Or they can do what Facebook does and show you all revisions of a comment. Only one time have I ever seen anyone try to edit their comment to materially change their tone, and enough people (not all, but enough) knew how to look at the Edit history and call the poster out on their feeble attempt.
That's not comparable to web traffic, where you get paid by hard numbers, not conjecture (e.g. someone pulls all the newspapers out of the stand to be a dick - newspaper could come to a reasonable conclusion that readership is strong in that area -- apparently there's an Audit company that "verifies" readership, but I have to imagine that's pretty difficult to do with such an asynchronous form of media).
Ignoring that, the advertisers are paying to get their message out. There mere existence of the ad on the page is the actual service that is paying the bills. By blocking ads, you're essentially picking up a newspaper that have all the ads cut out, which is much less valuable (between advertiser and publication, anyway) than the copy of the paper where you simply ignore them. I occasionally hear the phrase "I never look at ads anyway" as weak justification, but people don't realize that's almost wholly irrelevant, especially compared to the verified delivery of said ad. It's common knowledge that ad networks want, and generally pay more for, clicks and actions, but simple CPM is still the most common rate/metric.
This argument falls flat because you have intentionally requested a resource. You said "it's not about entitlement", but your last sentence inarguably and damningly proves otherwise.
Your right to view or not view is there, but at a much higher level than you're assuming. If it's not about entitlement, you are free, and encouraged, to not visit sites that have advertising as a means of upkeep/revenue if you don't agree with it. And you'll save yourself even more bandwidth and CPU time by doing so!
- Except no, the US is not one giant air lane. The freedom to fly above 500 feet, **when safe and prudent**, is something to be considered and respected. The overwhelming majority of the open space within the borders of the United States do not (and likely never have) have planes flying in them. We have the information and the technology to know when that is not the case. - I agree with you on the Airport side, and an increasing number of manufacturers are implementing that (along with the ability to turn it off, with the assumption and acceptance that you have the clearance to do so). The manufacturer DJI (unarguably the vast majority of quads in operation) has had that in place in their Phantom line for nearly 3 years. - Many models have high-quality live video feeds. I know where it is at all times, even if it's a speck on the horizon. This allows me to explore areas that I might not be near or can get to easily. In one case, I helped a Modeler recover his lost plane after he crashed into the top of a tree. It was summer, so the patch of woods was thick - it would be physically impossible to sight it, but I ALWAYS knew where it was because of the live feed and map. This should never be "illegal".
Show me YouTube videos (IN THE US) that are flying in an air lane. The fact that they're 'many' (- unlikely) thousands of feet, on its face, does not provide any indication of unsafe operation.
It truly sounds like you need to actually get introduced to one, learn its advantages and uses, and stop living in constant fear based solely on media reports and random YouTube videos.
Mostly because quadcopters (the vast majority of UAS devices impacted by this b.s.) generally fly under 500 ft, within a 2-mile radius, and since they can hover quite well, they don't need the horizontal and vertical clearance that aircraft (even helicopters) require.
The only thing your aircraft has in common with UAS is that they both move through the air; I fail to see why you think they should be treated equivalently.
Usually, yes, but they've told the AMA to 'temporarily suspend' operations. The AMA thinks it's going to come to an agreement with the FAA in mid-January.
Please provide evidence that everyday people using quadcopters are using them to "look at your daughter". If we base everything on "what ifs", we'd have absolutely nothing.
To be fair, have you actually had a 'drone' crash on your head, break through your window, or (legitimately) "spy" on you from above? I'm not saying it doesn't happen, I'm simply suggesting that such broad, kneejerk reactions to this technology are not constructive.
Because one is a 'VPN app' and one is an 'Adblocker app'.
Most people downloading and using a VPN app presumably know what a VPN is, and have control over which VPN service to use. Most people downloading and using Adblocker app (which are becoming ridiculously popular on the App Store) only see the setting to "enable blocking of in-App ads", and do not have control over which VPN service to use. Hell, the users may not even know a VPN is being employed - I don't know the messaging this app uses - but even if they did, do you think most people would understand why this is a bad thing?
All your comment said to me was that any usage of airspace that isn't a full-sized helicopter or airplane should be over-regulated. In your eyes, all of the cool experiments kids have been doing sending cameras into the stratosphere should be banned.
It's not that I'm failing to understand you, in theory. I fully agree that careless people can ruin your day. My argument is just that this is not limited to drone operators, and shoving regulation down their throats is stupid. Let's come back to this conversation when you have actually seen one, which you've admitted that you have not.
And even airplanes are allowed to operate below 500' when landing or taking off
But when does that happen?
