A Power Outage In Silicon Valley Was Caused By A Drone Crash (mercurynews.com)

An anonymous reader quotes the San Jose Mercury News: A drone crashed into a high-voltage wire Thursday night, causing tens of thousands of dollars in damage and knocking out power to roughly 1,600 people for about two hours, police said... "The FAA has rules and regulations in place to prevent this exact type of incident from happening," said Mountain View police spokeswoman Katie Nelson. "We simply ask that people comply with the rules and that they operate drones safely and sensibly."
The town's city hall was without power -- along with the rest of the 1,600 homes -- prompting a Google software engineer to tweet that "drones are fun until someone flies one into high-voltage power lines." They added later that "apparently the owner 'fled in a white hatchback', which is the least dignified way that someone can flee, I think."

Comments

In SOVIET Dronistan

[Anonymous Coward]

you are the drone.

Re: In SOVIET Dronistan

[Anonymous Coward]

so are cars, knives, screwdrivers, axes, pens, electricity, water...ban 'em all! go on, I dare ya, if yer gonna knee-jerk react, ban people from living.

Re: In SOVIET Dronistan

[Anonymous Coward]

Ban those too. Chimps are supposed to work in sweatshops 24 hours a day.

Re: In SOVIET Dronistan

[anegg]

An AR-15 is not an assault weapon. The term 'assault rifle' originally referred to a battle rifle that fires fully automatically but is lightweight. The AR-15 is a semi-automatic rifle that looks like an particular assault rifle (the M16) but is not itself an assault rifle.

The use of the term 'assault weapon' applied to the AR-15 seems to have followed an arc from "assault-type rifle" (based on its appearance but admitting that it wasn't actually an assault rifle), to leaving off the "-type" but adding on "weapon" in order to avoid the argument that it isn't an assault *rifle*. This seems like a rather disingenuous ploy to confuse the public.

If you want to argue that people shouldn't own rifles that shoot centerfire rifle cartridges, or shouldn't own rifles that exceed a certain level of muzzle energy or just muzzle velocity, then we can have that argument, and we'll include all available firearms that have those capabilities. But to get all hot and bothered about the appearance of the firearm seems pointless to me. The Clinton Crime Bill https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violent_Crime_Control_and_Law_Enforcement_Act included a provision to ban certain types of firearms that have come to be called "assault weapons". The ban also included a provision to track the use of these weapons for crimes. It is my understanding that the sunset provision for the ban was not blocked in part because no significant use of these weapons in crimes was found.

As for drones, and as far as "ordinary people" are concerned, I'm not sure the many people using drones for useful purposes would agree with your cavalier assessment that they don't need them. I have a friend with a drone business who provides a service to local farmers to assess the conditions of their fields using the drone. This saves the farmers a lot of time while providing them with a much more comprehensive view of their fields than they could achieve otherwise.

I'm not thrilled with some of the annoying things people do with drones any more than I'm thrilled about how some people use ATVs, personal watercraft, motorcycles, weed whackers, blowers, and other such devices, but they do have useful purposes, and many many people use them carefully and within legal limits. Let's enforce existing laws against the misuse of technology, whether its firearms or drones, but let's not go around making things illegal without evidence that they are a significant problem.

Re: In SOVIET Dronistan

[Anonymous Coward]

AR-15's are great for mowing down children, tho, amiright?

Simple question

[Anonymous Coward]

Can anyone explain to me why this isn't justification for banning drones? Too many people are using them with complete disregard for the law and in harmful ways. This is yet another example of their dangers and why they should be altogether banned. I know the moderators will mod me down to -1 but I'm not a troll and this question needs to be asked. The real reason for modding me down will be because Slashdot readers don't have an answer for this question. I also expect ad hominem logical fallacies and personal attacks, which will further provide evidence that I'm correct and my position can't be refuted. Can anyone justify drones being legal? The answer is no. Nobody here can even provide a valid answer as to why they need a drone. Just like ordinary citizens don't need assault weapons, they also don't need drones.

Re:Simple question

[darkain]

Good job "not being a troll" https://games.slashdot.org/com...

Re:Simple question

[JaredOfEuropa]

I'll bite. I have a drone for the same reason as I own an assault rifle: for fun (the rifle is strictly for the range). And that most definitely is a good enough reason. Citizens shouldn't have to justify why they need or even just want drones (or guns); the onus is on the state to come up with reasons why we shouldn't have them. Now if the state wants to regulate these things because of problems, that's fine. Require a license. Require registration. Whatever. But a ban should be the last option, and should require both extremely strong reasons for a ban and proof that a ban is effective and the only effective measure. If you want to take these things from the thousands of responsible operators because of a single irresponsible asshat, then lets start banning knifes and cars too.

Re: Simple question

[Anonymous Coward]

At least you learned that moderation and censorship are two separate things.

Now go back to your bridge.

Re: Simple question

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, due to the fact that drones use the electromagnetic spectrum, they do need justification. Otherwise there will be problems, even aside from the potential for misuse.

Re:Simple question

[Anonymous Coward]

Not all ranges are indoors... do you know what you're talking about?

Re:Simple question

[JaredOfEuropa]

Over here, semi-auto civilian versions of military weapons are often called "assault rifles" as well. As long as they look scary enough (that criterium actually appeared in a few EU memos)

Re:Simple question

[Anonymous Coward]

Every one of the ranges in my area permit full auto firing, numbnuts. It's YOU that doesn't know what the fuck you're talking about.

Re:Simple question

[Anonymous Coward]

Just like ordinary citizens don't need assault weapons, they also don't need drones.

Speak for yourself - I need assaults weapons. Stupid idiots keep flying drones over my property and assault rifle is the only way to get the f*cking thing down!

Re:Simple question

[slazzy]

The same could be said for forks, guns, cars, swing sets, dating sites etc. People have and will continue to die from all of those on a regular basis.

Re:Simple question

[wonkey_monkey]

Can anyone justify drones being legal? The answer is no. Nobody here can even provide a valid answer as to why they need a drone.

Can anyone justify skateboards being legal? The answer is no. Nobody here can even provide a vaid answer as to why they need a skateboard.

Re: Simple question

[Anonymous Coward]

Just because something is an assault rifle does not make it an automatic, FYI.

Re: Simple question

[Anonymous Coward]

You probably think the AR in AR-15 means assault rifle, too. The term assault rifle does not suggest the weapon is fully automatic, also. Using Wikipedia to define something is not always the best reference, as the site is easily editable by anyone for whatever reason.

Re:Simple question

[chuckugly]

I'm pointing out that (see above, I was right) the poster does NOT own an assault rifle. Owning an assault rifle (in the USA, where the drone story is based) requires a special tax stamp and around $70,000 minimum. They are no longer legal to manufacture or import for civilian use and therefore the supply is severely restricted. I found it highly unlikely a poster here takes a rifle worth a small fortune out to the range, and as it turns out I was right. He's verified this already, above.

Re:Simple question

[chuckugly]

Over here, semi-auto civilian versions of military weapons are often called "assault rifles" as well. ...

Only by people who have no clue what they're talking about or who are intentionally trying to mislead others.

Re: Simple question

[chuckugly]

That's actually the definition of an assault rifle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Re:Simple question

[Anonymous Coward]

All of which are carefully regulated, with the degree of care varying by the concerns.

Personally, I'd wish for a bit more in some cases.

Re: Simple question

[Anonymous Coward]

because Wikipedia is an authoritative source on all things.

Re:Simple question

[Anonymous Coward]

It sounds like they need to require a license and $100,000 (or perhaps $1,000,000) property damage insurance for operating a drone.

Re: Simple question

[Anonymous Coward]

Just because a site is easily editable by everyone, doesn't mean there is a high amount of inaccuracies. There are a lot of people who check edits for accuracy, adding citations and references, and undoing any unnecessary, inaccurate or speculative edits.

Given that Wikipedia is such a large site, it does become a challenge to check everything, but that doesn't mean using it for a reference is wrong.

Re:Simple question

[FlyHelicopters]

Full auto rifles don't cost nearly $70k, you can get them for under $10k

Re: Simple question

[chuckugly]

"Assault Rifle By U.S. Army definition, a selective-fire rifle chambered for a cartridge of intermediate power. If applied to any semi-automatic firearm regardless of its cosmetic similarity to a true assault rifle, the term is incorrect." - https://www.nraila.org/about/g...

You should stop while you're way behind

Re: Simple question

[chuckugly]

Armalite.

"Assault Rifle By U.S. Army definition, a selective-fire rifle chambered for a cartridge of intermediate power. If applied to any semi-automatic firearm regardless of its cosmetic similarity to a true assault rifle, the term is incorrect." - https://www.nraila.org/about/g...

I guess that's why you're an AC

Re:Simple question

[Anonymous Coward]

shotguns with bird shot work better for me

Re:Simple question

[chuckugly]

Not an assault rifle that I've ever seen, but if you can find a decent assault rifle for sale in the USA for under $10K I'll buy it as soon as I exit CA.

Re: Simple question

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is his post voted troll? It's a valid question. The ratio of reward to risk seems like it's very low.

Reward : fun

Risk: people getting hurt (unrelated to the activity)

Or, at least, require registration?

I used to live in that area. 10 to 15 minutes will get you to free space up on the hills, with virtually no one around. Wtf are they thinking flying a drone anywhere on the densely populated Valley floor?

Re: Simple question

[Anonymous Coward]

Agreed. I want to have a nuke for fun. According to fucking idiots like you that's my right and you should have to prove why I shouldn't have one. Here's a great idea. It's common fucking sense.

Re: Simple question

[Anonymous Coward]

You have absolutely no clue what you are talking about. An assault rifle is merely defined as a rifle with certain specific features. it doesn't mean an automatic rifle.

Re:Simple question

[Anonymous Coward]

if you have to ban remote controlled toys, you probably should ban cars too..

Re: Simple question

[JaredOfEuropa]

The reason you can't have a nuke isn't (and shouldn't be) because you cannot provide a valid reason for having one, it's because there actually are compelling reasons not to let you have one, and because those concerns cannot be mitigated by softer measures such as regulations or registrations. That might seem like a pointless distinction, but it really isn't. It means the state cannot just take away anything because they feel like it, but they can do so if they have good reason to do so, if they show that a ban is the only way and is actually effective, and that the reasons for that ban outweigh your desire to have something. Good grounds not to let you have a nuke. Less so for firearms or drones.

