6 ms·
Amazon drones are coming to town. Some locals want to shoot them
- throwaway894345 4y ago> Amazon drones are coming to town. Some locals want to shoot them down FTFY
- Slartie 4y agoI actually interpolated the word "down" at the end of the title. I was totally sure I've read it and only noticed that it wasn't really there when I saw your comment.
- soraki_soladead 4y agoThat seems like a distinction without a difference.
- snoopy_telex 4y ago
- throwaway894345 4y agoI丅 尺卄丫从乇丂
- BitwiseFool 4y agoEven better: "Skeet shooting with a prize"
- oldstyle 4y agoSignal jammers and general wireless interference could cause major issues with these drones
- mig39 4y agoIf they're like some consumer and commercial drones, they can be pre-programmed to complete a "mission" whether or not they're in contact with the controller. So line-of-sight, signal strength and interference doesn't matter much. You pre-program a flight with GPS coordinates, and then just send the drone on its way. Check out https://flylitchi.com https://flylitchi.com and the "mission hub" ... that's what I use for DJI drones.
- sparrish 4y agoI think they'd still need a GPS signal to complete a mission offline and most jammers can muck up GPS signals as well. It would be flying by sight (camera) only and I don't know of any drone that can do that.
- chillingeffect 4y agoGps is jammable and spoofable. https://ctstechnologys.com/gps-spoofing-technology
- outworlder 4y agoYou start generating significant interference, you'll invite a black van with funny antenna to your neighborhood.
- the_only_law 4y agoI mean if you start firing shots you're attracting attention too.
- hn_version_0023 4y agoDepends on the neighborhood?
- rhcom2 4y agoAnd get yourself a visit from the FCC
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- coffeefirst 4y agoThat's true, but it would be much more fun to get your own drone and program it to chase them.
- umvi 4y agoWell if it becomes a cat/mouse game, the drones could start shielding their electronics and employing backup navigation methods if GPS fails (think robotic-sextant-style celestial navigation). Of course, a robotic sextant is not going to be as accurate as GPS, but I bet you could get within 100-200m of your destination.
- Beta-7 4y agoThey are also highly illegal.
- thrill 4y agoRadio jamming to interfere with aircraft navigation is a federal crime.
- txsoftwaredev 4y agoIf this type of delivery works and takes off can you imagine the noise pollution from all the drones flying around?
- plandis 4y agoAs opposed to the roaring diesel engines of current delivery trucks?
- willcipriano 4y agoThey will still have those. I don't imagine the drones are delivering furniture.
- pkulak 4y agoBut a truck isn't an entire round trip for every item.
- outworlder 4y agoNo, but it is a round trip - for your item. Unless your neighbors have ordered stuff that's arriving at the same time.
- pkulak 4y agoThe additional distance for my item is only the distance between the last stop and my house. Usually one or two blocks, in my experience.
- JohnFen 4y agoThe sound of trucks is annoying, but far less annoying than the sound of drones.
- bumby 4y agoIs there a legitimate reason why, like the annoyance is related to the frequency response? Or is it just because we've become accustomed to internal combustion engine noise?
- xwdv 4y agoYou shoot an aircraft, you’re going to prison. Simple as that.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- sparrish 4y agoIf a drone endangers my family or property, it's going to have an 'accident'. Simple as that.
- shadowgovt 4y agoWhy open oneself up to liability by attacking the drone when you could just sue Amazon for reckless endangerment?
- sparrish 4y agoWho says I couldn't do both. Neutralize the danger and sue.
- recursive 4y agoAssuming you're not joking, you would do this to get a quick and effective resolution.
- shadowgovt 4y agoOf what kind? Because the next thing that happens is a lawsuit slapped on your desk by a very rich company for property destruction. They have a vested interest in protecting not only the property but also the business model so they will use the law to maximize punishment for such behavior. And the downside to shooting down a drone is the telemetry it collects makes it pretty easy to prove the shooter is the aggressor and Amazon's following all relevant local laws. Going on the legal offensive and putting them in the position to prove they're doing no harm (including a discovery process to confirm their telemetry isn't gamed or flawed) is a much better tactic. Still a legal uphill battle, but one you're signing yourself up for anyway if you take a gun to an Amazon drone. At least this way it's on your terms, not theirs.
- happyopossum 4y agoSuper clickbait title - an archery store owner joked about 'target practice' and now the locals want to shoot all the drones down. Typical classist BS about 'those stupid hicks'...
- throwaway894345 4y agoReminds me of that time a BuzzFeed News reporter ventured away from the coasts, (allegedly) met a local who rambled about Starbucks Christmas cups, and wrote about how Christians are outraged about Starbugs Christmas cups.
- alphabettsy 4y agoSeems plausible and I don’t know why they had to venture from the coasts. https://youtu.be/e7TVQGu14bo https://youtu.be/e7TVQGu14bo Bill O’Reilly of Fox News among other prominent Christian conservatives repeatedly talked about the “War on Christmas”, which Donald Trump more recently claimed he won.
- throwaway894345 4y ago"Seems plausible" doesn't seem like a good justification for fabricating a news story, but ethics be damned when there are clicks to sell.
- alphabettsy 4y agoWho said it is? You are suggesting the Buzzfeed story was fabricated without providing any evidence.