At least twice each flight for every flight of every aircraft.
Well yes, but I meant in context of his question, which said something about a backyard (I should have been more clear). I realize they do so at airports, but no reasonable quad pilot is operating there, making it a pointless argument.
The fact remains, an aircraft that lands or takes off out of your neighbor's property is very unlikely to have reached 500' AGL by the time it crosses the property line, and therefore there are times when even manned, powered aircraft can fly below 500' over someone's property without their permission LEGALLY.
Of course. I'm not the one arguing that property lines (or "my rights") are being violated by the existence of quads or aircraft.:)
I didn't mention the windshield because I truly don't think a quadcopter would remain airborne long enough to hit it (my assertion that the main rotor would move it), unless the pilot is intentionally trying to run through it. If that's the case, no amount of regulation is going to help.
The video of the guy flying 3000 feet (1000m) was A) A hexacopter (more stable; the point being that your regular quad still likely can't get this high), B) Not in the US, C) took very reasonable steps to confirm safety before flying. The fact that it crashed is irrelevant; malfunctions are equally possible in anything. The fact is that he was an informed operator; the argument should be for making more of those, not just knee-jerk over-regulation.
> I've started to consider wearing a helmet as protection against a drone coming through the windshield. Apologies for the brashness, but is this lined with tinfoil, as well? Do you actually see them around Boston (directly see, not 'think you see'), or are you just playing into the media fear? You yourself even noted that the chance is low.
Your last few sentences are pretty much the only reasonable thing you've said. I am wholeheartedly with you on the need for better QA, both for public safety, and to protect the investment. Speaking about DJI products specifically, the motors are actually pretty solid, but the rest of it is very cheaply produced. I'd love to see higher standards. On the other hand, the fact that these are relatively flimsy is precisely why I think the blind fear and potential for serious damage is overstated.
Sorry, but you're not important than anyone else that you should have the power to forcibly control quads or anything else. I'm not saying that quads are more important than you, either; just there's an element of safety and respect needed from both sides, equally.
You seem to have this notion that the people flying quads aren't real people. I'd venture to say that 90+% of all devices that would have the capability of being near you at any point also have cameras and can see that you're near. You should trust us to yield, just as we should be able to trust that you aren't going to chase after it in an attempt to ground it.
> And even airplanes are allowed to operate below 500' when landing or taking off
But when does that happen? Most people already know not to fly near airfields. I highly doubt anyone noticing that you're trying to take off or land in your backyard (is that a thing? Is that just for ultralights or something?) is going to hang around in a position that gets in your way.
Merely setting ANYTHING won't prevent all collisions, drone or not. There needs to be a compromise, without over-reaching regulation or tracking via ADS-B. What we actually need is less blind fear.
> The problem for us with the drones is that they are small enough to be difficult to see
How much force does a tail rotor generate (Genuine question)? I would suspect not much, but wouldn't it be enough to push away any quadcopter that isn't intentionally trying to run into it? But regardless, on that same token, the main rotor would most certainly bat one down (and I have seen multiple examples of video evidence to support such a claim).
Why do you think the dent in your helicopter was unlikely to be a bird strike? Did you see paint or any other rubbings in the dent? In all of the hard crashes I've seen, DJI's white shells always left some plastic residue.
I just think the 'danger' is being overstated. None of the commercial pilot 'sightings' have been substantiated, and in many cases, complete batshit lunacy - one recent report claimed he saw one at 3000 feet. Unless we're talking about a real government drone, that's extremely dubious.
I'm all for keeping everyone safe, but there needs to be coexistence, not "I'm better than you, you shouldn't be able to fly" or "you can only fly if I say you can". ADS-B seems overkill. Maybe useful for commercial operation (I'd be curious in discussing it with folks who use drones in this way, instead of speaking for them), but for hobbyists, completely unreasonable.
The other problem is that it would require you to assert things that are not actual law just to get the license, making fines all but a certainty. Revenue then becomes the incentive rather than fair play.
That's quite relative. "big quads" are generally multiple thousands of dollars, out of reach for the vast majority of folks. Consumer-level DJI quads are ~$1K, but at 4 lbs, I'd hardly call them 'big'.
Even if bicycles haven't directly *killed* one person (although you're forgetting riders; I don't find it that difficult to believe a handful of folks died from injuries sustained by accidentally jousting with trees, for instance), you can't tell me that there haven't been injuries from bikes hitting others. I've personally seen several over the past year. Much more than quadcopters have.