Re:Simple question

[Anonymous Coward]

Same thing can be said for anything: cars, guns, knives, saws, metal shears, cigarettes, alcohol, etc.

Re:Simple question

[helsinki92]

A class III firearms license allows a civilian to own a fully automatic weapon. There are places where you can actually shoot fully automatic weapons legally. You can even fire on your own land as long as the local laws are followed.

Re:Simple question

[Anonymous Coward]

Civilian models of assault rifles are typically not fully-automatic (unless you buy an easily available kit online and modify the gun.)

Not all gun ranges are indoors.

Two fails in the first sentence. Try harder next time.

Re: Simple question

[HornWumpus]

Blah blah blah.

The federal government has thousands of nuclear weapons, I've only got three.

Re:Simple question

[Required Snark]

How many people die each year from a drive by swing set? Are children playing in their house killed by a dating app? Are their neighborhoods where people run to the bathroom and hide in the bathtub when they hear the sound of a fork on the street?

Just because your life is free of the fear from random gun violence does not mean everyone else is so fortunate. Your argument is based solely on your social privilege, which is why your analogies are so blindingly stupid. You just insulted everyone who has to face gun violence on a daily bases and you obviously are implying that they have no right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness".

Re: Simple question

[chuckugly]

The 1994-2004 so called "Assault Weapons Ban" and several similar current state laws define "Assault Weapons" by a number of means including in some cases "certain specific features". That is not the same and should not be conflated with an Assault Rifle, which the US Army and other military organizations have a strict functional definition of:

"Assault Rifle By U.S. Army definition, a selective-fire rifle chambered for a cartridge of intermediate power. If applied to any semi-automatic firearm regardless of its cosmetic similarity to a true assault rifle, the term is incorrect." - https://www.nraila.org/about/g...

Re:Simple question

[Anonymous Coward]

Forks are carefully regulated? Since when?

Re:Simple question

[Anonymous Coward]

And how well are those draconian gun laws working in Chicago?

Meanwhile, in Texas, we have cities with extremely high gun ownership (I'd feel safe to say it averages more than one gun per citizen, easily) where the death toll to guns is ZERO. Cities, not towns. Population 250,000, gun deaths ZERO for several years.

It ain't the guns, Homer.

Re:Simple question

[chuckugly]

The correct tax stamp does allow a civilian to own a specific automatic weapon or other classified firearm for which such a stamp is available (such as a silencer) along with some restrictions with regard to crossing state lines and so on, and as long as local laws to not prohibit such possession or use. It's already been established that the guy I responded to did not in point of fact own an assault rifle. He seems to have what is often referred to as a "modern sporting rifle".

Re:Simple question

[BronsCon]

Okay, fine, make all guns completely illegal, no exceptions, tomorrow. Think things will get better?

Fucking millennial dumbass.

Re: Simple question

[KGIII]

I suppose it will only complicate things if I mention that I own two firearms which one can call assault weapons. There is a bit of effort that goes into such. I suppose they'd be confused that none of them are used for criminal activity. Even statistically... You're more likely to harm yourself with the sheets on your bed.

Re: Simple question

[KGIII]

$70K? You're high. I can get you two Thompsons, for that. Hell, I can get you three and still make a profit.

Re: Simple question

[chuckugly]

Assault Weapon .... yeah don't get me going on that.

Re: Simple question

[Anonymous Coward]

OP's name is JaredOfEuropa, he said "over here," and then explicitly referred to the EU. I don't think US legislation or US Army definitions are germane to the discussion.

Re: Simple question

[chuckugly]

A tommy gun is not an assault rifle. I can get an MP5 for around $14k last time I looked. Last time I looked any transferable AR platform assault rifle started around $72K, again, that's been maybe 10 months.

Re:Simple question

[Anonymous Coward]

Reality? There are hundreds of cases of power being knocked out by little woodland creatures crawling into power equipment each year and you want to ban devices which are lawfully used by hundreds of thousands of people because of one incident? If you're worried about malicious actors the same can be done far more effectively with $20 in ammo instead hundreds to thousands of dollars of drone that could very well fail to achieve the desired effect.

Re:Simple question

[Anonymous Coward]

retard

Re:Simple question

[Anonymous Coward]

There is a indoor range 15 minutes from my home that has a full-auto AR-15 for rent at $30/mag. It is great fun. My 14 y.o. son is a wicked shot and very accurate with with 3 round bursts.

Re: Simple question

[Anonymous Coward]

Quit spamming the thread, shithead. Almost every other post for awhile has been yours. You don't have much worthwhile to say.

Re:Simple question

[AK Marc]

You seem to not understand cause or effect. There are places with lots of guns and lots of crimes. There are places with no guns and little crime. There are places with no guns and lots of crimes. There are places with lots of guns and little crime.

Once a place has high crime and lots of gun murders, does gun control increase or decrease crime? That's irrelevant to the existence of places that aren't in the same gun/crime quadrant.

Re:Simple question

[AK Marc]

Making them illegal is irrelevant. Making them inaccessible would make a difference, But that wasn't your question, because you don't want the answer to that.

Re: Simple question

[KGIII]

If I want to be pedantic, both weapons (I'm pretty sure) also qualify for the title of "assault rifle."

To keep it simple, and short, I have an M-14 and a Chinese made AK-47, made in 1968. I have posted pics of both. Depending on which definitions they're using, they are either "assault weapons" or "assault rifles."

The only time they (usually) get taken out is when I take them to a "machine-gun shoot." It used to be open to the public, but insurance kinda stopped that. We still hold it and all proceeds go to the DAV. We no longer invite the public, via radio ads. Those who know, and want to show up, do show up. We still donate about the same amount. We just no longer open it up to the public, so to speak.

(It's held down in Starks, as our home in Emden has dried up.)

And yeah, it's pretty much the only time either of mine come out. I also bring two M1s and our favorite shooter is a guy we have to "steal" from the VA. He's 92 and was in WWII, in the Pacific. One, or more, of us will go to the Geriatrics Unit and claim we're family. We sign him out for the day and he gets an M1 to play with - sometimes he gets several and, more than once, we've asked him to repair one.

I'm pretty sure this makes me a horrible person. So, I'd like to apologize for shooting up your children. I'd like to say sorry for encouraging your mentally ill to buy firearms. I'm also sorry that I can't be there to defend everyone. You might ask why I do the above, and why I invest in that - and it does cost some money - and the only answer I can give you was that I served in the Marines - pictures available on request.

(I've been away for a bit, so I'm okay with proving myself again. Picture available if you want. Or just trust me, I've got no reason to lie to you - impressing you means nothing to me.)

Re:Simple question

[AK Marc]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

There needs to be a compelling reason to restrict freedom. What compelling reason is there to prevent me from flying a drone within my own house?

Re: Simple question

[BronsCon]

That wasn't my question because I haven't heard a single viable proposal for how to do so. You must have one, so let's hear it.

Re: Simple question

[KGIII]

I don't know. You might think that I'd be the most knowledgeable person about firearms. I'm not.

I have two classed firearms. As I mentioned in another post, I have an M-14 and a Chinese made AK-47. It gets confusing because the Chinese sold that model to the Vietnamese and the model was called the M-60. It's really just an AK-47 and isn't even very well made.

That said, I'm not an encyclopedia of firearm knowledge. I'm betting that you're more right than I, 99% of the time - should we have to argue firearms. There's a ton that I don't know - and I'm not even going to pretend I know. Some people are encyclopedic in their knowledge - and I'm pretty impressed.

Now, I want to share this with you...

The Thompson Sub-machine Gun fires the .45 and, if you're pretty comfortable, you can actually watch the rounds leave the barrel. There's a lot of muzzle rise, but, it's one of the most wonderful things you'll ever witness.

Seriously, it's beautiful. I've seen the rounds go down-range from a BAR. That's just as nice. You can really watch them... However, I digress...

I had the chance to buy one for $7500 and it came with two of the "stick" magazines and three (or four?) of the drum magazines with all but one being 50 rounds and the smallest one being 25 rounds - if I recall correctly. It also came with a bunch of other things, including the cardboard box and oil paper that it came in. There was also a bunch of brass, caps and lead, if I wanted to reload. However, there was a bunch of .45 ACP (I think?) to go with it.

I could have bought it for $7500. I turned that down - not once, but several times. He even had a "hard case" that was shaped a bit like you'd see the trombone (musical instrument) shaped like. And, I turned that down... I didn't just turn it down once - I turned it down even after firing it.

It's at this point that I'd like to remind you that I'm an idiot. I absolutely can afford that. I am an idiot for not doing so. It's too late to say that I'd love to have that put aside for my collection/future generations.

Re:Simple question

[quenda]

Citizens shouldn't have to justify why they need or even just want drones (or guns);

I've heard Americans use that word 'citizens' a few times. What does citizenship have to do with it? Citizenship for voting, OK, but what does it matter for getting a license? You don't even need to be a citizen to join the US military.

the onus is on the state to come up with reasons why we shouldn't have them.

Surely that part is obvious. Guns can be dangerous. It is normal to regulate dangerous things.

Now if the state wants to regulate these things because of problems, that's fine. Require a license. Require registration. Whatever.

OK, we are on the same page. But licensing implies limits on who can have them. And regulation also means limiting the kinds of weapons.
We need to balance public vs private interest. One person having fun vs another getting shot. The latter seems more important, no?

I'll agree that guns should not be banned, if you agree that there should be limits.
Some people might argue that "its fun" is not sufficient justification for easy availability of weapons whose primary design purpose is to kill people.

The number of people killed by handguns in the US is a pretty good motivation. The question is if banning them is effective.
I don't know. Maybe it is already too late for that where you live.

But a ban should be the last option, and should require both extremely strong reasons for a ban and proof that a ban is effective and the only effective measure.

I think you are saying "ban" for what other people might call a restriction. Regulating emissions is the same as banning overly-pollution, I suppose. It seems you are trying to make an emotional appeal with that word.
    What is so terrible about having to reload after you take a shot?

If you want to take these things from the thousands of responsible operators because of a single irresponsible asshat, then lets start banning knifes and cars too.

