Uh, you do realize that "unmanned" does not equal "un-piloted," right?
presumably drones will use autopilot for the most part, rather than the manual piloting on which cars presently depend. there isn't much to steer around up there.
Hmm, something tells me that won't fly with the FAA, lol. Just like with the autonomous cars, there will be a requirement for a human 'controller' at all times, if for no reason other than legal liability.
Again, this is not a mutually exclusive concept - if one can come up with an "effectual means" to keep drones from crashing, those same measures should be applicable to manned aircraft.
there are plenty of applications for which a drone aircraft is suitable but for which a manned aircraft is not, generally on account of the cost of their operation.
"Plenty of applications" is hyperbolic nonsense that tells me precisely shit. Name some, specifically.
"We don't need" is not the reason; "malfunctioning and crashing into things and people" is.
I take it this misunderstanding is a result of the fact that schools don't require students to do sentence diagramming anymore? That's sad.
"We don't need" is a rhetorical device employed to justify forbidding something on the basis of its being unnecessary...
Oh, my ass.
See, there's this little thing called 'context,' and it's absolutely important to successful understanding of a sentence. In this case, you've chosen to ignore the context of the sentence, and focus on unnecessary phrasing to justify your position. The important part of OP's statement was the perfectly reasonable possibility that one of these 'autonomous' craft very well could malfunction and cause damage to property and/or life. You're arguing semantics, which IMO is another way of saying you don't really have a valid argument.
For example, try replacing "We don't need" with "There would be a negative effect if." You will quickly see that the meaning of the sentence doesn't change, yet your argument is rendered moot.
Whether they're dangerous or not, clearly we don't need them, since we've gotten by without them in the past. Likewise, it is arguable we do need plenty of things that are dangerous (for example, a military with decent destructive capabilities).
Also, who is this 'we' you speak of? Hobbyists? Soldiers? Americans in general? This is an important distinction to make, as what's legal for a civilian to do is not necessarily legal for a soldier.
Not to mention private citizens build drones all the time.
Which are built using different technologies and intentions than military/police drones. Hence, a need for distinction.
It's like using the term "assault weapon" to scare soccer moms.
Without a specific designation for separating military/non-military UAVs, you're right.
If your argument can't win on merit and you have to resort to hyperbole, maybe you're wrong?
You failing to parse OP's statements does not equate to "resort[ing] to hyperbole." JeanCroix makes some very good, valid points. I merely chose to point out one that I particularly agreed with. If that's your definition of hyperbole, I recommend finding a better dictionary.
I've heard the concept of providing support to fire and rescue crews thrown about as well; of course, what the people who posit such nonsense don't think of (or intentionally omit) is that, compared to a rescue chopper and properly equipped crew , an unmanned, 25kg drone flying at 30,000 ft is about as useful as tits on a bull gator.
Why bother mining asteroids when there is a bunch of pre-refined materials floating in LEO. Re-refine the materials in Proton boosters, non-functional satellites and such. Stop throwing used up stuff back into the atmosphere to burn up. Build a refinery at the Space Station.
Oh, this.
What I can't fathom is how governments and private industry can't seem to get their heads around an idea that sci-fi book and game writers have been expounding for decades.
This is why I have been working on a practical "sense and avoid" (SAA) system for UAVs and FPV RC models.
So, how does it feel to be part of the problem, you bastard? LOL, just kidding... kinda...
odds are that I'll be releasing this as an open-source, copyleft project so hobbyists can use it instead of it becoming the sole domain of the "drone" companies.
Well, alright... I suppose that's a good enough reason to let you live...
(seriously, no offense meant, I'm just messing with you)
We don't need thousands of unmanned vehicles zipping around in the skies malfunctioning and crashing into things and people.
And this is not even considering privacy and security implications. At least manned vehicles have a sufficient barrier to entry (expensive) and a motivation to be extremely reliable (because the occupants will die if not).
"We don't need" is hardly a reason to make something illegal in itself. The phrase is a lazy rhetorical device.
