Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?
Compare cell phone plans using Wirefly's innovative plan comparison tool ×

Comment Re:Next Phase (Score 1) 407

The speed is less important than energy delivered at site of impact. [...] Fan rotors move slower, but are more massive, and have more total energy behind them. You dont need something to be sharp or fast moving to cut you in half; it just needs to exert enough energy over a small area to cause mechanical shear of your body.

Okay, let's try to stay on topic.

Getting a loop of wire from a wench wrapped around a leg and slowly slooped up will chop it off just as surely as if the wire was moving fast but at less torque.

Unless the wire catches on a bone, and the wire is thin enough to snap there. But let's fucking stay on topic. We don't need ridiculous examples designed to distract people because they contain an injury to discuss the topic at hand, you sensationalist nutter.

In fact, there are multiple factors involved in determining how much force it's going to require to break the silly string, and in how much force is being delivered. One of the factors is the force applied, one of the factors is the time in which the force is applied and how that affects the material in question, one of the factors is the quantity of material the force is being spread out across. And in spite of being a lot smaller and less massive, the tip of a quadcopter blade is going to impart a lot more energy to a much smaller section of silly string than a metal fan blade is, because the fan blade is squared off (being stamped from a piece of metal) while the tip of a rotor is very sharp, and the rotor is moving much much faster and F=MA. There's a lot more A in the quadcopter system. But wait, there's more; you only have to consider the effect of its mass until the string breaks. If the string breaks at a level of force which can be achieved with the current acceleration at lower than the actual mass, then the additional mass of the rotor is irrelevant here.

There are lots of other factors, but these are the ones that we've been talking about in this discussion already.

To be a proper experiment, it needs to be a high speed metal bladed fan, with big heavy blades. I can probably find one if I look hard enough.

Only the speed is likely to be relevant, and it will still have a dramatically lower tip velocity than a quadcopter doing anything but hovering.

Comment Re:"topic of discussion for many across the world" (Score 1) 98

Since when is CNN left?

So you mean the external renaming to 'Clinton News Network' was only because the letters matched?

So you mean the external renaming to 'Clinton News Network' was only because the letters matched?

Clinton is not a liberal. She is a neocon. Trump is not a conservative. He is just a sleazebag.

I never said she was a liberal, historically liberals believe in personal liberty... she does not. She's very much a illiberal progressive.

What? You just contradicted yourself there completely, smart guy. Care to rephrase your sentence until it makes sense? Here, this might help. Don't go alone, take one of these. Maybe then you'll have some idea what the words you're using mean.

Comment Re:Case Backwards (Score 1) 407

What then is the appropriate care to bring down an unmanned unattended object hovering over your property out of arms reach?

There is none. The proper legal remedy is to follow it "home" and sue the owner. You have no right to damage someone else's property, just because you feel like it, even if it's on your property. This is solidified in the case law around owned objects left on your property, such as someone illegally parking on your lawn. You aren't allowed to slash all 4 tires to ensure it's immobile until you can call a tow truck to haul it away.

Perhaps throwing small rocks at the drone, or turning a hose on it would be appropriate. Something to indicate it's unwanted, but causes little to no direct damage (though may cause a crash, which would cause more damage). Similar to a boot on a car, which causes no direct damage, but could damage the car if it's driven off, and could cause minor unintended damage, such as scratches on the wheels.

Comment Re:Case Backwards (Score 1) 407

Enable HA failed.Update object 44 failed, stale object state.

A drone can't trespass. A person can, a device can't. If you come home and find someone else parked their car in your yard, you can't yell "trespass" and shoot it. A drone would be treated like an unattended vehicle. You must use appropriate care, or you are liable.

Comment Re:Drones might have weapons. (Score 1) 407

Drone haters pre-date drones. "drone" isn't even a very good word for it. RC airplanes have been around for many years. I remember waking up to them on weekend mornings, flying from the school near me (two soccer fields in an "L" shape, space for maneuvers, but in the middle of a residential area.

Today, many smaller drones are insect-quiet battery powered units, but "in the day" all the "drones" were fuel powered. and noisy. I can't say gasoline, or IC, because there were gasoline jet drones, and ones that ran on non-gasoline fuels.

The drone operators deserved the hate they attracted. Then the next generation suffered from it. But it wasn't unearned.

Comment Re:Next Phase (Score 1) 407

I was gifted a cheap quadcopter for christmas. It was so quiet that I could sneak it up on people and land it on their head. The air movement gave it away before the sound did. The $1500 monsters are louder, but not so loud that they'd disturb someone inside a house if someone outside was playing with one.

Comment Re:Next Phase (Score 1) 407

A thought occurs to me. Functionally, a desk fan with metal blades is an appropriate analog for a drone rotor if the housing is removed.

Aside from the speed not even being in the same ballpark, sure. If that doesn't work, then it certainly won't work on a drone. If that does work, it might work on a drone, or at least, one which is only hovering and not actually going places.

Comment Re:Next Phase (Score 1) 407

"those things" aren't loud. "that thing" may have been. A battery-powered quadcopter shouldn't be any louder than a large insect.

The loud ones are fuel-powered, and they are not designed for stealth. When he's peeking in the window, it's not to see stuff, but to show off his new toy. Had he wanted to spy on you, he'd have gotten one of the quiet ones.

Comment Re:Drones might have weapons. (Score 1) 407

Umm... you really think shooting at a flying bomb overhead is a GOOD idea? If so, remind me to steer clear of you.

Bomb is extremely hyperbolic. "Incendiary device" is the term you're looking for there. Unless, of course, it runs on compressed hydrogen (or another flammable gas) with a fuel cell.

Slashdot Top Deals

If you think the system is working, ask someone who's waiting for a prompt.