Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:There is no regulation against such use. (Score 1) 73

Except that they're saying that the registration for new purchases has to take place at the time of the purchase, before the device is used.

Where exactly are they saying this?

Before it's flown outdoors you must be registered and it must be labeled, yes, but I'm not aware of anything saying it must be done at the point of purchase or that it is needed before it's even flown indoors.

So ... citation?

Comment Re:What the hell is this crap? (Score 1) 73

It's not limited to propeller-aircraft; ultralight rubberband power fixed-wing is a popular indoor option.

Uh... how are those ultraight rubberband-powered fixed-wing powered, if not by propellers?

I've seen model aircraft that were powered by flapping their wings like a bird.

Also, it's not really ultralight or rubberband powered, but turbine (i.e. jet) powered model aircraft are certainly a thing.

And finally ... unpowered gliders are quite popular, even indoors.

But yes, context suggests that the person who wrote that probably meant "multicopters" or "electrically powered aircraft" rather than "propeller-aircraft". You've done us all a great service in drawing attention to the less than ideal choice of words ...

Comment Re:There is no regulation against such use. (Score 2) 73

Especially since going indoors doesn't exempt them from that dubious new registration program anyway: if it flies by remote control and it weighs more than half a pound, it has to be registered before it ever flies

No, the FAA says otherwise.

From their FAQ --

Q22. If I only fly it indoors, do I have to register it?
A. No, the FAA does not regulate indoor UAS use.

Now, given that they haven't even really written the regulations for much of this stuff yet, and it's largely based on advisory circulars and FAQs and such, it's possible that whenever they do get off their butt and write the actual rules that they could say something else, but for now ... they explicitly say you don't have to register anything that only flies indoors.

Also, they aren't registering model aircraft anyways -- they're registering pilots, and then requiring that the pilot's registration information be on the model aircraft. (After all, when you go to your site, do you tell them about your models? No, not a thing -- instead you just tell them about yourself.)

Comment Re:Citizens recording (Score 1) 202

And it is quite foolish to assume that cops want to actually be held accountable.

Remember, there's two sides of "being held accountable" --

1. if they screw up, we know they screwed up -- the evidence is likely to be right there on video.
2. if they *don't* screw up, we know that too -- the evidence is likely to be right there on video.

Cameras don't just help hold them accountable for when they screw up -- they also help to hold them accountable for when they do everything right but somebody else might think they screwed up.

Comment Re:The Internet of Things is Stupid (IOTIS) (Score 1) 118

Smart phones are stupid. they cost privacy and security. They are expensive and you don't get any benefits.

Clearly, the users of these phones think there are some benefits or they wouldn't use them.

And given than the phones *are* expensive (at least the good ones), clearly the users think those benefits are worth paying a lot for.

Comment Re:Apple (Score 1) 25

They don't sell products where you need to crack a manual and read for a week before you can get started.

Heh, that's ... interesting.

You're not wrong, and yet that's exactly what the Apple ][ was. It came with a complete dis-assembly of the 6502 monitor code included in it, for heaven's sake!

I guess that they've changed somewhat since then ...

Comment Re:Why do some people want to prevent photography (Score 1) 280

Soon we will only be able to take photographs of people in the nude in a wilderness

I take it that you're assuming that $DIETY will not come out and assert copyright on His own works?

Actually, the parents could claim copyright on their children's bodies, and so could their grandparents (derivative works), etc.

At some point this becomes ridiculous. Food? The point has already passed, clearly.

Comment Re:It doesn't have to be perfect. (Score 1) 57

There's another confounding factor to this ... every autonomous car collision will be documented in exquisite detail, but in a format that few are familiar with.

So ... if the logs say that the car was at fault, people will use that to crucify those responsible for the car. And if the logs say that the pedestrian was at fault ... people will say that the logs were altered, incomplete, etc. and use those claims (accurate or not) to crucify those responsible for the car. And if something went wrong and there are no logs ... that too will be used to crucify those responsible for the car.

Comment Re:"I was spying on you from 200 feet, not 60!" (Score 1) 528

At 200 feet, a wide angle GoPro picture of somebody can't even identify their face, even at maximum resolution when you zoom in on the picture all you can.

Even at 60 feet, you'll have a hard time identifying somebody.

To really spy on somebody, especially if you want to be a peeping tom, you'll have to come in close. Ten feet, perhaps?

Comment Re:Really? (Score 1) 528

is that shooting vertically, at a drone above you, limits the maximum range of the shot.

Of course it does.

However, by how much? That's pretty easy to estimate. If we can ignore air resistance, if we shoot something upwards and it travels 200 feet ... sqrt(2 * g * 200 feet) is 113 feet per second. The object will have lost 113 fps due to the gain in altitude.

Now, of course we can't ignore the air resistance, but we can't ignore it when shooting horizontally either, and the 113 fps slowing simply due to the altitude gain is still accurate.

How does that compare to the speed of a shotgun out of the gun? From what I can find, that's usually around 1000-1300 fps, so it's only 1/10th of the shotgun blast's initial speed.

Based on that ... I would expect that shooting straight up at something 200 feet up vs something 200 feet horizontally would reduce your range by around 10% at most.

Comment Re:Really? (Score 2) 528

the drone pilot came storming over to the owners property and menaced the owner.

And how do you/they know that? Oh yeah, the owner told them.

The previous article had *nothing* from the point of view of the pilot, all you heard from was the oh so reasonable owner -- how he carefully used the safest shot, how it was hovering over his daughter, how it wasn't the first incident, how his careful display of force is what kept the belligerent pilot and his crew at bay, how he doesn't dislike "drones" -- he thinks they're fine and dandy, etc. Personally, it sounds like he was setting himself up to be the "reasonable man" and it's not clear how much of that was actually true.

Ultimately, if we can't trust the telemetry to be unmodified ... we can't trust the statements of the homeowner either.

In any event, the police were there and spoke to everybody involved, and they only arrested one person ...

Slashdot Top Deals