"We don't need" is not the reason; "malfunctioning and crashing into things and people" is.
I take it this misunderstanding is a result of the fact that schools don't require students to do sentence diagramming anymore? That's sad.
Further, what makes you think such machines wouldn't be orders of magnitude more reliable than human drivers (who can get drunk, old, preoccupied, poisoned by testosterone, or succumb to idiocy), who operate much heavier equipment, and in closer proximity to potential victims?
Uh, you do realize that "unmanned" does not equal "un-piloted," right? Those drones have the exact same shortcomings as the manned aircraft you mentioned (i.e., chance for pilot error); the difference is, in a manned aircraft, if the pilot doesn't correct or compensate for a malfunction, he dies. With a drone, if the pilot fails to correct/compensate, other people die. Yes, that does make a difference when it comes to decision making.
You seem to be presuming no one can come up with an effectual means to prevent a malfunctioning device from causing damage, which seems implausible, given the fact that a simple airbag like mechanism that slows the rate of descent would probably serve reasonably well in many situations
Again, this is not a mutually exclusive concept - if one can come up with an "effectual means" to keep drones from crashing, those same measures should be applicable to manned aircraft.
FYI, there is, still, no such thing as an uncrashable plane. Thus, your premise is flawed.
There is no legitimate reason police in America need this technology. Let alone private industry.
FTFY - I'm sure they could come up with all sorts of reasons (cough cough Chris Dorner cough cough), though none of them have an ounce of Constitutional legitimacy.
That said, my question regarding domestic drone use is this - what legitimate purpose could they possibly serve, that manned aircraft do not?
We don't need thousands of horseless carriages zipping around on the roads malfunctioning and crashing into things and people.
See how stupid that sounds now?
As stupid as someone comparing apples to Grade 8 bolts.
FYI, ground-based vehicles that experience equipment failtures aren't very likely to fall from the sky, damaging persons and/or property. Hence, apples and bolts.
Of course, please do not take this application of reality as a request for you to stop your hate filled, nonsense rants. I find them, as well as the mental image of your face turning beet red as you type, quite hilarious.
Perhaps, but ignorance of events that will have absolutely zero effect on anyone living now, or any time into the foreseeable future? I'm fine with that.
Meanwhile, millions of children the world over continue to struggle just for enough food to keep them alive, every day.
Why do these two things have to be mutually exclusive?
Because there are only so many research funding dollars to go around.
Don't get me wrong, I don't have a problem with studying cool, abstract physics concepts and their potential benefits... I just fail to see, in light of current events and situations, how such research is a worthwhile effort, when that money could have been spent researching something that will have a positive impact on the humans of today, like cancer cures or pollution fixes.
Ok, I admit this qualifies as a little bit paranoid.
Why do I want to have, in the wild, the ability of a species to self-terminate: a purposeful genetic dead end. Our understanding of the genome is so complete and its interactions with other species that we have zero risk of this showing up elsewhere and rendering the entire ecosystem null and void?
Call me paranoid, but I can't see how the benefits out weight the risks.
Positive: Monsanto would no longer be able to sue farmers claiming that they are using Monsanto seed to produce a seed crop to use for planting the next year.
Negative: If the gene causing infertility is transmitted via pollen, then farmers that try to produce an heirloom seed crop near a field planted with a Monsanto variety would be screwed since their seed crop could end up infertile.
Wouldn't that give the farmers cause to engage in class-action style legal recourse against Monsanto?
Can't we just stop this discovery period and go about fixing the current issues in the world.
Ignorance is a "current issue".
Perhaps, but ignorance of events that will have absolutely zero effect on anyone living now, or any time into the foreseeable future? I'm fine with that.
