People don't like being surveilled

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by RichA, Jun 15, 2014.

  1. RichA

    RichA Guest

    RichA, Jun 15, 2014
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. RichA

    Rikishi42 Guest

    On 2014-06-15, RichA <> wrote:
    > http://petapixel.com/2014/06/09/woman-violently-attacks-photographer-beach-using-quadcopter/
    >
    > Nice overreaction on the part of the idiot beach-goer.


    Yeah, she looks like a bit of a 'tard.

    But then so does he, actually... "Help, I'm beeing assaulted!" ? Really? How
    much more fake can you be?

    He sould have packed it in when she complained. There's a time where's it's
    not about the law anymore, but about respect for others. Wouldn't wanna
    have that noisy thing overhead, myself. Especially on a beach. We might
    know/believe that the people in his vids are going to be very small, but not everyone
    does. Most people would freak out.


    Seeing that drone, there's one thing I would like: a law forcing the
    propellors of those things to be behind some kind of protection. Just in
    case of a crash, or some looser flying it in a crowd. Maybe a net/grid over
    it, maybe a cylinder around it.



    --
    When in doubt, use brute force.
    -- Ken Thompson
    Rikishi42, Jun 16, 2014
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Per Rikishi42:
    > Wouldn't wanna
    >have that noisy thing overhead, myself.


    My take is that's going to be a major issue if/when drones are used
    more. Sort of like jet-skis in the air.
    --
    Pete Cresswell
    (PeteCresswell), Jun 16, 2014
    #3
  4. RichA

    RichA Guest

    On Sunday, June 15, 2014 6:51:53 PM UTC-4, Savageduck wrote:
    > On 2014-06-15 22:25:31 +0000, RichA <> said:
    >
    >
    >
    > > http://petapixel.com/2014/06/09/woman-violently-attacks-photographer-beach-using-quadcopter/

    >
    >
    >
    > Nice
    >
    > >

    >
    > > overreaction on the part of the idiot beach-goer.

    >
    >
    >
    > The Kings fans at the Staples Center discovered that you can bring down
    >
    > an LAPD drone with shoes.
    >
    > < http://www.businessinsider.com/raging-hockey-fans-destroy-lapd-drone-2014-6


    I wonder what that thing cost the police? I caught one (on camera) the other day, it was pretty high up. Apart from the cameras, I don't see the bigdeal with these things, they are no more sophisticated as far as I can seeas the old radio-controlled planes and helicopters.
    RichA, Jun 17, 2014
    #4
  5. RichA

    Me Guest

    On 17/06/2014 6:43 a.m., (PeteCresswell) wrote:
    > Per Rikishi42:
    >> Wouldn't wanna
    >> have that noisy thing overhead, myself.

    >
    > My take is that's going to be a major issue if/when drones are used
    > more. Sort of like jet-skis in the air.
    >

    If someone was annoying/harassing me with a drone, I'd do what I could
    to take the stupid thing out of the sky.
    I don't know what current regulations are, but there is some guideline
    based on maximum weight (20kg?). But I expect a 19kg drone might not be
    good sucked in to a jet engine intake or through the windscreen of a
    Cessna. People do stupid things - there have been enough instances here
    (NZ) of idiots shining laser pointers in the eyes of pilots. Give those
    idiots drones, and they will do dumb things with them.
    Conversely, with existing regulations, I was watching a documentary
    where they were trialling drones for marine SAR. As they were much
    cheaper to deploy than helicopters, (let alone a Orion), and had quite
    good range, they'd probably get deployed sooner rather than later in
    case of a suspected incident. But as I understood from the documentary,
    those drones had to be kept in sight by the operator, defeating the main
    advantage.
    When technology is advancing quickly, there's a problem with regulation
    keeping up.
    Me, Jun 17, 2014
    #5
  6. RichA

    Me Guest

    On 17/06/2014 1:59 p.m., Savageduck wrote:
    > On 2014-06-17 01:00:44 +0000, Me <> said:
    >
    >> On 17/06/2014 6:43 a.m., (PeteCresswell) wrote:
    >>> Per Rikishi42:
    >>>> Wouldn't wanna
    >>>> have that noisy thing overhead, myself.
    >>>
    >>> My take is that's going to be a major issue if/when drones are used
    >>> more. Sort of like jet-skis in the air.
    >>>

    >> If someone was annoying/harassing me with a drone, I'd do what I could
    >> to take the stupid thing out of the sky.
    >> I don't know what current regulations are, but there is some guideline
    >> based on maximum weight (20kg?). But I expect a 19kg drone might not
    >> be good sucked in to a jet engine intake or through the windscreen of
    >> a Cessna. People do stupid things - there have been enough instances
    >> here (NZ) of idiots shining laser pointers in the eyes of pilots.
    >> Give those idiots drones, and they will do dumb things with them.
    >> Conversely, with existing regulations, I was watching a documentary
    >> where they were trialling drones for marine SAR. As they were much
    >> cheaper to deploy than helicopters, (let alone a Orion), and had quite
    >> good range, they'd probably get deployed sooner rather than later in
    >> case of a suspected incident. But as I understood from the
    >> documentary, those drones had to be kept in sight by the operator,
    >> defeating the main advantage.
    >> When technology is advancing quickly, there's a problem with
    >> regulation keeping up.