You'll talk about how there are more bicycles than quads, and you'd be right. But that's also the point. Accidents will ALWAYS happen, and everyone incurs risk simply by existing - we cannot allow ourselves to be nanny-stated into oblivion to prevent some single-digit accident figure.
"4. No commercial flying" -- Uh, why do people consider this some magical transformation in the physical attributes of a quadcopter? Providing aerial footage for someone who does not have the means to do it themselves, and getting paid for the privilege, is not any more harmful than providing aerial footage for you and your friends. Thanks for conceding that putting videos on YouTube is not 'commercial'; the FAA has been disagreeing with that.
Also, "7. No flying if you can't see your drone" is a little shortsighted (no pun intended), as well. 2015 refreshes of quadcopters have allowed for high-quality live feeds in consumer-level offerings. My Phantom 3 can go a mile or more and beam live 720p video of my surroundings. If I know I'm in a safe area (open field, plain, water, etc), why should I be arbitrarily restricted?
We need more case-by-case personal accountability and less blanket-statement bullshit. I don't disagree with reasonable 'best practices' in general, but not all situations are equal, and they shouldn't be criminalized by laws that don't take free will into account.
No, the "solution" is to encourage common sense. You keep saying "wherever you like" and NOT ONE PERSON has EVER argued for that. Stop it.
There is a very large area between "fly anywhere" and "no overzealous regulation". We already have laws that cover every existing 'bad' thing you can do with a quadcopter; any other issue should be taken on a case-by-case basis.
Your first example would actually be a violation of privacy - BUT WE ALREADY HAVE LAWS AGAINST THAT. We do not need 'doubled up' regulations. Although, as someone else said, no 4lb civilian quadcopter has the ability to zoom. "Fly over your property in order to scan it" --again, too much TV. Or overinflated sense of ego; either/or.
It's clear that you don't actually know what you're arguing against. You're fearful because you've only been spoon-fed stuff from the media instead of actually taking the time to research these, or see them in person. You should go to your local hobby shop and ask for a demo. It's really *nowhere near* as scary as you think; they're actually quite fascinating and you might end up buying one for yourself.
Slashdot Mirror
Or they can do what Facebook does and show you all revisions of a comment. Only one time have I ever seen anyone try to edit their comment to materially change their tone, and enough people (not all, but enough) knew how to look at the Edit history and call the poster out on their feeble attempt.
That's not comparable to web traffic, where you get paid by hard numbers, not conjecture (e.g. someone pulls all the newspapers out of the stand to be a dick - newspaper could come to a reasonable conclusion that readership is strong in that area -- apparently there's an Audit company that "verifies" readership, but I have to imagine that's pretty difficult to do with such an asynchronous form of media).
Ignoring that, the advertisers are paying to get their message out. There mere existence of the ad on the page is the actual service that is paying the bills. By blocking ads, you're essentially picking up a newspaper that have all the ads cut out, which is much less valuable (between advertiser and publication, anyway) than the copy of the paper where you simply ignore them. I occasionally hear the phrase "I never look at ads anyway" as weak justification, but people don't realize that's almost wholly irrelevant, especially compared to the verified delivery of said ad. It's common knowledge that ad networks want, and generally pay more for, clicks and actions, but simple CPM is still the most common rate/metric.
This argument falls flat because you have intentionally requested a resource. You said "it's not about entitlement", but your last sentence inarguably and damningly proves otherwise.
Your right to view or not view is there, but at a much higher level than you're assuming. If it's not about entitlement, you are free, and encouraged, to not visit sites that have advertising as a means of upkeep/revenue if you don't agree with it. And you'll save yourself even more bandwidth and CPU time by doing so!
- Except no, the US is not one giant air lane. The freedom to fly above 500 feet, **when safe and prudent**, is something to be considered and respected. The overwhelming majority of the open space within the borders of the United States do not (and likely never have) have planes flying in them. We have the information and the technology to know when that is not the case.
- I agree with you on the Airport side, and an increasing number of manufacturers are implementing that (along with the ability to turn it off, with the assumption and acceptance that you have the clearance to do so). The manufacturer DJI (unarguably the vast majority of quads in operation) has had that in place in their Phantom line for nearly 3 years.
- Many models have high-quality live video feeds. I know where it is at all times, even if it's a speck on the horizon. This allows me to explore areas that I might not be near or can get to easily. In one case, I helped a Modeler recover his lost plane after he crashed into the top of a tree. It was summer, so the patch of woods was thick - it would be physically impossible to sight it, but I ALWAYS knew where it was because of the live feed and map. This should never be "illegal".