Meanwhile, millions of children the world over continue to struggle just for enough food to keep them alive, every day. I think it's plainly obvious that is the sort of "current issue" OP was referring to. Granted, it appears their premise is that we may very well, someday, discover something that is generally bad for humans, and that I don't agree with, but they do have a point about focusing energy and finances on discoveries that will impact life on Earth today, instead of wasting manpower and finances on discoveries that will probably never have any impact on humanity.*
So, pardon me if your "discoveries-of-shit-that-won't-happen-until-long-after-humanity-is-completely-extinct" don't excite folks such as myself as much as you might like.
* I'm certain there are many here who actually think we humans will still be around in 10,000,000,000 years. To those folks, I make the following request: Stop watching so much science fiction, and start talking to some evolutionary biologists. They'll set ya straight.
what you ignore is that if you take all their money, they no longer can run their companies or hire their maids or buy their food. All the while the government will not cut spending because they never do. This would have a catastrophic affect on the american and world economy.
What you ignore is the basic math involved here:
A 100% tax on their income would close the deficit twice over
Therefore, a 50% tax would take care of the problem in 12 months, and let them stay far more wealthy than the rest of us. Win-win.
"... an ignition switch that literally shuts off electrical power to the coils..."
I started to write coils, but not all cars/trucks have them anymore. I have seen some with solid-state electronic modules instead.
I believe those are still referred to as coils, for continuity's sake, but it's been a few years since I worked in a professional shop, so I could be mistaken on that point.
Slashdot Mirror
Bastard stole my meme!
Uh, you do realize that "unmanned" does not equal "un-piloted," right?
presumably drones will use autopilot for the most part, rather than the manual piloting on which cars presently depend. there isn't much to steer around up there.
Hmm, something tells me that won't fly with the FAA, lol. Just like with the autonomous cars, there will be a requirement for a human 'controller' at all times, if for no reason other than legal liability.
Again, this is not a mutually exclusive concept - if one can come up with an "effectual means" to keep drones from crashing, those same measures should be applicable to manned aircraft.
there are plenty of applications for which a drone aircraft is suitable but for which a manned aircraft is not, generally on account of the cost of their operation.
"Plenty of applications" is hyperbolic nonsense that tells me precisely shit. Name some, specifically.
"We don't need" is not the reason; "malfunctioning and crashing into things and people" is.
I take it this misunderstanding is a result of the fact that schools don't require students to do sentence diagramming anymore? That's sad.
"We don't need" is a rhetorical device employed to justify forbidding something on the basis of its being unnecessary...
Oh, my ass.
See, there's this little thing called 'context,' and it's absolutely important to successful understanding of a sentence. In this case, you've chosen to ignore the context of the sentence, and focus on unnecessary phrasing to justify your position. The important part of OP's statement was the perfectly reasonable possibility that one of these 'autonomous' craft very well could malfunction and cause damage to property and/or life. You're arguing semantics, which IMO is another way of saying you don't really have a valid argument.
For example, try replacing "We don't need" with "There would be a negative effect if." You will quickly see that the meaning of the sentence doesn't change, yet your argument is rendered moot.
Whether they're dangerous or not, clearly we don't need them, since we've gotten by without them in the past. Likewise, it is arguable we do need plenty of things that are dangerous (for example, a military with decent destructive capabilities).
Agree with the former, disagree with the latter.
Except we use them outside of war all the time.
Really? How so, and where/when?
Also, who is this 'we' you speak of? Hobbyists? Soldiers? Americans in general? This is an important distinction to make, as what's legal for a civilian to do is not necessarily legal for a soldier.
Not to mention private citizens build drones all the time.
Which are built using different technologies and intentions than military/police drones. Hence, a need for distinction.
It's like using the term "assault weapon" to scare soccer moms.
Without a specific designation for separating military/non-military UAVs, you're right.
If your argument can't win on merit and you have to resort to hyperbole, maybe you're wrong?
You failing to parse OP's statements does not equate to "resort[ing] to hyperbole." JeanCroix makes some very good, valid points. I merely chose to point out one that I particularly agreed with. If that's your definition of hyperbole, I recommend finding a better dictionary.
I thought corporations were people.
Damn, AC beat me to it!