Calm down. Nobody is "banning" guns. Or knives. Just regulating. Flick-knives are bad. 50-cal machine guns on the back of your pickup are bad. You want a kitchen knife or a deer-hunting gun? No problem. Sorry if the gun requires as much paperwork as your car.

Re:Simple question

[Anonymous Coward]

Throw in $250k per injured/slain, and at least the same should be required for owning a gun.

Re: Simple question

[Dog-Cow]

... our favorite shooter is a guy we have to "steal" from the VA.

Can he also fly any aircraft ever made, and does he answer to the name "Mad Dog"?

Re:Simple question

[Carewolf]

And in the gun-control hell that is Europe, all you have to do is join a militia, and they will give you a real assault rifle for free to keep in your home.

Re:Simple question

[Anonymous Coward]

Why. Does. It. Matter?

Re: Simple question

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, due to the fact that drones use the electromagnetic spectrum, they do need justification. Otherwise there will be problems, even aside from the potential for misuse.

So does your cellphone/portable computer/tablet... What's your justification for owning one?

Re:Simple question

[Anonymous Coward]

Once a place has high crime and lots of gun murders, does gun control increase or decrease crime?

Ah, because a criminal with murderous intent will surely reconsider if faced with the prospect of an additional weapons charge and never get an illegal gun... (even in heavily refulated countries, criminals don't have an overly hard time getting guns...)

That's irrelevant to the existence of places that aren't in the same gun/crime quadrant.

It's not irrelevant - bans and regulations tend to be applied to all quadrants, needed or not.

Re: Simple question

[AK Marc]

I don't have one. I don't have to be right to prove you wrong.

Re: Simple question

[KGIII]

Fuck no. He can piss himself, on command, and can still strip an M1 down - without actually looking. No, really, he can piss himself on command - or without command. He deserves some privacy so I'll skip mentioning his name. He's big on pissing his pants. But, he can strip an M1 down and put it back together. He's also grouchy - all the time.

Re:Simple question

[AK Marc]

It's not irrelevant - bans and regulations tend to be applied to all quadrants, needed or not.

So a ban on guns in NYC affects Houston? Please explain in more detail.

Re: Simple question

[BronsCon]

And yet all you've proven is that you and I hold different opinions, I can back mine up, and you don't have any better idea how to achieve what you propose than I do. None of that makes me wrong.

I've actually heard a few proposals along the lines that you suggest, but none of them account for guns illegally smuggled across the border or stolen from law enforcement and military personnel, or how we defend ourselves against nations with guns if we take guns out of the hands of our military and law enforcement in order to solve the latter half of that. As I'm sure you're aware, the majority of guns used in violent crimes (by a very large margin) are not legally owned; meanwhile, the majority of guns in this country are legally owned, by an even larger margin. To add to that, most guns used in violent crimes are imported illegally, rather than being stolen. In other words, getting rid of legally owned guns wouldn't make a dent in gun crime. I'll grant that it would probably cut down on gun theft, but that's really not what we're discussing, is it?

So, no, you don't have to be right to prove me wrong, but it would help your cause if I hadn't already checked my facts. Someone else can (and, in your case, often does) do the job of being right, but it is on you to find and present them.

I've looked, for the 34 years of my life during which I did not own a gun (I'm 35, mind you), I looked for an answer, I sought out anyone who purported to have an answer, or even an inkling of an answer, and the best I ever found was "well, if it was possible to get make guns disappear tomorrow" and I actually agree with that.

But we can't do that. Prove me wrong.

Re:Simple question

[Anonymous Coward]

yeah, when the idiot shooting at my drone was hit by the birdshot fired by the rifle I attached to my drone, it was fucking GLORIOUS. Thank you NRA for supporting my absolute right to shoot stupid idiots.

Re: Simple question

[Anonymous Coward]

they arent able to fly near power lines? that would be my first guess.

Re: Simple question

[Anonymous Coward]

They snuck a snuke in your snatch?

Re: Simple question

[chuckugly]

Assault weapon is pretty nebulous, depending on the date and locale both or neither of the listed weapons may be assault weapons, or even legal to own, again depending on local ordinances and so on. For instance in CA I believe ANY fully automatic capable firearm requires some pretty special dispensation or possibly a federal dealers license. A simple NFA tax stamp is not enough to satisfy state and local laws and allow a peasant to receive such a thing.

The M14 is not an assault rifle, the 308 (7.62x51) is not an intermediate power rifle round. It is IMO a highly desireable firearm and I'm pretty envious right now. An M21 is actually top of my list for acquisition after I leave the peoples republic and return to America.

Re: Simple question

[AK Marc]

Guns aren't well correlated with "crime", though murder is. So areas with fewer guns are "safer", when safe is measured by murder statistics.

I've actually heard a few proposals along the lines that you suggest, but none of them account for guns illegally smuggled across the border or stolen from law enforcement and military personnel,

None? How many civilians in China own a gun? It's not many. And yet, they don't have a problem with theft or smuggling. I guess you are arguing that the USA is too incompetent to meet a level of standard 1/10th as good as China.

or how we defend ourselves against nations with guns if we take guns out of the hands of our military and law enforcement in order to solve the latter half of that.

You are presuming a theft rate that doesn't match the rest of the world. Why?

As I'm sure you're aware, the majority of guns used in violent crimes (by a very large margin) are not legally owned;

As I'm sure you are aware, nearly 100% of those illegal guns were imported or manufactured legally. If that legal avenue is eliminated, there would be almost no illegal guns, like how i works in the rest of the world.

most guns used in violent crimes are imported illegally

Nope. Most are bought from a legal seller (at least for first sale). I think you misunderstand the term "trafficking". It's used in relation to firearms to refer to illegal distribution. This does not require transportation. A legal buyer (clean record), buying guns from legal FFL dealers, then selling them to known criminal channels is a trafficker, even if they perform all the transactions without ever going more than 5 miles from home. And many make the incorrect assumption that guns getting in the hands of criminals through "illegal trafficking" implies importation. It doesn't.

When all your conclusions aren't based on incorrect assumptions, maybe you'll come to more reasonable conclusions. http://www.policeissues.com/So...

Re: Simple question

[BronsCon]

You really have no idea what you're talking about, do you? Learn what a ghost gun is, where and how they're made, and hoe many of them end up in the US on a given day, thank come talk to me.

As someone with ties to law enforcement, I can tell you that the reality is far from what the media would have you believe. When you've actually had a beer with someone who stopped a trunk-full of hand made Colt 1911 clones from illegally crossing the border, then you can talk to me about how many illegal guns enter the country legally.

You're working form an ignorant viewpoint and quoting media-approved statistics while I have firsthand knowledge.

Furthermore, you're trying to claim we can "make [guns] inaccessible" while admitting that some number of guns enter the country illegally. You can't have it both ways. You can make guns less accessible, but as long as they exist they'll be accessible to anyone sufficiently motivated.

Beyond that, have you stopped for one moment to think there's a reason we kill each other in this country and that guns have nothing at all to do with it? The kinds of guns people of your ilk most often try to remove from circulation (black rifles) account for fewer deaths than knives (which you seem to be fine with), blunt objects (basically every solid object without a blade falls into this category and you seem to be fine with that), or *gasp* fists and feet.

In 2014 (the most recent data I can find), that's 248 rifle deaths. That's all rifles, not just the scary black ones, so the number is even smaller for those, but the FBI doesn't differentiate so I'll be generous and give you all of those. Compare that to 1756 knife deaths, 435 blunt objects, and a whopping 660 people killed with fists or feet. Hell, on that last point I'll add in all other non-pistol firearms: 262 shotgun deaths and 93 "other gun" deaths. That brings the non-handgun firearm total (where the type of firearm was known) up to a whopping 613, still fewer than fists and feet. If we divvy up the "type not stated" category proportionally, we can add 29 rifle deaths, 84 shotgun deaths, and 78 "other gun" deaths, for a total of 804 non-handgun firearm deaths. Finally, we've stretched the numbers so that non-handgun guns kill more people than fists and feet, though the number still pales in comparison to knives.

That's not to say guns don't account for most murders in this country; they certainly do when you also consider handguns, but nobody is calling for those to be banned.

That's right, the simple handgun accounts for more than half of this country's murder rate; yet, I can more easily get a handgun than a black rifle. Why is that?

Also, I am reminded of our previous argument, where I pointed out that, per capita, "gun-free" Francs has more gun violence than the US. Yes, the US has higher overall numbers; we also have a higher overall population; if our population was the size of France, or vise-versa, they would very much outrank us in terms of overall numbers.

But that reality makes you uncomfortable, so you refuse to face it.

It's not my fault you never learn and can't face reality.

Here's a fun exercise: Look at this data (source) and tell me where you, if murdered, are most likely to have been murdered by a gun. The answer is Liechtenstein, followed closely by Puerto Rico, but they've got incomplete data, so we'll have to look at #3, which is Sierra Leone, ranked #164 worldwide in gun ownership with 0.6 firearms per capita and 128 annual homicides by firearm. That's 2.28 per 100,000, to the US' 2.97, where the US has 88.8 guns per capit

Re: Simple question

[AK Marc]

You really have no idea what you're talking about, do you? Learn what a ghost gun is, where and how they're made, and hoe many of them end up in the US on a given day, thank come talk to me.

Either you are a liar or an idiot. Ghost guns are not prevalent. They aren't even a rounding error in crime statistics. They are a toy that makes gun nuts feel powerful by making them. Either you don't know anything about them, or you are lying about it. Either way, your delusions and lies won't change reality, and the mind of an evil person like yourself is unchangeable.

Re: Simple question

[BronsCon]

When you go on calling people evil, consider why they want you dead and not how they might do it. And no, that's not a threat, my body count will remain at 0, because I'm so evil.

Re: Simple question

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know. You might think that I'd be the most knowledgeable person about firearms. I'm not.

I have two classed firearms. As I mentioned in another post, I have an M-14 and a Chinese made AK-47. It gets confusing because the Chinese sold that model to the Vietnamese and the model was called the M-60. It's really just an AK-47 and isn't even very well made.

That said, I'm not an encyclopedia of firearm knowledge. I'm betting that you're more right than I, 99% of the time - should we have to argue firearms. There's a ton that I don't know - and I'm not even going to pretend I know. Some people are encyclopedic in their knowledge - and I'm pretty impressed.

Now, I want to share this with you...