Show me YouTube videos (IN THE US) that are flying in an air lane. The fact that they're 'many' (- unlikely) thousands of feet, on its face, does not provide any indication of unsafe operation.
It truly sounds like you need to actually get introduced to one, learn its advantages and uses, and stop living in constant fear based solely on media reports and random YouTube videos.
Mostly because quadcopters (the vast majority of UAS devices impacted by this b.s.) generally fly under 500 ft, within a 2-mile radius, and since they can hover quite well, they don't need the horizontal and vertical clearance that aircraft (even helicopters) require.
The only thing your aircraft has in common with UAS is that they both move through the air; I fail to see why you think they should be treated equivalently.
Usually, yes, but they've told the AMA to 'temporarily suspend' operations. The AMA thinks it's going to come to an agreement with the FAA in mid-January.
http://motherboard.vice.com/re...
Apparently Judge O'Grady was a former Disney lawyer. Wouldn't/Shouldn't he be required to recuse himself from a case like this?
Please provide evidence that everyday people using quadcopters are using them to "look at your daughter".
If we base everything on "what ifs", we'd have absolutely nothing.
I'm a DJI fan, but have been thinking about getting one of those smaller ones just for dicking around with. What do you normally fly?
Might wanna loosen that tinfoil hat a bit.
Not one of these things will happen. Especially not to you.
To be fair, have you actually had a 'drone' crash on your head, break through your window, or (legitimately) "spy" on you from above? I'm not saying it doesn't happen, I'm simply suggesting that such broad, kneejerk reactions to this technology are not constructive.
Because one is a 'VPN app' and one is an 'Adblocker app'.
Most people downloading and using a VPN app presumably know what a VPN is, and have control over which VPN service to use.
Most people downloading and using Adblocker app (which are becoming ridiculously popular on the App Store) only see the setting to "enable blocking of in-App ads", and do not have control over which VPN service to use. Hell, the users may not even know a VPN is being employed - I don't know the messaging this app uses - but even if they did, do you think most people would understand why this is a bad thing?
All your comment said to me was that any usage of airspace that isn't a full-sized helicopter or airplane should be over-regulated. In your eyes, all of the cool experiments kids have been doing sending cameras into the stratosphere should be banned.
It's not that I'm failing to understand you, in theory. I fully agree that careless people can ruin your day. My argument is just that this is not limited to drone operators, and shoving regulation down their throats is stupid. Let's come back to this conversation when you have actually seen one, which you've admitted that you have not.
And even airplanes are allowed to operate below 500' when landing or taking off
But when does that happen?
At least twice each flight for every flight of every aircraft.
Well yes, but I meant in context of his question, which said something about a backyard (I should have been more clear). I realize they do so at airports, but no reasonable quad pilot is operating there, making it a pointless argument.
The fact remains, an aircraft that lands or takes off out of your neighbor's property is very unlikely to have reached 500' AGL by the time it crosses the property line, and therefore there are times when even manned, powered aircraft can fly below 500' over someone's property without their permission LEGALLY.
Of course. I'm not the one arguing that property lines (or "my rights") are being violated by the existence of quads or aircraft. :)
I didn't mention the windshield because I truly don't think a quadcopter would remain airborne long enough to hit it (my assertion that the main rotor would move it), unless the pilot is intentionally trying to run through it. If that's the case, no amount of regulation is going to help.
The video of the guy flying 3000 feet (1000m) was A) A hexacopter (more stable; the point being that your regular quad still likely can't get this high), B) Not in the US, C) took very reasonable steps to confirm safety before flying. The fact that it crashed is irrelevant; malfunctions are equally possible in anything. The fact is that he was an informed operator; the argument should be for making more of those, not just knee-jerk over-regulation.
> I've started to consider wearing a helmet as protection against a drone coming through the windshield.
Apologies for the brashness, but is this lined with tinfoil, as well? Do you actually see them around Boston (directly see, not 'think you see'), or are you just playing into the media fear? You yourself even noted that the chance is low.
Your last few sentences are pretty much the only reasonable thing you've said. I am wholeheartedly with you on the need for better QA, both for public safety, and to protect the investment. Speaking about DJI products specifically, the motors are actually pretty solid, but the rest of it is very cheaply produced. I'd love to see higher standards. On the other hand, the fact that these are relatively flimsy is precisely why I think the blind fear and potential for serious damage is overstated.
Sorry, but you're not important than anyone else that you should have the power to forcibly control quads or anything else.
I'm not saying that quads are more important than you, either; just there's an element of safety and respect needed from both sides, equally.