I've heard the concept of providing support to fire and rescue crews thrown about as well; of course, what the people who posit such nonsense don't think of (or intentionally omit) is that, compared to a rescue chopper and properly equipped crew , an unmanned, 25kg drone flying at 30,000 ft is about as useful as tits on a bull gator.
Why bother mining asteroids when there is a bunch of pre-refined materials floating in LEO. Re-refine the materials in Proton boosters, non-functional satellites and such. Stop throwing used up stuff back into the atmosphere to burn up. Build a refinery at the Space Station.
Oh, this.
What I can't fathom is how governments and private industry can't seem to get their heads around an idea that sci-fi book and game writers have been expounding for decades.
I always kinda figured it would be like old wild west, where the biggest gun gets you as far as the best of laws.
Wild West, hell, that's an accurate description of how global politics work now.
Briefly looking at the treaty, do asteroids count as "Celestial bodies"? I've only ever heard that term used for planets and moons.
Shay-zus...
Merriam Webster must be turning over in his grave.
This is why I have been working on a practical "sense and avoid" (SAA) system for UAVs and FPV RC models.
So, how does it feel to be part of the problem, you bastard? LOL, just kidding... kinda...
odds are that I'll be releasing this as an open-source, copyleft project so hobbyists can use it instead of it becoming the sole domain of the "drone" companies.
Well, alright... I suppose that's a good enough reason to let you live...
(seriously, no offense meant, I'm just messing with you)
They're instruments of war
Best.
Anti-domestic-drone argument.
EVER.
Of all time.
We don't need thousands of unmanned vehicles zipping around in the skies malfunctioning and crashing into things and people.
And this is not even considering privacy and security implications. At least manned vehicles have a sufficient barrier to entry (expensive) and a motivation to be extremely reliable (because the occupants will die if not).
"We don't need" is hardly a reason to make something illegal in itself. The phrase is a lazy rhetorical device.
"We don't need" is not the reason; "malfunctioning and crashing into things and people" is.
I take it this misunderstanding is a result of the fact that schools don't require students to do sentence diagramming anymore? That's sad.
Further, what makes you think such machines wouldn't be orders of magnitude more reliable than human drivers (who can get drunk, old, preoccupied, poisoned by testosterone, or succumb to idiocy), who operate much heavier equipment, and in closer proximity to potential victims?
Uh, you do realize that "unmanned" does not equal "un-piloted," right? Those drones have the exact same shortcomings as the manned aircraft you mentioned (i.e., chance for pilot error); the difference is, in a manned aircraft, if the pilot doesn't correct or compensate for a malfunction, he dies. With a drone, if the pilot fails to correct/compensate, other people die. Yes, that does make a difference when it comes to decision making.
You seem to be presuming no one can come up with an effectual means to prevent a malfunctioning device from causing damage, which seems implausible, given the fact that a simple airbag like mechanism that slows the rate of descent would probably serve reasonably well in many situations
Again, this is not a mutually exclusive concept - if one can come up with an "effectual means" to keep drones from crashing, those same measures should be applicable to manned aircraft.
FYI, there is, still, no such thing as an uncrashable plane. Thus, your premise is flawed.
There is no legitimate reason police in America need this technology. Let alone private industry.
FTFY - I'm sure they could come up with all sorts of reasons (cough cough Chris Dorner cough cough), though none of them have an ounce of Constitutional legitimacy.
That said, my question regarding domestic drone use is this - what legitimate purpose could they possibly serve, that manned aircraft do not?
We don't need thousands of horseless carriages zipping around on the roads malfunctioning and crashing into things and people.
See how stupid that sounds now?
As stupid as someone comparing apples to Grade 8 bolts.
FYI, ground-based vehicles that experience equipment failtures aren't very likely to fall from the sky, damaging persons and/or property. Hence, apples and bolts.
Of course, please do not take this application of reality as a request for you to stop your hate filled, nonsense rants. I find them, as well as the mental image of your face turning beet red as you type, quite hilarious.
