Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?
Back for a limited time - Get 15% off sitewide on Slashdot Deals with coupon code "BLACKFRIDAY" (some exclusions apply)". ×

Comment Re: For general use? Hell no. (Score 1) 85

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?

Comment Re:Why should the FAA allow drones without COAs? (Score 1) 184

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.

Comment Re:Why should the FAA allow drones without COAs? (Score 1) 184

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. :)

Comment Re:Why should the FAA allow drones without COAs? (Score 1) 184

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.

Comment Re:Why should the FAA allow drones without COAs? (Score 1) 184

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.

Comment Re:Why should the FAA allow drones without COAs? (Score 1) 184

> 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.

Comment Re:Why should the FAA allow drones without COAs? (Score 1) 184

> 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.

Comment Re:Focusing on the wrong area. (Score 1) 184

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.

Machines take me by surprise with great frequency. - Alan Turing