Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
For the out-of-band Slashdot experience (mostly headlines), follow us on Twitter, or Facebook. ×

Comment: Re:I'm all for recreational drone use but... (Score 1) 61 61

Well that's a load of mis-information for a start.

An increasing number of multirotors are using carbon-fiber propellers which are quite strong in all directions and even the small plastic ones can draw blood. Check out this video at 4:26... and we're talking about very small (just over 1lb) craft with tiny (5-inch) plastic propellers.

Comment: Re:Feinstein as usual (Score 1) 164 164

What's needed is *education* -- not regulation.

Most people don't deliberately endanger the lives of others just for fun -- most do it out of ignorance of the risks and potential outcomes.

Just as the rates of smoking have dropped enormously since we began educating folks as to the dangers -- so we need to educate the neophyte and ignorant drone operators as to their responsibilities and obligations in respect to the public's safety.

The situation regarding "near misses" is a *lot* more complex than most of the public realize.

For example, the various pilots groups around the world are acting *very* politically to try and get drones virtually regulated out of existence. Why? Because they know full-well that these craft represent a direct threat to their livelihoods -- more so than the threat to their lives. To this end, virtually *any* sighting of an unidentified flying object is now called a "near miss with a drone". I recall when they were once all depicted as flying saucer incidents -- but now "drone" is the scapegoat de jour.

The media has also enjoyed depicting these craft as evil and likely to bring down airliners all over the world. This kind of sensationalist sizzle attracts eyeballs and that's what the media is after. Forget objectivity, research and facts -- anything goes in the quest for $$$$.

So let's look at the facts...

These craft have been around for quite a few years now and are being flown all over the world. So how many times *have* they crashed into full-sized aircraft?

None. Zero. Zilch, not a single actual collision between an aircraft and a drone.

Compare this to the number of bird-strikes encountered every year. Birdstrike accounts for about $1.4 billion of damage ($900M in the USA alone) inflicted on full-sized aircraft each year and have caused over 250 deaths since 1988.

Remember the numbers for drones: zero, none, zilch -- and not a red cent.

Over 11,000 bird-strike incidents (with full-sized aircraft) were reported in 2013. During that same period the number for drone-strikes was... ZERO!

We all remember the United flight that crashed into the Hundson river as a result of bird-strike. Not a recreational drone to be seen at the time.

The bottom line is that yes, there is a small degree of risk associated with the use of recreational drones but it is very, very clear that those who fear for their jobs and those who want to sell the sensational have both worked to grossly over-state the magnitude of this problem.

Of course there will always be idiots who act in a way that endangers the safety of others. However, even under existing laws, the act of reckless endangerment covers that type of activity -- whether it's done with a drone, a car or an axe.

Once drones are made illegal, only the criminals will have them. Now is that a situation we really want?

Never underestimate the stupidity of a politician -- history is filled with evidence as to the risks associated with doing so.

Cite for some of the stats used above

Comment: Re:Of course not. (Score -1, Troll) 307 307

The scary thing is that these days, you can't trust a single-thing that the US government says or does -- so why would you think that this was a new thing?

To he honest, I don't know if the moon landings were faked but, given the technology of the day (especially computer tech), I for one would *never* have signed up to be an astronaut on those missions.

Given the way governments of the world have proven themselves to be highly deceptive and untrustworty and much as I'd love to believe that all the stuff I saw as a kid in respect to the moon landings was true... there *has* to be a haunting doubt in the back of my mind.

I'm not going to say either way -- except that I would *not* be surprised if the conspiracy theorists were, at some stage in the distant future, proven right.

Comment: Re:Won't catch on. (Score 1) 98 98

Absolutely correct. We always have a few spare pairs of goggles and/or an LCD monitor for spectators to use and that's what makes the difference.

Spectators can become a passenger on any of the craft in a race, simply by changing the receiver channel on their goggles or screen. Whenever people try out the goggles or screens they're blown away and have nothing but a long list of superlatives streaming from their mouths.