The Thompson Sub-machine Gun fires the .45 and, if you're pretty comfortable, you can actually watch the rounds leave the barrel. There's a lot of muzzle rise, but, it's one of the most wonderful things you'll ever witness.

Seriously, it's beautiful. I've seen the rounds go down-range from a BAR. That's just as nice. You can really watch them... However, I digress...

I had the chance to buy one for $7500 and it came with two of the "stick" magazines and three (or four?) of the drum magazines with all but one being 50 rounds and the smallest one being 25 rounds - if I recall correctly. It also came with a bunch of other things, including the cardboard box and oil paper that it came in. There was also a bunch of brass, caps and lead, if I wanted to reload. However, there was a bunch of .45 ACP (I think?) to go with it.

I could have bought it for $7500. I turned that down - not once, but several times. He even had a "hard case" that was shaped a bit like you'd see the trombone (musical instrument) shaped like. And, I turned that down... I didn't just turn it down once - I turned it down even after firing it.

It's at this point that I'd like to remind you that I'm an idiot. I absolutely can afford that. I am an idiot for not doing so. It's too late to say that I'd love to have that put aside for my collection/future generations.

Don't forget Thompson came in .30 as well.
The round magazines were 100 rounds.

All were the absolute favorite weapon of GIs in trench warfare.

Re: Simple question

[RightSaidFred99]

When was the last time you looked, 1987? If you live in the US you're off by at least a factor of 2.

Re: Simple question

[chuckugly]

It's been approximately one year ago and I didn't do a lot of heavy shopping, I just looked for FA AR platform rifles that were for sale and transferable. Was mostly curious. The MP5 and similar weapons were much less, for one I would like to own it was in the vicinity of $14k. The AR rifles were in the vicinity of $70K and up, quite a bit up in some cases. Again, if they are now under $10K I'd like to know where.

Re:Simple question

[BubbaJonBoy]

Fucking assault rifle is a made up term. It's a rifle fer chrissakes - a weapon plain and simple.
A full-auto rifle requires the moolah to buy one or make one (not too prohibitive) and a $200 tax stamp.
We expect /.'rs to be better informed than that.
Back OT that pic I've seen doesn't look like a drone - plus - given teh size is relatively small - what gap did it bridge to channel a difference of potential? Something sounds off about teh story - not that I'd ever accuse the press of sensationalizing.

Re:Simple question

[chuckugly]

Fucking assault rifle is a made up term.

Well I reckon all terms are invented by someone, however don't conflate assault weapon, which is a vague and mercurial term, with assault rifle, which is strictly defined by organizations such as the US Army. They are similar sounding but vastly different.

privilege shaming

[Anonymous Coward]

why shame owners of white hatchbacks? they are people too and thus worthy of respect

Re:privilege shaming

[Calydor]

Respect is earned, not thrown into the back of a white hatchback and hauled off to somewhere people don't know where you got it from.

Re:privilege shaming

[Anonymous Coward]

I was thinking the same thing. I mean, what if the guy escaped on a bicycle? That would be even more embarrassing. At least a white hatchback is a car.

Re:privilege shaming

[Anonymous Coward]

I once owned a white hatchback, a Citroen SM, that I drove on weekends.
But when I showed up one Monday morning showing a bit of wear and tear, I had to admit the truth. No, the Citroen was fine.
I fell off of my Sister's Vespa. That is about as least dignified as it gets.

Re:privilege shaming

[PolygamousRanchKid]

Respect is earned, not thrown into the back of a white hatchback and hauled off to somewhere people don't know where you got it from.

Ah-ha! It was O.J. Simpson! He's at it again!

It's too bad that CNN didn't get cover the slow-speed getaway. They could have streamed it live . . . from a camera drone!

That would have been proper justice.

Re:privilege shaming

[Anonymous Coward]

Ford Falcon would have been more fun
for comments...

The only dignified way to flee..

[Anonymous Coward]

Is in a white bronco. Just ask OJ.

Re:The only dignified way to flee..

[Hognoxious]

No, it's in a tank. Just ask the Italian army.

Re: The only dignified way to flee..

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah no, some guy already tried that in the 90's. Got stuck on the highway divider and took some bullets to the head.

Re:The only dignified way to flee..

[Anonymous Coward]

Said one random idiot from the UK, a country that had been basically leveled down by the Luftwaffe before being rescued by the US, and whose "soldiers" are known more for their obesity and alcoholism than for their military skills.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...

Re:The only dignified way to flee..

[Hognoxious]

If you'd bothered to read the respected scholarly journal you linked to you'd see it doesn't really back up your points at all.

And at least we end a war on the same side we started on, you retarded spaghettifresser.

Re:The only dignified way to flee..

[Anonymous Coward]

you'd see it doesn't really back up your points at all.

Really? Those images look quite clear to me. Do you mean that you need even more photos of the obliteration of London during WWII? Or maybe Coventry? Google for them. They look worse than Grozny in the '90s. A complete military humiliation. And Germany was fighting on several fronts, imagine if instead they had concentrated on Britain only. If it wasn't for the USA, what you call "the UK" simply wouldn't exist anymore, and today your first language would probably be german.

And at least we end a war on the same side we started on

Yes. The side of the obese, alcoholic drunkards in camo suit that had their asses saved by somebody else with actual armed forces. Good for you, but the photos above don't magically change. The only actual winners of WWII were the USSR and the USA, everybody else lost.

P.S.: I'm actually Italian-American. And reading your diseased posts make me sad that my country wasted so many lives and so much money to save yours. At least Italy's architecture and landscapes look gorgeous, they deserved to be saved. The UK looks like a gigantic car park instead.

Re:The only dignified way to flee..

[david_thornley]

Sigh.

Some British cities were pretty hard-hit by the Luftwaffe. More German cities were much harder hit by Bomber Command. Britain was never in serious danger of successful invasion. By the time US forces arrived in strength in Europe and the Med, the Axis was losing.

Re:The only dignified way to flee..

[Anonymous Coward]

You're confusing the period before the US involvement with the one afterwards. No german city was destroyed before Pearl Harbor. And the only reason why britain wasn't easily conquered is Hitler's delirious attempt to invade the USSR, which only a diseased mind could have thought being possible. Had he invaded britain instead, you would have seen him waving hands from Westminster just like he did from the Eiffel tower.

Re:The only dignified way to flee..

[david_thornley]

Ever looked at the prospects of invading Britain in WWII? In 1940, which was their best chance, German planning treated the English Channel as a particularly wide river. While the British Army was seriously short on heavy equipment, it was pretty strong in manpower, so a successful invasion would have to be in force. It would need to be supplied, and the appropriate ports were rigged for demolition. German bombers were not good at attacking shipping in this period, so the RN was able to keep three or four destroyer flotillas and a battleship in Channel ports, and, particularly after the losses and damage in the invasion of Norway, the German Navy had nothing to match that force. Churchill would have welcomed an invasion attempt.

Later, some of this changed. The Stuka pilots became adept at hitting ships. Germany could have made real landing craft. Germany did get a couple more battleships. However, the Luftwaffe would not be able to get superiority again against the RAF in Britain, the British Army in Britain was strong and well-equipped, the RN had plenty of older battleships, and the ports were still rigged for demolition.

In WWI, the Russian government collapsed because of losses in territory and men that were relatively small compared to what Germany achieved in the summer of 1941. Stalin's government kept control of the Soviet Union, which few people expected at the time. The Red Army was unable to stop a major German strategic offensive except by outrunning it until 1943. There was no reason to think the Soviet Union could withstand such losses and come back. Conquering the Soviet Union wasn't going to happen. Defeating it and taking large amounts of territory looked, at the time, frighteningly likely.

US involvement in the war against Germany was minimal in 1942. The first Eighth Air Force raid was in July, with bombers borrowed from the RAF. The first clash of US and German troops was around the end of 1942. The opening of the US to U-boat raids cost the Allies a lot more than the USN contributed. In other words, the US was only nominally in the war for the first big raid on Hamburg.

Re:The only dignified way to flee..

[Anonymous Coward]

Ever looked at the prospects of invading Britain in WWII?

Ever looked at the prospects of invading France, Poland, the Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark, and large part of eastern europe, in two years? That's what Germany did, and quite successfully. It would be hilarious to claim that conquering Britain would have been harder. They simply aimed at a far bigger target.

The Red Army was unable to stop a major German strategic offensive except by outrunning it until 1943

The Red Army was able to conquer Berlin and level it down two years later, making the USSR the real winner of the war in europe, even more than the US. So no, it wasn't "likely" for Germany to be able to do anything by invading the USSR, except committing suicide, which actually happened. The brits should thank Hitler's stupidity.

US involvement in the war against Germany was minimal in 1942.

So what? The war ended 3 years later, London, Coventry and others were either destroyed or badly damaged while Berlin was intact, and Germany was already committing suicide in the USSR. This really doesn't help your idea of trying to downplay the embarrassing weakness of the UK armed forces in WWII.

Re:The only dignified way to flee..

[david_thornley]

Ever looked at the prospects of invading France, Poland, the Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark, and large part of eastern europe, in two years?

Sure. None of them were over a large body of water that was patrolled by a much superior navy. Even Norway doesn't fall into that class, as the British were pretty much unable to interfere with the shipping to southern Norway. Germany sent a force to capture Narvik which did have to go through British-accessible waters. The force was destroyed and Narvik retaken, although the Allies decided it wasn't worth keeping Narvik once most of the rest of Norway had fallen. The claim that the invasion of Britain would not have been harder is hilarious. Germany planned for an invasion of Britain at its weakest, and there's good reasons why they never actually tried it. Hitler would have loved to conquer Britain.

So no, it wasn't "likely" for Germany to be able to do anything by invading the USSR

You're using 20/20 hindsight here, which is completely inapplicable to Hitler's decisions at the time. In fact, in 1941 and 1942 the Germans were incredibly more successful than the Germans were in WWI, and that resulted in the fall of the Russian government and a peace treaty very favorable to Germany. There was no compelling reason to think that the Soviet Union and Stalin would be so tremendously more resilient than Tsarist Russia and Nicholas.

This really doesn't help your idea of trying to downplay the embarrassing weakness of the UK armed forces in WWII.

The British Army, while of generally good quality, was never large enough to force a decision against Germany. It's conceivable that the Brits could have conducted all the Western Allied operations through the end of 1943 without the US, but no further. The RAF was strong, and the RN dominated.