You seem to have this notion that the people flying quads aren't real people. I'd venture to say that 90+% of all devices that would have the capability of being near you at any point also have cameras and can see that you're near. You should trust us to yield, just as we should be able to trust that you aren't going to chase after it in an attempt to ground it.
> And even airplanes are allowed to operate below 500' when landing or taking off
But when does that happen? Most people already know not to fly near airfields. I highly doubt anyone noticing that you're trying to take off or land in your backyard (is that a thing? Is that just for ultralights or something?) is going to hang around in a position that gets in your way.
Merely setting ANYTHING won't prevent all collisions, drone or not. There needs to be a compromise, without over-reaching regulation or tracking via ADS-B. What we actually need is less blind fear.
> The problem for us with the drones is that they are small enough to be difficult to see
How much force does a tail rotor generate (Genuine question)? I would suspect not much, but wouldn't it be enough to push away any quadcopter that isn't intentionally trying to run into it? But regardless, on that same token, the main rotor would most certainly bat one down (and I have seen multiple examples of video evidence to support such a claim).
Why do you think the dent in your helicopter was unlikely to be a bird strike? Did you see paint or any other rubbings in the dent? In all of the hard crashes I've seen, DJI's white shells always left some plastic residue.
I just think the 'danger' is being overstated. None of the commercial pilot 'sightings' have been substantiated, and in many cases, complete batshit lunacy - one recent report claimed he saw one at 3000 feet. Unless we're talking about a real government drone, that's extremely dubious.
I'm all for keeping everyone safe, but there needs to be coexistence, not "I'm better than you, you shouldn't be able to fly" or "you can only fly if I say you can". ADS-B seems overkill. Maybe useful for commercial operation (I'd be curious in discussing it with folks who use drones in this way, instead of speaking for them), but for hobbyists, completely unreasonable.
The other problem is that it would require you to assert things that are not actual law just to get the license, making fines all but a certainty. Revenue then becomes the incentive rather than fair play.
That's quite relative. "big quads" are generally multiple thousands of dollars, out of reach for the vast majority of folks. Consumer-level DJI quads are ~$1K, but at 4 lbs, I'd hardly call them 'big'.
Even if bicycles haven't directly *killed* one person (although you're forgetting riders; I don't find it that difficult to believe a handful of folks died from injuries sustained by accidentally jousting with trees, for instance), you can't tell me that there haven't been injuries from bikes hitting others. I've personally seen several over the past year. Much more than quadcopters have.
You'll talk about how there are more bicycles than quads, and you'd be right. But that's also the point. Accidents will ALWAYS happen, and everyone incurs risk simply by existing - we cannot allow ourselves to be nanny-stated into oblivion to prevent some single-digit accident figure.
"4. No commercial flying" -- Uh, why do people consider this some magical transformation in the physical attributes of a quadcopter? Providing aerial footage for someone who does not have the means to do it themselves, and getting paid for the privilege, is not any more harmful than providing aerial footage for you and your friends. Thanks for conceding that putting videos on YouTube is not 'commercial'; the FAA has been disagreeing with that.
Also, "7. No flying if you can't see your drone" is a little shortsighted (no pun intended), as well. 2015 refreshes of quadcopters have allowed for high-quality live feeds in consumer-level offerings. My Phantom 3 can go a mile or more and beam live 720p video of my surroundings. If I know I'm in a safe area (open field, plain, water, etc), why should I be arbitrarily restricted?
We need more case-by-case personal accountability and less blanket-statement bullshit. I don't disagree with reasonable 'best practices' in general, but not all situations are equal, and they shouldn't be criminalized by laws that don't take free will into account.
No, the "solution" is to encourage common sense. You keep saying "wherever you like" and NOT ONE PERSON has EVER argued for that. Stop it.
There is a very large area between "fly anywhere" and "no overzealous regulation". We already have laws that cover every existing 'bad' thing you can do with a quadcopter; any other issue should be taken on a case-by-case basis.
You've been watching too much TV.
Your first example would actually be a violation of privacy - BUT WE ALREADY HAVE LAWS AGAINST THAT. We do not need 'doubled up' regulations. Although, as someone else said, no 4lb civilian quadcopter has the ability to zoom. "Fly over your property in order to scan it" --again, too much TV. Or overinflated sense of ego; either/or.
It's clear that you don't actually know what you're arguing against. You're fearful because you've only been spoon-fed stuff from the media instead of actually taking the time to research these, or see them in person. You should go to your local hobby shop and ask for a demo. It's really *nowhere near* as scary as you think; they're actually quite fascinating and you might end up buying one for yourself.
Public airspace is for all to enjoy. It is not yours. For the fourth time, please actually research your implied claims.