    >
    > There are Predator, and Reaper drones being operated in Afghanistan,
    > Yemen, and Africa from control centers in Nevada, Diego Garcia, locally
    > in the regions, and from US naval assets in the Gulf, Bay of Bengal, the
    > Arabian Sea, The Indian Ocean, and the South China Sea.
    >

    Something I have very mixed feelings about. It's great that Uncle Sam
    has a technical lead, and I don't have too many qualms about them taking
    out terrorist cells with no risk to US troops - and probably better
    precision than older conventional methods hence less "collateral damage".
    However, others will catch up, make and sell these devices to the
    highest bidder. They will inevitably end up being used against civilian
    targets. A sci-fi nightmare is coming.

    >
    > Then there are some medium to short range drones which can be operated
    > with local line of sight control. Just remember that none of those
    > military type drones are that similar to the RC drones discussed in this
    > article, other than they can fly and be remotely controlled.
    Me, Jun 17, 2014
    #6
  7. RichA

    Whisky-dave Guest

    On Tuesday, 17 June 2014 07:55:05 UTC+1, Me wrote:
    > On 17/06/2014 1:59 p.m., Savageduck wrote:



    >
    > Something I have very mixed feelings about. It's great that Uncle Sam
    >
    > has a technical lead, and I don't have too many qualms about them taking
    >
    > out terrorist cells with no risk to US troops -


    http://edition.cnn.com/2014/01/14/opinion/yemen-drone-strikes-reprieve/


    Some get a bit pissed off.


    >and probably better
    > precision than older conventional methods hence less "collateral damage".
    > However, others will catch up, make and sell these devices to the
    > highest bidder. They will inevitably end up being used against civilian
    > targets. A sci-fi nightmare is coming.


    I think we all should be allowed to own them just like in some contries allow guns. Just give me a few forms to sign so I can have my own drone.
    We've had one in my lab this year and we insited that the propellors were protected to minimise accidents. We also made sure the studetn had a clue, as we questioned him about short circuiting the battery (11.1V) which is capable of suppying over 400amps.
    Whisky-dave, Jun 17, 2014
    #7
  8. RichA

    J. Clarke Guest

    In article <2014061703041490728-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>,
    savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com says...
    >
    > On 2014-06-17 08:55:31 +0000, Eric Stevens <> said:
    >
    > > On Tue, 17 Jun 2014 18:55:05 +1200, Me <> wrote:
    > >
    > >> On 17/06/2014 1:59 p.m., Savageduck wrote:
    > >>> On 2014-06-17 01:00:44 +0000, Me <> said:
    > >>>
    > >>>> On 17/06/2014 6:43 a.m., (PeteCresswell) wrote:
    > >>>>> Per Rikishi42:
    > >>>>>> Wouldn't wanna
    > >>>>>> have that noisy thing overhead, myself.
    > >>>>>
    > >>>>> My take is that's going to be a major issue if/when drones are used
    > >>>>> more. Sort of like jet-skis in the air.
    > >>>>>
    > >>>> If someone was annoying/harassing me with a drone, I'd do what I could
    > >>>> to take the stupid thing out of the sky.
    > >>>> I don't know what current regulations are, but there is some guideline
    > >>>> based on maximum weight (20kg?). But I expect a 19kg drone might not
    > >>>> be good sucked in to a jet engine intake or through the windscreen of
    > >>>> a Cessna. People do stupid things - there have been enough instances
    > >>>> here (NZ) of idiots shining laser pointers in the eyes of pilots.
    > >>>> Give those idiots drones, and they will do dumb things with them.
    > >>>> Conversely, with existing regulations, I was watching a documentary
    > >>>> where they were trialling drones for marine SAR. As they were much
    > >>>> cheaper to deploy than helicopters, (let alone a Orion), and had quite
    > >>>> good range, they'd probably get deployed sooner rather than later in
    > >>>> case of a suspected incident. But as I understood from the
    > >>>> documentary, those drones had to be kept in sight by the operator,
    > >>>> defeating the main advantage.
    > >>>> When technology is advancing quickly, there's a problem with
    > >>>> regulation keeping up.
    > >>>
    > >>> There are Predator, and Reaper drones being operated in Afghanistan,
    > >>> Yemen, and Africa from control centers in Nevada, Diego Garcia, locally
    > >>> in the regions, and from US naval assets in the Gulf, Bay of Bengal, the
    > >>> Arabian Sea, The Indian Ocean, and the South China Sea.
    > >>>
    > >> Something I have very mixed feelings about. It's great that Uncle Sam
    > >> has a technical lead, and I don't have too many qualms about them taking
    > >> out terrorist cells with no risk to US troops - and probably better
    > >> precision than older conventional methods hence less "collateral damage".
    > >> However, others will catch up, make and sell these devices to the
    > >> highest bidder. They will inevitably end up being used against civilian
    > >> targets. A sci-fi nightmare is coming.

    > >
    > > They used to say things like this about gonnes.


    The thing about long-range drones is that for acts of terrorism they
    offer no benefits over a cruise missile. The advantage of a drone is
    not that it is more capable, than a missile, it is that it is reusable
    and thus cheaper to operate in the long term.

    So far no terrorists have managed to come up with cruise missiles and
    that when you get down to it is WWII technology.

    > WTF are "gonnes"?


    Archaic spelling of "gun".
    J. Clarke, Jun 17, 2014
    #8
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Pat Pending

    What if people don't like msg?

    Pat Pending, Oct 19, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    16
    Views:
    654
    slumpy
    Oct 20, 2003
  2. Mr_Bill
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    484
    Boomer
    May 5, 2004
  3. cam slade
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    826
    Oldus Fartus
    Jan 19, 2006
  4. fashion t shirts seller
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,092
    fashion t shirts seller
    Jun 13, 2011
  5. RichA

    Why don't more people like Sony?

    RichA, Nov 6, 2013, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    41
    Views:
    503
    John Turco
    Nov 27, 2013
Loading...

Share This Page