Fake news

[Anonymous Coward]

The racoon syndicate is spreading lies again. We know it was them!

I call bs

[NeumannCons]

What's the weight of a section of power line between two pylons? Hundreds of pounds? What's the weight of a typical "hobby" drone? <10 lbs? I suspect a stiff breeze exerts more force on high voltage lines.

Unless this thing is a a military drone or has titanium axes for rotors, I'm really failing to see how this thing could have caused *any* damage to a power line.

I suspect something else happened and this was a convenient scapegoat.

Re:I call bs

[Anonymous Coward]

I can imagine a shorted circuit being caused by the drone touching live wire and ground at the same time, and that could cause some damage to other equipment. Plus overtime labor costs.

Re: I call bs

[Anonymous Coward]

Dude, trees fall on those lines and they don't break. But that's not what knocks the power out. It's a short now, the drone probably bridged a gap, caused a short and blew something down the line.

Re:I call bs

[Spy Handler]

You must be one of those "jet fuel fire cannot melt steel, 9-11 was a controlled demolition" guys.

Power line went down. Police found the charred remains of a drone at the site. Witnesses (plural) living in the area said they saw a guy flying a drone in the area. Therefore the conclusion that a drone caused the event.

Sounds like a simple, rational explanation to me. But please feel free to indulge in fanciful far-fetching conspiracies all you want. Just don't share it with normal people.

Re: I call bs

[Anonymous Coward]

How the hell does a drone touch a wire and ground? Have you ever even seen a power line or do you live in your parents basement 24x7 like a bunch of other idiot millennials

Re: I call bs

[PPH]

It can bridge between two phase conductors. Or between one phase and a grounded structure like a pole or crossarm.

Re:I call bs

[Hentes]

The RC crowd can be quite crazy when it comes to size, there are even 1:1 scale models.

Re:I call bs

[thegarbz]

You must be one of those "jet fuel fire cannot melt steel, 9-11 was a controlled demolition" guys.

Power line went down. Police found the charred remains of a drone at the site. Witnesses (plural) living in the area said they saw a guy flying a drone in the area. Therefore the conclusion that a drone caused the event.

Sounds like a simple, rational explanation to me. But please feel free to indulge in fanciful far-fetching conspiracies all you want. Just don't share it with normal people.

Yes everything is black and white. From the one person who must be a psychotic tinfoil hatter who overthinks everything, to the other who just accepts everything without applying even a little bit of thought (you). /sarcasm

Seeing something in the area of the damage doesn't mean conclusively that it caused the event, just that it may have been involved in it. And while jet fuel weakens steel just fine I'm keen to hear how you think a thin plastic or cf blade can cut through a relatively thick metal wire that not only has incredible strength but can happily support several people dangling from it too.

Re: I call bs

[HornWumpus]

Which will cause an arc, which will trip a breaker, which will autoreset in few tens of seconds.

It had to be one of those million to one things. Broke an insulator and let one phase droop or something like that.

Aerobatic pilots used to throw toilet paper over transmission lines, so they could see where the lines were when playing about them (morons). They thought it was all fun, but the TP would collect dew and arc the next early morning. Took time and money to figure it out. To their credit, the pilots stopped doing it when told what was happening.

Re:I call bs

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't question the official story, citizen! We'll have one of our more pathetic shills make some "tinfoil hat" accusations against you, to start. If you continue to question, things might get.. rough.

Re: I call bs

[Anonymous Coward]

Drones are plastic you dumb shit.

Re: I call bs

[Anonymous Coward]

Batteries contain a fair bit of energy. Seems like a 1 in a million shot though. Get hung up, arc flash, batteries catch fire, drops the line.

Even if the drone isn't conductive, we are dealing with very high voltage. The carbon fiber is probably not as good an insulator as air.

Re: I call bs

[PPH]

At around 20 kV, the wires from the motors will make fine conductors. And a few millimeters of plastic that drones are made of means nothing.

Re:I call bs

[Anonymous Coward]

...there are even 1:1 scale models.

...of quadcopter drones.

As someone impacted by the outage...

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought I'd shed some details I witnessed as it happened. I live on Hope St, which is about 1.5 miles from from Polaris Ave. This is what I saw:

1. Incident happened at 20:14 PDT (UTC-0700),

2. Effects were: immediate loss of power, ~0.5 second delay, restoration of power, ~0.5 second delay, restoration of power, ~1-2 second delay, brown-out (as in incandescent lights at half brightness) for ~2-3 full seconds, restoration of power. My UPSes kicked on during this event. Black-outs are one thing, but a brown-out is serious and dangerous. I wonder what the input AC voltage was at the time, same with the waveform. Probably not pretty,

3. For many in Mountain View, this impacted Comcast service for about 1.5 hours. Comcast's nodes have in-line equipment (on utility poles or underground (varies per block/area)) which are powered directly off of PG&E wiring on the same utility pole (or underground). Some of the equipment is battery-backed, some is not; and those which *are*, many of the batteries do not hold a charge any longer (i.e. have been neglected). No idea if power conditioning equipment is used. In this case, I have a feeling a piece of equipment fried/failed due to item #2,

4. Restoration of Comcast service was at 21:34 PDT. Comcast appears to have routed around the failed equipment (at the cable network level); my signal levels were substantially different after the workaround was put in place,

5. Further Comcast repair was done the following day (2017/06/09) at roughly 04:58 PDT and lasted until 05:04. Signal loss was seen during this time; my guess is network/maintenance reverted the workaround from several hours prior. Signal levels were restored to normal values after this.

About drones in general: in the past 3-4 weeks, I've seen several of these being operated *at night* within my local area. There's no way to easily identify who or where the operator is, but noticing the drone is easiest due to sound -- the best analogy is to that of a swarm of bees, except slightly higher in octave. The first time I heard this, I thought "why are bees swarming at night? Wait a minute, what's that thing with blinking red LEDs in the sky? Drones, sigh. Why at night?!?!"

Re: As someone impacted by the outage...

[Anonymous Coward]

U sound like an asshole. I thought it was useful to hear from the affected area. So what if he was a little over the top with the time details. I thought his post should have been molded up

Re: As someone impacted by the outage...

[Anonymous Coward]

The reason I keep track of this is because a) I communicate with the maint/network manager at Comcast when it comes to outages and they like exact times of outages/restorations (to see if they line up with when their techs did something), and b) PG&E has tried the "if you don't know what exact time it happened we can't really investigate if something happened thus cannot give you a credit" approach too many times with me (the last major incident was in December 2013 when one of their utility poles fell over due to the pole base being rotten -- they denied the incident until photos of the pole, fried electronics/equipment (including ceiling fans, hot water kettles, etc.), PG&E trucks holding up the pole, and full timeline documentation were shoved in their faces).

It's become more or less habit for me to do this when dealing with large corporations, especially when electric/gas companies are involved. Their claims dept. operate in pure CYA mode and won't budge unless you're precise and document *everything*.

I'm not autistic nor do I have Asperger's syndrome. Yup, I'm a bit OCD, but it comes with the territory of being an engineer myself.

Re:As someone impacted by the outage...

[thegarbz]

Drones, sigh. Why at night?!?!"

Why not? The footage look amazing.

Re: As someone impacted by the outage...

[Anonymous Coward]

waaah waaaah nazis telling me I can't fly my drones up to little girls' windows at night to watch them change

He might even be autistic, but that doesn't make you any less of a fucktard for arguing with him over it.

This is why I support mandatory drone registration

[GerryGilmore]

Unless there is a way to track the owners of these things when - not if - they do serious damage, we're pretty much fucked in terms of holding anyone truly accountable.

Drone insurance

[Leuf]

Flying these things around other people and their property without liability insurance is pretty foolish. It leads you to doing things like running away when an accident occurs and making everything much worse for yourself.

Re: Drone insurance

[that this is not und]

Have they found the person who was operating the drone? I didn't see that in the details. So it didn't go that bad for him yet.

Re:Drone insurance

[nnull]

You sound like the morons in the city that forcibly removed my favorite sailplane airport. The community and city couldn't understand how an aircraft could stay in the air without an engine and thus the place had to be shut down because it was deemed to risky to have sailplanes flying over houses.

What made it worse, they were flabbergasted how 10-14 yearold kids were allowed to fly these death contraptions by themselves! The horror! The long term affect of this now we don't have natural pilots.

Re: Drone insurance

[Anonymous Coward]

To be fair, I don't think AMA insurance would cover this.

Re:Drone insurance

[Anonymous Coward]

You sound like the morons in the city that forcibly removed my favorite sailplane airport. The community and city couldn't understand how an aircraft could stay in the air without an engine and thus the place had to be shut down because it was deemed to risky to have sailplanes flying over houses.

What made it worse, they were flabbergasted how 10-14 yearold kids were allowed to fly these death contraptions by themselves! The horror! The long term affect of this now we don't have natural pilots.

And you sound like a typical vapid, vocal, anxiety-prone left-wing-nut cum snowflake that deserves to be put out of everyone else's misery that is caused by you.

magic word: teased (ahh... fitting)

Simple example.

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh they're not going to ban cars. No, they're cleverer than that. They'll bring out autonomous cars and ban cars that aren't...for the good of the people.

What can rules achieve?

[chrism238]

"The FAA has rules and regulations in place to prevent this exact type of incident from happening,"
Really? How did the FAA rules and regulations prevent this from happening?

Re:What can rules achieve?

[OfMiceAndMenus]

I'm actually curious *what* FAA rules were supposed to prevent this? Other than not flying the drone at night, I don't know what he supposedly violated. There were no rules about flying near power lines, and in fact, many people use drones specifically TO examine and survey power lines, because it's cheaper than a helicopter for the same effect.

Hmm

[alzoron]

"The FAA has rules and regulations in place to prevent this exact type of incident from happening,"

Whiles technically true this is ultimately a meaningless statement. From what I gather from the article the only regulation not being followed was flying within 5 miles of an airport and that had absolutely no impact on the crash at all. The drone could just have easily been far enough away from an airport following all the regulations and still crashed into a power line due to any number of reasons. It's true that breaking that regulation can cause accidents to happen but it didn't cause this accident.

They could just have easily said if drones didn't exist there would be zero drone accidents.