Imagine streaming this stuff live over the Net from each of the craft being raced and allowing viewers (from anywhere in the world) to switch back and forth between craft. That's one thing F1 racing doesn't offer and yet F1 is a very popular spectator sport with far fewer crashes and much less adrenaline on the part of spectators.

Comment: Re:Let's go to the next level (Score 1) 98 98

Even a slight mid-air collision tends to knock both quads to the ground with significant damage.

BS. The 250-sized mini racing quads are tough -- EXTREMELY tough. They're designed to withstand enormous punishment and a mid-air collision is unlikely to produce any more than a broken prop or two -- I know, I race every weekend and the only bits I have to replace are propellers, despite a large number of crashes.

Comment: Re:USA in good company... (Score 5, Insightful) 649 649

Not only that... but when I read stories in the media of a tyranical state executing those who they allege have committed crimes against their culture or religion I usually think ISIS and some guy with a sword, gun or flamethrower -- yet once again, this time, it is the good old US of A who plans to engage in such an act of barbarism.

How sad it is that the USA stoops to such hypocrisy while on the one hand condemning ISIS, Al Qaeda etc, yet on the other, engaging in exactly the same acts of cruelty and disregard for human life that they do.

ISIS and Al Qaeda kill innocent people by way of suicide bombings, executions etc. The USA kills innocent people (and call it collateral damage) by way of drone strikes on people they merely "suspect" of being "insurgents" and engage in executions of those who they find guilty of breaching their legal and moral standards.

Those who deserve to lead do so by example -- not by saying "do as we say, not as we do". Sadly, the USA doesn't have the testicular fortitude to do so and prefers instead to preach from the bible of hypocrisy.

Tragic.

My sympathies to all US citizens -- your government and your judiciary is making you look bad.

Far better to lock this guy up for the rest of his natural life so that you can retain the "moral high ground" -- whilst also ensuring that he does suffer for his crime, for a lot longer than a few minutes on a table or in a chair.

Comment: Re:AH hahaha only 33000 rpm? (Score 1) 72 72

Yep, "it idles" woohoo!

Not only that but the parts I saw being modeled and printed were low-stress components such as the stand (wow!) and the exhaust tube.

Were the compressor and turbine wheels printed? Those are the crucial parts and the ones exposed to maximum stress.

A great proof of concept but they tell us that this was made using materials "not available to the hobby industry" so why does it perform so poorly, especially since they claim to have enhanced the design.

I smell marketing department hype here ;-)

Comment: Re:Google's YouTube no different (Score 1) 90 90

Yeah, I watermark my videos but on several occasions these script-kiddies have copied my *entire* channel -- every single video!

In that case I can't see any upside to what they're doing ;-!

And in those cases I had filed over 24 copyright strikes against each channel -- and all that YouTube did was remove each video as I flagged it -- but the channels were still operating -- until several weeks later -- after I had *laboriously* filed even more complaints about the remaining videos. That's a hell of a lot of work so I ask again... what happened to the 3-strikes policy in such cases?

Comment: Re:Opposite of Youtube? (Score 2) 90 90

That's what Google *claim* but, as I mentioned in a previous post, there are some channels against which I've filed up to a *dozen* copyright complaints against and they're still there -- still carrying content for which they do not have copyright (ie: stuff from other channels they've downloaded and then re-uploaded without permission.

They seem *VERY* selective about when they actually enforce their copyright strikes in my experience.

Here's another of the script-generated channels that are being created by downloading and re-uploading other people's popular YouTube videos

Mavi Kocaeli

Now you *KNOW* that this channel has been generated by a download/re-upload script and people will file copyright complaints but chances are that it will still be there in a month's time and by then the videos will have been monetized and earning the script-user a small but useful amount of cash -- money that should have been going into the pockets of the original creators/uploaders.

And here's another one that is already monetizing other people's re-uploaded videos: Kasandra Sahr.

Where's the "three strikes" policy now?

And why hasn't YouTube automatically flagged new channels that upload large numbers of videos within a few hours -- because most people don't do that -- only scripts do that.

The UNIX philosophy basically involves giving you enough rope to hang yourself. And then a couple of feet more, just to be sure.

Working...