Perhaps, but ignorance of events that will have absolutely zero effect on anyone living now, or any time into the foreseeable future? I'm fine with that.
Meanwhile, millions of children the world over continue to struggle just for enough food to keep them alive, every day.
Why do these two things have to be mutually exclusive?
Because there are only so many research funding dollars to go around.
Don't get me wrong, I don't have a problem with studying cool, abstract physics concepts and their potential benefits... I just fail to see, in light of current events and situations, how such research is a worthwhile effort, when that money could have been spent researching something that will have a positive impact on the humans of today, like cancer cures or pollution fixes.
What, you thought only the manufacturing base could outsource? Think again.
Ok, I admit this qualifies as a little bit paranoid.
Why do I want to have, in the wild, the ability of a species to self-terminate: a purposeful genetic dead end. Our understanding of the genome is so complete and its interactions with other species that we have zero risk of this showing up elsewhere and rendering the entire ecosystem null and void?
Call me paranoid, but I can't see how the benefits out weight the risks.
You are, obviously, not a successful Capitalist.
FYI, that's not a bad thing.
If this works:
Positive: Monsanto would no longer be able to sue farmers claiming that they are using Monsanto seed to produce a seed crop to use for planting the next year.
Negative: If the gene causing infertility is transmitted via pollen, then farmers that try to produce an heirloom seed crop near a field planted with a Monsanto variety would be screwed since their seed crop could end up infertile.
Wouldn't that give the farmers cause to engage in class-action style legal recourse against Monsanto?
I guess what I'm saying is, where's the negative?
Can't we just stop this discovery period and go about fixing the current issues in the world.
Ignorance is a "current issue".
Perhaps, but ignorance of events that will have absolutely zero effect on anyone living now, or any time into the foreseeable future? I'm fine with that.
Meanwhile, millions of children the world over continue to struggle just for enough food to keep them alive, every day. I think it's plainly obvious that is the sort of "current issue" OP was referring to. Granted, it appears their premise is that we may very well, someday, discover something that is generally bad for humans, and that I don't agree with, but they do have a point about focusing energy and finances on discoveries that will impact life on Earth today, instead of wasting manpower and finances on discoveries that will probably never have any impact on humanity.*
So, pardon me if your "discoveries-of-shit-that-won't-happen-until-long-after-humanity-is-completely-extinct" don't excite folks such as myself as much as you might like.
* I'm certain there are many here who actually think we humans will still be around in 10,000,000,000 years. To those folks, I make the following request: Stop watching so much science fiction, and start talking to some evolutionary biologists. They'll set ya straight.
Do y'all spell it "tyres" with a y like the Brits do?
I've always liked that one.
what you ignore is that if you take all their money, they no longer can run their companies or hire their maids or buy their food. All the while the government will not cut spending because they never do. This would have a catastrophic affect on the american and world economy.
What you ignore is the basic math involved here:
A 100% tax on their income would close the deficit twice over
Therefore, a 50% tax would take care of the problem in 12 months, and let them stay far more wealthy than the rest of us. Win-win.
Depends.
Has he been dishonest about other things?
That's rhetorical, right?
Surely no Slashdot reader is that overtly biased and clueless... Or did I somehow end up on Yahoo! News again?
Cut all department of defense funding and you've dropped Federal spending by ~20%. Our deficit is running around 40%. What's your other idea?
Defund every single domestic spying program as well. That should easily cover the other 20%, and then some.
Those profits come from the bling factor of Apple phones. It's like Rolex. People want to be seen using it. Never mind if it's any good.
An irrational aspect of human behavior I will never understand.
Perhaps they're planning on secession?
Wouldn't hurt my butt.
"... an ignition switch that literally shuts off electrical power to the coils..."
I started to write coils, but not all cars/trucks have them anymore. I have seen some with solid-state electronic modules instead.
I believe those are still referred to as coils, for continuity's sake, but it's been a few years since I worked in a professional shop, so I could be mistaken on that point.