Re:Hmm

[Anonymous Coward]

It was flying below 500 feet, well below FAA's airspace restrictions (High voltage powerlines are usually on 50-200 feet high towers or on wooden poles about 50 feet high). It was obviously in line of sight since the owner could see it, well within the rules of FAA's requirement for RC aircraft. There are pretty simple rules by the FAA regarding powerlines, WATCH OUT FOR THEM.

So shit happens. Many other things cause power disruptions due to our poor utility infrastructure in this country. Shoes, balloons, RC aircraft, car accidents, even human packed aircraft. This isn't the first time and won't be the last. Much of the accidents with powerlines from aircraft has always been visibility. You'd also be surprised how common this shit is. Our utility companies have been largely neglecting every safety precaution you could imagine (Much of it easily fixed with risks reduced, just like in Europe), even with their own employees. They even outright refuse to put beacon lights on top of their high voltage tall towers when everyone else is required to do so. So stuff like this happening is of no surprise to me.

If you want a great example of utility companies completely not caring about the public, just google the Lytle Creek fires. Those high voltage towers have been through high heat, earthquakes and have been deemed to dangerous to be near them and at risk of collapsing, the utility company still doesn't care. Many of the power outages that happened was due to fire fighting aircraft colliding with the wires due to the utility companies not even bothering to put the lines on the map. You'd think they'd care when all those high voltage lines deliver most if not all the power to Southern California.

Re:This is why I support mandatory drone registrat

[Anonymous Coward]

APP APPERS living in the APP ZONE should embrace APPS not LUDDITE ACCOUNTABILITY!

I was pretty sure an assault rifle was...

[Anonymous Coward]

Any rifle used to commit assault?

Re: I was pretty sure an assault rifle was...

[KGIII]

You were pretty wrong.

Drones

[Anonymous Coward]

Drone users are the new glassholes. Enough already. If your life is so meaningless that you feel the need to spend hours on end flying a drone then do humanity a favor and kill yourself.

Re:Drones

[Anonymous Coward]

+1

Remote control vehicles

[mejustme]

I was too young at the time to notice, but anyone know if there was this kind of "lets-ban-all-evil-things!" reaction when remote control cars first became available to average consumers?

Is this a natural reaction to something new, or is there really a never before seen level of danger with tiny unmanned drones in the skies above us?

Re:Remote control vehicles

[Anonymous Coward]

Bottle Rockets - it was banning bottle rockets. And pop rocks. People decided that pop rocks and soda could make you explode - so had to ban those too.

Re:Remote control vehicles

[Anonymous Coward]

...And pop rocks. People decided that pop rocks and soda could make you explode - so had to ban those too.

you know that pop rocks followed by coca cola is what killed Mikey from the LIFE cereal ads.
it was a matter of public safety. Same thing with Jarts lawn darts.
 

Re:Remote control vehicles

[The Grim Reefer]

I was too young at the time to notice, but anyone know if there was this kind of "lets-ban-all-evil-things!" reaction when remote control cars first became available to average consumers?

Is this a natural reaction to something new, or is there really a never before seen level of danger with tiny unmanned drones in the skies above us?

The difference is that RC airplanes used to be fairly expensive and required enough talent to build and fly them. I was at a store last week and there was a quad-copter with controller for sale for $70. It had auto landing, auto-leveling and a setting to set it to maintain a specified altitude.

The first time I flew an RC airplane, around 40 years ago, you couldn't by the controller for that little. You might have been able to buy a very low powered gas engine for a glider/trainer type plane. but you'd still need a kit for a plane to put it in, prop, fuel tank and lines, electronics, controller, starter, and the time and tools to build it. After plunking down close to $1000 and many hours building it, you didn't go out and do something stupid with it. I think today, people may do stupid things with $1K+ drones as it's not nearly as much money in current dollars. But you also don't have all of the time and effort into building it either.

I'm not saying there weren't stupid people back then. I'm sure there were. But you couldn't walk into Walmart, drop $100 and be flying a couple of hours later once the batteries were charged. That seems to be the biggest difference I see.

Re:Remote control vehicles

[Anonymous Coward]

The hell are you talking about? Back in the 90's, RC planes were around a few hundred dollars. They still are! These drones usually cost over $1000. Most RC aircraft can still be bought for less than $100.

And yes, you could walk into a hobby store, drop a $100 and be flying in a couple of hours.

Where do you idiots come from?

Re:Remote control vehicles

[Anonymous Coward]

No it was never a problem. RC had a high barrier to entry.

Now anyone can buy a near idiotproof drone from amazon without even a half thought.

Like everything else... it turns to shit when the masses get to it.

That wasn't a drone

[Anonymous Coward]

Looks like a 5.25" floppy drive wrapped in insulation.

They're just trying to blame sabotage/thieves on drones.

These lDIOTS

[p51d007]

That "operate" some of these gadgets, need to be hauled off. They attempt to fly these things, without knowing one little bit of flying skill, safety or anything else. Just plug them in, charge them up and VOLLA! I'm a pilot! Morons. Been flying R/C for 30 years. You never catch R/C people flying their stuff around power lines, people or other places like that. Bunch of lDIOTS.

Re:These lDIOTS

[thegarbz]

Been flying R/C for 30 years

So you've been flying since a time where drones were very different to what they are now. Let me catch you up with what has happened in the last 29 years: Drones are now up down left right forward backwards controls with no skill required.

You never catch R/C people flying their stuff around power lines

Sorry but horseshit. Drones hitting power lines are nothing new. The R/C crowd has had idiots since the R/C crowd existed. The only difference is there's more people in total now that the price and the required skillset has come down.

Re:These lDIOTS

[Anonymous Coward]

> The R/C crowd has had idiots since the R/C crowd existed.

No... the idiots get expelled from the R/C crowd because idiots who refuse to learn to fly safely are _dangerous_ to life, limb, and property. So it is _actually_ true that you'd never see R/C people operating their craft unsafely, because the R/C community has a _serious_, _long-standing_ culture of safety and responsibility.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again, it's a _dreadful_ shame that R/C quadcopter retailers by and large didn't feel duty-bound to direct quadcopter purchasers into the warm, welcoming, educating arms of the AMA and the purchaser's local R/C club. Flying's usually more fun with friends, and if your friends have cooler aircraft than you, you might even get a chance to fly their craft.

Re: These lDIOTS

[KGIII]

In the 1980s, I lived on base. A bunch us did. For simplicity, I will say we invested in an RC plane. It was gasoline powered and the guy with the radio needed a HAM license. We didn't care. We crashed that thing until it could fly no more. In fact, there were temporary rules about it.

Point being, there was no magical group preventing our bad behavior. I'm pretty sure we did not even join a club. We did for rockets, but we were kinda worse with those.

Re: These lDIOTS

[nnull]

Don't forget all the kids going into hobby shops buying rockets for next to nothing and launching them trying to hit airplanes by the airport. Great days those were! Some people on here act as if none of this stuff was happening 30 years ago.

Re: These lDIOTS

[KGIII]

Right? I'm almost 100% certain that there are still base-specific rules (not regulations, there's a difference) that apply to RC aircraft - including planes, helicopters, and rockets. I know, beyond all reasonable doubt - as in I recollect the changes, that they enacted rules, per the OOD, or higher, that prohibited us from continued use of the devices while on base.

And that was the end of our fun. Except, I believe the rules ONLY applied over certain areas and that we were still okay for anywhere but things like the parade deck.

Again, it's been a very, very long time. Given the military, specifically the USMC, I can absolutely assure you that someone wrote these rules down. As such, I am positive that a FOIA/request would get the details.

Here, I am bored and this is some evidence. This was a young me and the pic isn't that good - but it will do.

Pic.

I should do a better job and scan it, but I'm only trying to prove a point. ;-)

In short, we went and got a remote controlled airplane. In fact, we went and got three or four. I'm not sure the total, as some weren't built the whole way. We then smashed them into each other, the buildings, and the ground. We even set them on fire and used them to set other things on fire.

Anyone who says there was some specific organization to prevent this behavior, that was able to prevent this behavior, is a dirty rotten liar. Seriously, they are liars. They're horrible liars, even.

This doesn't negate their point. It doesn't mean that I think everyone should do the stupid crap we did. No, it just means they're horrible liars. I'm not even sure why they'd bother to lie, when I can pretty easily disprove them.

Re: These lDIOTS

[Anonymous Coward]

> Point being, there was no magical group preventing our bad behavior.

And there's no magical group preventing anyone from getting a couple hundred feet of really-large-diameter wire mesh, scaling a high-voltage distribution tower and draping it over HV distribution lines to cause a short and outage. (Or, hell, renting construction equipment and "accidentally" collapsing that same tower.)

Point being, anything that's _physically_ possible _can_ and _will_ happen, but there's a _reason_ that most of us don't lie awake at night with a real concern that their neighbor is gonna break in, murder us, and steal our stuff.

If you convince someone (through both education and example) that an improper way to behave is -well- an improper way to behave, they're less likely to behave improperly. This has been the foundation of society for like _millennia_.

There are no magical groups that prevent us from murdering each other and stealing each other's stuff in our sleep... we don't do it simply because it's _strongly_ discouraged behavior.

Re: These lDIOTS

[Anonymous Coward]

> Anyone who says there was some specific organization to prevent this behavior, that was able to prevent this behavior, is a dirty rotten liar. Seriously, they are liars. They're horrible liars, even.

Yeesh.

This is hyperbole. See above: https://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=10724879&cid=54594837

Re: These lDIOTS

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not even sure why they'd bother to lie, when I can pretty easily disprove them.

Following the lead of the current CIC ?

Re: These lDIOTS

[KGIII]

I agree. I was countering the OP's point that there was some mysterious group who forbade us. Nah... We were hellions.

Re: These lDIOTS

[KGIII]

I don't even know? LOL I really don't. Umm... Wanna see a picture?

BLARGH!!!

It's kinda amusing to see people who see that image and then try to establish what "side" they think I'm on. I ain't even got a Trump hat. I don't even know, anymore. I'm half convinced the whole world went insane without me. (Really, click the link. It'll maybe make you giggle - and who doesn't need a giggle?)

Re:These lDIOTS

[thegarbz]

No... the idiots get expelled from the R/C crowd

There was no such crowd. A hobby is a hobby. There was never a requirement to get matching tattoos and drink the blood of the fallen once a week. There was no secret Illuminati membership required to go to the hobby store and buy parts to build your device.

