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What we need is ejaculating dildos.

    Did you just pull that out of your ass?

  12. Drones aint no phones. by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 1

    Drones are by no means the next cellphone.

    Low cost drones have been around for 1o years, and while they have niche uses and are a popular toy, they have not approached anything close to mobile phone adoption rates when in a similar period after they were introduced. We are talking many orders of magnitude in difference

    1. Re:Drones aint no phones. by 0123456 · · Score: 1

      If you had to charge a cellphone every five minutes, they wouldn't be very popular either.

      Before personal drones become ubiquitous, they need to become smaller, more capable, and run for at least a few hours on a charge (or be powered wirelessly by their owner somehow). That's not going to happen in the next week.

    2. Re:Drones aint no phones. by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      First and foremost they have to become useful for the average Joe. The cellphone did that. Even in its first incarnation it offered a benefit, i.e. that you can be talked to no matter where you are. Yes, people considered it a benefit if they can be pestered no matter where they are, don't ask me why, but they did.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  13. hang on.... by roc97007 · · Score: 1

    "Developers" implies testing and experimentation, and it's getting more and more difficult to fly a drone in public anymore. How is that supposed to work?

    --
    Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
  14. There are develoipers talking it to the next level by ras · · Score: 1

    There are delevelopers taking it to the next level. They are the same ones that have got it to where it is now - like autonomous plans that find people people lost the wilderness and drop a rescue package beside them.

    But maybe he is talking about a different species of developer entirely - the one that publish most of the crap found in app stores. When I think "developer", I think of a person who enjoys creating new things from code. That is the sort of developer who is driving openpilot, which is were most of the innovation is happening right now. The developer he is apparently talking about prioritises money - they are people who constantly looking to make the most money in the shortest amount of time from the least amount of code. A different animal entirely. We will need them later to find all the useful things that can be done with drones. But right now it's a struggle to make the thing work at all, and for that you need real developers.

    Real developers? Sorry. That was a bad choice of words. What is a socially acceptable word for people who prefer technology to money, or indeed people. Nerds maybe? Call us what we like, were are far too busy having fun with computers to notice.

  15. Yes! Show me... by jimbrooking · · Score: 1

    ...a developer working on something that will stop the engines of a drone in flight and I'll invest in it in a heartbeat!

  16. By land, by sea... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who says it has to be by air? You could build walking drones; driving drones; crawling drones; climbing drones; spinning drones; stationary drones. Who-the-fuck-knows-what-that's-doing-drones.

    1. Re:By land, by sea... by U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M · · Score: 1

      Japan is probably developing tentacle drones as we speak, for you-know-what.

  17. Land, Air, Sea, Any Surface by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I like how most people think of drones as only being flying. Did it ever occur to people that drones could be robots without wings? Climb, crawl, walk, run, bounce, jump, dart from left to right...

    Waaaaaaalllllllleeeeeeeeeeee!

    Wall-E?

  18. It's still robotics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Having met Thomas at Interdrone, and being the sole/lead developer of a system that a mouse built, "drone-focused" software is very critical to robotics... cause it is robotics. The concepts and paradigms used on drones are no different from anything else autonomous--cars, planes, boats.

    What drone software development brings are 3 fold: the merging of IoT tech, RF tech and robotics. And guess what? they're all new industries, and that's what makes his (and mine) business hard... and not only on the tech side of things.

    But in the end, what we should be talking about is not drone software development, but software development of autonomous systems. They are after all, mobile robots.

    Now going back to the PC days (80's). For all [software] technologies to flourish, you needed the "killer app". Some say the "flying camera" is the killer app, but I think Mr. Haun is seeing that it is not the case...his business it not flourishing or see huge challenges... That does say a killer app is still out there...

  19. Re:-- JEW propaganda -- by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Absolutely TRUE. The drones are one of the many weapons systems of the JEWS. They can kill at a distance, while all we have is guns, and they are trying to take them too. 'jews behind gun control'. Their weapons are many. They are schemers and everyone ignored it all, now there will be drones and other weapons used on us, and the chemtrails.

  20. Drone copters no. Autonomous things yes. by mtippett · · Score: 1

    Say drone now and you get the image of either silent military killers remotely controlled or quad or hexacopter buzzing around.

    The military drones will get more autonomous and even more scary. We haven't hit a real arms race in remote killing machines. It will come.

    The copter drones aren't going to fly (excuse the pun) long term. The noise that comes from the drones as the beat the air into submission is not scalable to many of them. I'm a tech nerd, but I'm not going to enjoy having continual buzzing. Drones for particular uses (search and rescue, mapping, task specific data gathering and so on) will likely win.

    Our day to day life won't be from drones as we know them. The drones of the future will probably be either silently flying (bird like?) or on the ground, or underground. They will increasingly take the "need human agility, but not human smarts". Deliveries to an extent are an obvious area.

  21. RE: high school grads capable of coding by Dareth · · Score: 1

    I wonder if coding is like other activities in school where everyone gets a trophy regardless of how good they actually are.

    --

    I only look human.
    My mother is a halfling and my dad is an ogre, so that makes me an Ogreling