3 ms·

I wasn't aware the FCC was going to use that money to buy malaria nets. Each life is worth a star, but the price of a life is far lower. I wasn't aware the pu

I wasn't aware the FCC was going to use that money to buy malaria nets. Each life is worth a star, but the price of a life is far lower. I wasn't aware the purpose of government fines was bronze-age eye-for-an-eye-ism. But if it is, then I'd point out he didn't kill anyone.

Sodman 6y ago
He didn't kill anyone this time. There's a non-zero chance of transmitter failure, or a "flyaway", where the drone basically enters full-power to the rotors and just goes whatever direction it happens to be pointed in. In such a situation, it could easily cause a car accident, or crash through the window of a tall building, or worst-case scenario - which these laws are very much trying to prevent - it could end up in the engine of a plane coming in to land and endangering the hundreds of people on board. If this drone was urgently delivering an organ for a transplant across the city, and flown by a professional operator with clearance from local airspace authorities, as well as multiple redundant systems to prevent catastrophic failure - then it's definitely worth the risk. But obviously that's not the case here, this was an amateur playing with a toy in order to make a youtube video. As such, it should only be allowed in the lowest risk environments - like big empty fields far away from people and airports.
- hh3k0 6y ago
  > There's a non-zero chance of transmitter failure, or a "flyaway", where the drone basically enters full-power to the rotors and just goes whatever direction it happens to be pointed in. And he has _intentionally_ lost contact with his drone: > These clips also revealed flight in hazardous conditions including heavy rain, fog, snow, and close proximity to buildings in downtown Philadelphia. There was also posted proof of the pilot intentionally losing radio signal, and control, of his drone.

Sodman 6y ago

He didn't kill anyone this time. There's a non-zero chance of transmitter failure, or a "flyaway", where the drone basically enters full-power to the rotors and just goes whatever direction it happens to be pointed in. In such a situation, it could easily cause a car accident, or crash through the window of a tall building, or worst-case scenario - which these laws are very much trying to prevent - it could end up in the engine of a plane coming in to land and endangering the hundreds of people on board. If this drone was urgently delivering an organ for a transplant across the city, and flown by a professional operator with clearance from local airspace authorities, as well as multiple redundant systems to prevent catastrophic failure - then it's definitely worth the risk. But obviously that's not the case here, this was an amateur playing with a toy in order to make a youtube video. As such, it should only be allowed in the lowest risk environments - like big empty fields far away from people and airports.

hh3k0 6y ago
> There's a non-zero chance of transmitter failure, or a "flyaway", where the drone basically enters full-power to the rotors and just goes whatever direction it happens to be pointed in. And he has _intentionally_ lost contact with his drone: > These clips also revealed flight in hazardous conditions including heavy rain, fog, snow, and close proximity to buildings in downtown Philadelphia. There was also posted proof of the pilot intentionally losing radio signal, and control, of his drone.