I therefore conclude you are some trans dimensional traveller. Welcome to our world. We are far more liberal here.

Re:These lDIOTS

[sl3xd]

Many areas have long regulated radio controlled aircraft - mine, certainly. Membership in the Academy of Model Aeronautics, adherence to its rules, payment of dues, insurance, and even enforcement by police who visit regularly.

Flying in any unsanctioned area (including parks, school yards, etc) is prohibited by law. And in the sanctioned areas, AMA membership is required and enforced – you get carded in order to fly.

And this is in a very conservative, anti-government area of the states.

So yeah, a lot in the "old" RC aircraft hobby are very unhappy with careless idiots buying drones and causing problems for an already heavily regulated hobby.

Re:These lDIOTS

[thegarbz]

Many areas have long regulated radio controlled aircraft - mine, certainly. Membership in the Academy of Model Aeronautics, adherence to its rules, payment of dues, insurance, and even enforcement by police who visit regularly.

Okay sorry we get it. I didn't realise you lived in the Soviet Russia. Meanwhile the rest of the known world is nothing at all like you describe, and wtf is the Academy of Model Aeronautics? I mean I have been flying for 20 years but this one is new to me.

And this is in a very conservative, anti-government area of the states.

Yeah I can tell.

So yeah, a lot in the "old" RC aircraft hobby are very unhappy

Old generation unhappy about new generation, news at 11. Sorry but that doesn't change the fact that the hobby has always had it's set of careless idiots. I too could be a licensed electrician, but instead I chose to play with electronics as a hobby. See how that works?

Every hobby has a dead serious arm of people who are upset that others don't take it equally as seriously. And they have membership cards! wooo.

Re:These lDIOTS

[sl3xd]

wtf is the Academy of Mode Awronautics/quote>

The AMA is the model aircraft equivalent of the NRA; founded in 1936. Around 200,000 active members, and serves as a liason between the hobby, the FCC, the FAA, congress and local governments. They also run a liability insurance program, and are the only reason model aircraft are even allowed in the United States.

Saying you've been flying for 20 years and haven't heard of the AMA is about as realistic as saying you've been shooting for 20 years and haven't heard of the NRA. You can't walk into an RC model shop without seeing the AMA logo, or a bin with application forms.

Re:These lDIOTS

[thegarbz]

I was being partially facetious. But then I don't see anyone needing to go asking the NRA for permission every time they want to fire their gun either. But also no one here gives a shit about the NRA either because as hard as it to believe the world is much larger than the USA, and frankly I couldn't care less about the FCC, FAA or your congress either (hence the partially bit).

Speaking of the FCC aren't they the ones specifically who aren't regulating the model drones. You have a very VERY inflated view of what membership of the organisation or any of the agencies means.

You can't walk into an RC model shop without seeing the AMA logo, or a bin with application forms.

Oh so it is voluntary then? So I can walk into an RC model shop and buy my stuff and not give a crap? That was precisely my point. There are a hell of a lot of people out there who never did and won't going forward give any shits about some membership association. That is nothing new. Actually there is something new: model aircraft are now sold at Best Buy and other places where you won't see an AMA logo, so the new change is they are becoming even more irrelevant than they were previously.

Re:These lDIOTS

[Anonymous Coward]

Speaking of the FCC aren't they the ones specifically who aren't regulating the model drones.

You're confusing the FCC and the FAA. All radio transmitters are governed by the FCC. Until recently, all non-ham RC transmitters had to use the 72 MHz spectrum. It's only relatively recently that the switch to spread spectrum radios made it feasible to use the "junk" 2.4 GHz ISM band.

So working with the FCC has always been mandatory - else you don't get the "radio controlled" part of the hobby.

The FAA, on the other hand, does regulate aircraft, and it's only the intervention of the AMA hat prevented drones from being banned completely.

Oh so it is voluntary then? So I can walk into an RC model shop and buy my stuff and not give a crap?

The store doesn't mandate anything. They're just making it easier to join, and taking your money for the sale.

Being able to fly, however, is a different matter entirely. The county restricts flight to very specific fields, and if you fly outside them, expect a fine. If you fly inside one, AMA membership is required.

And yes, people do complain, go to city/county meetings to complain about drones

  Just because you can buy something at Best Buy does not mean city/county/state law does not apply.

Re:This is why I support mandatory drone registrat

[Rockoon]

Since there will never be a way to track the owners of these things (registration doesnt do that people) the solution isnt to track the owners.

If the power lines can be attacked by simple drones, harden the power lines. Period.

Re:This is why I support mandatory drone registrat

[thegarbz]

Yeah because mandatory registration prevents idiots, accidents, and leads to punishment in all cases. /sarcasm.

How are those rules and regs working out?

[Anonymous Coward]

"The FAA has rules and regulations in place to prevent this exact type of incident from happening,"

Kind of like laws limiting gun misuse - only affect the law-abiding, who WON'T be doing this stupid crap.

As usual, the idiots who won't follow the law can still do whatever they want.

Of course he fled

[manu0601]

Of course the culprit fled: who wants to be hit with thousands of dollars damages that insurance will not cover?

Re:Of course he fled

[OfMiceAndMenus]

If you have the right insurance, you can easily cover thousands of dollars. Verifly will give you millions in coverage, on-demand for specific flights, for like $15-16 an hour. Almost as if there were some rule against it, they won't issue insurance for night flights...hmmm....

Re:Of course he fled

[manu0601]

They will cover even if you fled in a forbidden zone?

Bill Murray

[Sir Lurkalot]

"Caddy Shack" scene after blowing up the golf course, Looks around, then runs...

Story font too small

[Anonymous Coward]

See subject

This is why I support record keeping.

[Anonymous Coward]

They can do a postmortem on the remains. There should be enough info from serial numbers and other identifying marks to show who made the drone, when it was made, and backtrack to whom it was sold to. And yes I do see it being made mandatory in the future that drones have even more identifying marks, like explosives are, so they can be easily traced, registration or not.

Re:This is why I support record keeping.

[Anonymous Coward]

sure, when they make testing a requirement before you're allowed to access intertubez.

Re:This is why I support mandatory drone registrat

[Anonymous Coward]

But the drone operator presumably had the getaway car licensed, and probably held a vehicle license, and yet he still wasn't caught. If drones are licensed, he probably would have used an unlicensed drone anyways for this sort of activity or been more likely to recover parts if they could be traced back.

I live in suburban area of Pennsylvania. These are direct causes of outages (electrical and cable/internet) in the last 10 years of 2 homes in the area:

backhoe-- Took out an underground cable supplying the area. afaik, not really regulated. Blew out the development, prob 100 homes.

power company itself-- Screwed up something, had a grid out for 5 days. Still don't know the cause. My guess is an upgrade that went awry. Regulated. Probably 600 homes.

traffic accidents-- Probably 5 outages from SUVs and cars hitting telephone poles on the street one over, displacing the wires on the pole. Regulated (vehicles and drivers are licensed generally; one was caused by an unlicensed driver). Oh, and at least 2 of them ran off still and weren't caught. Number varies from 1 to a few dozen.

puc licensed companies-- Unscheduled and schedule maintenance, incompetent techs, resulting in hundreds of hours of downtime. We have Comcast. Licensed by franchise and state PUC. Never been fined or held accountable, given locally granted monopoly and collusion with other telcos in the area as well as local and state government rules. Varies, one was the whole county served by Comcast (which is about 1/4), but at least 3000 homes (number of homes in one of the municipalities effected).

mother nature-- Ice dragged down lines, tree limbs from storms, one a line got water logged as the ground flooded. Not licensed, I think.

Licensing has squat to do preventing this or accountability. 1600 homes and it was fixed in a couple of days? Big whoop. We have hundreds of homes go down accidentally on a fairly regular basis. The only reason this is a big deal is because of the geographical area and that a drone was involved.

Drones make news and get clicks. I get that. I don't see the problem with them (and I'm not an owner of a drone, never have been). An individual screwed up. We have companies screwing people over and little is or can be done. But a lone drone operator, scrary, right?

A 500g destroyed the power grid??!!

[aberglas]

From your article looks like a loss of power for a few seconds.

Here down under we have possums that use the power lines as highways. Every so often one gets fried, trips the breakers for a few seconds. But no way a possum could shut down the high voltage transmission lines, it would just be vaporized.

And I reckon the story is a beat up, because a possum is much heavier than a plastic drone with maybe a few grams of metal in it.

I did once hit transmission lines with a Glider cable. I was driving the winch, glider blew off course and dropped the cables on the lines. Huge and spectacular bang. But no real damage to the transmission. Might have tripped the breakers for a few seconds but we thought it best not to enquire. A small bit of cable was left dangling from the lines, but nobody would volunteer to clear it.

That cable was about 6mm think, MUCH more conductor than even the largest drone. (Fortunately, one drivers a winch from inside a metal cage.)

Re:A 500g destroyed the power grid??!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Buut in a typical USsian way, let's not blame the shitty power grid for not handling a little drone. No. Let us blame the occasional animal/done operator/fallen tree branch instead.

Re:A 500g destroyed the power grid??!!

[Max_W]

First of all it is not a drone on a photo in the article (unless it was one powered by gaz, what is uncommon).

Secondly the powerlines can be hidden underground. There is a reliable technology already to transfer electricity via underground cables. It is still 1.5 times more expensive, but only because it is not widely used yet.

If they build the powerlines underground it would be a good news not only for migratory birds, home owneres, but also for helicopter pilots http://aviationweek.com/busine...

Re:A 500g destroyed the power grid??!!

[thegarbz]

LV transmission is 1.5x more expensive underground.
HV transmission is closer to an order of magnitude more expensive.

Re:A 500g destroyed the power grid??!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Digging a trench or even drilling in a conduit costs more than setting poles.
So even ignoring that underground cable, splices and sittings all cost more than uninsulated wire on pole insulators with uninstalled compression sleeve couplings, above ground electrical distribution will always cost less to build than underground.

There are some good reasons to use underground electrical distribution, but it's not best everywhere

Just a drone...

[__aaclcg7560]

I would be more concern if it was a sniper shooting at power transformers.

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

Re:Just a drone...

[Anonymous Coward]

Why would that concern you more? Drones are a lot easier to buy and operate than a high powered rifle. No waiting period, no background check, no need to have a license.

According to TFA, a single drone, probably in an accidental incident, caused "tens of thousands of dollars in damage." How much damage could a motivated person planning an attack do using a handful of small drones? I'd bet they could cause damage on the same order as the Metcalf incident pretty easily.

And whether it's bullets or a drone, your grid is still fucked.

Re:Just a drone...

[__aaclcg7560]

I would be concerned if you learned to spell...

I'll let my spelt checker know.

Re:Just a drone...

[__aaclcg7560]

Why would that concern you more?

Nut with a sniper rifle is far more dangerous than a nut with disposable drones.

Re:Just a drone...

[Anonymous Coward]

So in other words, you're just talking to hear yourself talk?

The story is about damage to the grid from a drone. You related that to an incident where people shot grid components with a rifle. And then completely left the topic of "incidents involving the power grid" to tell us that "I'm super skared about people with guns, they're way more dangerous than drones."

I can't wait to read the next article about the grid, where you tell us apropos of nothing that you sometimes like to sit on the toilet until the poop dries to a flaky crust on your asshole.

Re:Just a drone...

[__aaclcg7560]

So in other words, you're just talking to hear yourself talk?

If I wanted to hear myself talk, I wouldn't be writing comments on Slashdot. However, I do have a YouTube channel. Once I figured out my angle for vlogging (which won't be anytime soon), you too can hear me talk as well. Don't forget to comment, like and subscribe. Thank you for giving me another opportunity to promote my personal brand.

I can't wait to read the next article about the grid [...]

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-power-grid-20170315-story.html

Re:Just a drone...

[__aaclcg7560]

A *spell* checker won't check your *grammar*, nippledick.

WOOSH!

A *spelt* checker is probably like an inspector at a grain factory.

Spelt is the British variation of spelled.

Re:Just a drone...

[Anonymous Coward]

So you use a "spelled" checker?

Is *woosh* [sic] the sound of intelligence leaving your brain?

Re:Just a drone...

[__aaclcg7560]

Is *woosh* [sic] the sound of intelligence leaving your brain?

That's your sense of humor being expelled from your ass.

Re:Just a drone...

[Anonymous Coward]

There was nothing in this entire thread to suggest humor anywhere. That you think so is baffling.

I do know that you can't spell, and often skip words in your sentences. Not a great confidence builder in your "personal brand" (WTF) as an author.

Seen that way, everything you write is humorous, in a sad way.

Re:Just a drone...

[__aaclcg7560]

I do know that you can't spell, and often skip words in your sentences.

No one does an editorial process for random comments.

Not a great confidence builder in your "personal brand" (WTF) as an author.

My personal brand didn't come into play until some asshats decided to abuse it for shake and giggles. Things have calmed down quite a bit after Slashdot management deleted five user accounts at my request.

Re:Just a drone...

[Anonymous Coward]

"No one does an editorial process for random comments."

There's nothing random about you, friend. I type, you reply, like a trained dog.

"My personal brand didn't come into play until some asshats decided to abuse it for shake and giggles. Things have calmed down quite a bit after Slashdot management deleted five user accounts at my request."

Your imaginary life is like a Mexican soap opera!

Woof! Woof!

PS: "abuse"! LO fucking L! The only one abusing you here is yourself.

Re:Just a drone...

[__aaclcg7560]

Your imaginary life is like a Mexican soap opera!

Where the asshat gets shot in the stomach by scorned woman.

Re:Just a drone...

[Anonymous Coward]

By "a" scorned woman, Mr Author. In your haste to reply (woo woowowoof! WOOF!) your fat fingers push each other out of the way!

And what would you know about women, scorned or otherwise?

Re:Just a drone...

[__aaclcg7560]

And what would you know about women, scorned or otherwise?

More than you can imagine.

Re:Just a drone...

[Anonymous Coward]

That's right, because *I* don't need to imagine anything! Whereas all you have *IS* imagination!

Why do you set yourself up for massive failure? All. The. Fucking. Time?

Re:Just a drone...

[__aaclcg7560]

Why do you set yourself up for massive failure? All. The. Fucking. Time?

If you have to ask that question, than you nothing about success.

Re:Just a drone...

[Anonymous Coward]

Once I figured out my angle for vlogging (which won't be anytime soon),

You know what? I'm gonna give you some free business advice: start a health & fitness channel.

Please, bring us inside your day to day life - your 3 mile-per-hour workouts, your cottage cheese & power bar consumption, your "150 pound seated rows."

I would fucking pay money to watch that - It'd be high comedy. And you'd be sure to get a lot of trolls there, so your ad revenues would be at LEAST $7 or $8 a month.

Your welcome for the revenue stream idea, champ.

Now get on that content creation, you content creator!

Re:Just a drone...

[Anonymous Coward]

First of all, it's "then". You know, like "IF THEN" in BASIC? Mr Programmer Script Wizard? And second of all, I nothing about success?

Your fat fingers push each other out of the way so they can't type the the missing words your useless brain can't even think of.

It is not a drone in the article photo

[Max_W]

What kind of drone it is, what model? Was it that hard to make a good HD photo with a smartphone camera where one can see something?

Drones (RPAS) can deliver urgent parcels with documents, cash for banks, etc. and by this realistically free roads from traffic jams, significantly reduce fossil fuel consumption, so naturally the automobile lobby and their clients are concerned.

That is why the FAA issues 700 pages prohibiting regulations for RPASs. But it is hard to do not having a single photo of a documented RPAS accident. So finally we have got a photo from an RPAS accident where one can not distinguish anything. Was it a drove powered by petrol? Why it burned that much?

Re:It is not a drone in the article photo

[sl3xd]

Why did it burn?

Because lithium batteries carry a lot of energy, and when enough abuse happens (running into power lines will definitely do it) they go into a runaway thermal reaction, and that energy is released.

There was even a Tesla Model S burst into flames in a wreck.

I've seen my share of lithium batteries bursting into flame in electric model aircraft.

Just because it's electric doesn't mean it can't cause a fire.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Car Insurance

[Anonymous Coward]

That's why we have mandatory car insurances, operating these things can cause major damage and we want to make sure the victims are compensated. We might need the same for drones, i.e. to buy and operate, you need to register and get an insurance. That said the business case for one might not be pretty.

"to prevent this exact type of incident"

[tlambert]

"The FAA has rules and regulations in place to prevent this exact type of incident from happening,"

Well, it looks like they work great.

Good job, FAA! Keep up the good work on those regulations! Glad they prevented this mishap!

We should regulate against heart attacks next! Think of the lives that it will save!

"assault rifle"

[Anonymous Coward]

An AR-15 is not an assault weapon. The term 'assault rifle' originally referred to a battle rifle that fires fully automatically but is lightweight. The AR-15 is a semi-automatic rifle that looks like an particular assault rifle (the M16) but is not itself an assault rifle.

Thank you Mr. Pedantic. Not tell that to the folks at Merriam-Webster:

any of various intermediate-range, magazine-fed military rifles (such as the AK-47) that can be set for automatic or semiautomatic fire; also : a rifle that resembles a military assault rifle but is designed to allow only semiautomatic fire

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/assault%20rifle

Just like the word "Google" changed from simply referring to the company to 'doing an online search', the meaning of " assault rifle" may be changing from the first part of the above definition to the less narrow second part in everyday use.

Language changes: there's nothing wrong with wanting to people to use the "correct" definition, but just realize you may be fighting a loosing battle.

Re:"assault rifle"

[ebvwfbw]

Thank you Mr. Pedantic. Not tell that to the folks at Merriam-Webster:

You should be upset about this too. As he said, it's an invented term to scare people for a political purpose. Fits right in with "save the children" bullshit. It's bullshit because you can say that about almost anything. Let's get rid of cars, if it saves just one child how can you say it isn't worth it. We shouldn't let the left redefine things. We used to joke rifles, cars, eventually they'll get around to redefining marriage, then they did that too. Something that has been defined for thousands of years across the entire world and it was just a very small percentage of the people wanting to do it. Next thing you know, we're an idiot society because nobody will know what anything means anymore. Then there are other made up words, like islamophobia. There is no such thing. We also have idiots that don't even know the difference between a race and an idiology. Such as calling someone racist because they fear being killed by radical islamists. They were not born that way, it's taught and it was taught by a guy named Mohommad. Lived long ago and he taught hate, killing, etc. This is no different than Tim McVeigh wanting to kill people and if you say you're against that, you're racist? That's the Bullshit the left is selling right now because they want to destroy western civilization. Getting rid of guns is part of that.

Webster simply reports on how words are being used.

How to contribute to society

[Anonymous Coward]

Gun/car/knife/pen/phone/hammer/carpet/vacuum/video game/computer users are the new glassholes. Enough already. If your life is so meaningless that you feel the need to spend hours on end using them then do humanity a favor and kill yourself.

FTFY.

Of course

[helpfulcorn]

And so many people on Slashdot think the solution to the issue of how dangerous flying cars would be is basically automating them to be drones. It's good to have a reference example that self-driving, flying cars wouldn't magically create anti-gravity. Just imagine if it were a car with people in it instead.

Re:Of course

[sl3xd]

Flying cars are *loud*. Very loud. Far louder than residents will tolerate.

You can't push that much air around quietly. A small helicopter can be heard from miles away. Ditto with even small single engine aircraft.

Flying cars would make every neighborhood even noisier than the ones currently next to airports.

And that doesn't even touch the aspect of people being scared of airplanes falling from the sky constantly.

We can do a decent job at making machines that are not going to fail easily. We are not, however, capable of making such machines cheaply.

Would someone please explain...

[martinfb]

Would someone please explain to me how a drone can damage any power lines?
I was under the impression that you need to complete a circuit to cause current flow,
and that high voltage wires are far enough apart that a small drone could never touch 2 wires at ones.

Birds have no problem perching on high-voltage wires.

Perhaps there is more to this story?!
Like, perhaps, that the drone was equipped to intentionally short the wires?

Re:This is why I support mandatory drone registrat

[OfMiceAndMenus]

Didn't we just have registration and marking requirements up until a few weeks ago? Did that help anything? Even though I'm no longer required to label/register for non-commercial flights, I still have my FAA code on my quads.