- madrox 4y agoIndeed. The bulk of the article is about how few local residents actually knew about the drone plan. The only real concrete thing in this article is from one man who was concerned the drones would be capturing imagery of his backyard.
- jimmyjazz14 4y agoI'm gonna have to side with the locals on this one drone delivery seems more disruptive and potentially dangerous than the tiny benefits it might provide.
- shadowgovt 4y agoI haven't seen any studies suggesting this is the case, and they've been testing for years. Do you have a source on this? Noise is the only concern I'm aware of.
- hn_version_0023 4y agoAs soon as a package falls from the sky and injures a child … out will come the knives.
- xxpor 4y agoBecause that's what happens when a UPS truck runs over a kid, right?
- hn_version_0023 4y agoHonestly if it had happened enough, yes, the metaphorical knives would be drawn by some politicians seeking to capitalize on it for their gain. This is always what happens. Combine it with a new thing no one really seems to want and a dead kid? What do you think would happen?
- xxpor 4y agoPeople will react completely irrationally as they tend to do.
- bryanlarsen 4y agoSeems less likely than a delivery van hitting a child.
- jrm4 4y agoSeems fair.
- Melatonic 4y agoIf this happens there is going to be a generation of rebel kids who specialize in finding creative ways to take these things down and steal the packages.
- glouwbug 4y agoI remember way back in 2015 we had security personnel and strange dudes in orange suits walking around the beach playing with drones. That same week I saw a news article headlined "Amazon secretly testing drones near the border"[1]. Pretty fun. They haven't figured out a solution in ~10 years. Good luck I guess [1] https://www.cbc.ca/news/science/amazon-tests-delivery-drones-at-a-secret-site-in-canada-here-s-why-1.3015425 https://www.cbc.ca/news/science/amazon-tests-delivery-drones...
- hn_version_0023 4y agoThe only people that want this seem to be Amazon execs… obviously so they no longer need to employ delivery drivers. I’m not particularly inclined to let them, but I don’t have the money to pay off politicians, which is how I’m assuming this is coming to pass. I guess that means I side with the locals. Lets capture these things and return them as piles of parts to Amazon.
- daenz 4y agoSomeone should patent a rooftop landing guide apparatus for drones that can be retrofitted on buildings. A drone would use it to visually sync with it to know where it should land, and deposit the package into a standardized climate-controlled package receptacle. Then you just need to get the packages into the building somehow.
- AlbertCory 4y agoIf only there was a way to easily search for patents on a specific topic! [1] [1] https://patents.google.com/?q=drone+landing&oq=drone+landing https://patents.google.com/?q=drone+landing&oq=drone+landing
- daenz 4y agoI guess I should have looked through all 59,855 patents before commenting!
- Cupertino95014 4y agoThe fact that there are almost 60K patents should tell you it's not an unexplored space.
- daenz 4y agoI'm aware :) It sounds like the message here is "it's probably already been done, but I can't prove it, but i don't like the implication that it isn't already patented."
- Cupertino95014 4y agoThe PTO will find it for you, I guarantee that :) But the ante is a non-provisional patent filing fee. (They don't examine provisionals.)
- ilikehurdles 4y agoI don’t know about y’all but I’m pretty tired of big tech’s “disrupt first, lobby government for permission later” approach to profiteering off the less regulated aspects of society. I’ve soured on a lot of the (often yc-backed) unicorns that came out of the early 2010s.
- umvi 4y ago(serious) Are there any examples of new/innovative/disruptive technologies that got government permission first before successfully launching?
- ilikehurdles 4y agoFair question and I don’t have an answer. It makes me wonder how disruptive the earlier approaches to cars and railroads were.
- JoeAltmaier 4y agoSo different from big-auto creating cars and scaring the horses. Or big-electricity burning the city down with their wires all over the place. Nothing new under the sun.
- karaterobot 4y agoBad headline, because it'd sensationalist. But, the article was okay. It gets at the clash between tech companies who are excited about testing out some new thing they think will be big, and the actual, real people who become their non-consenting experimental subjects. As a product person, I can understand the people working on this thinking it's a win-win for everybody, but I can also sympathize with any residents who think they have no reason to trust Amazon. In particular: > [An Amazon spokesperson said] The company’s drone “does not capture imagery from underneath when it is flying to its delivery destination and back” and doesn’t use that data for any other purpose. I have low confidence that the spirit of that statement is true today, given all the places in that sentence that leave room for interpretation, and I have every confidence that they would gladly use a fleet of drones to capture valuable image data once it's in place and people are used to it.
- 3qz 4y agoVery bad news. Every drone I see is a reminder that other people can afford houses and I never will. I will be picking up a BB gun or slingshot soon.
- snoopy_telex 4y ago
- Cupertino95014 4y agoShooting at them has the risk of law enforcement action (destroying property, unlawful discharge of a weapon, reckless endangerment). Electronic interference runs the risk of FCC attention. But passive barriers (nets that are invisible to the drones' sensors) - now that doesn't have an obvious risk. They don't even have to destroy the drone: "Here, Amazon, this one seems to have something wrong with it!"
- thrill 4y agoShooting at an aircraft is a federal crime.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- falcolas 4y agoClickbait aside, I can't say that I do not understand this point of view. Amazon is Weyland-Yutani. It is Tyrell Corporation. It is IOI. It's a Snow Crash FOQNE. Wanting to rebel against "The Corporation" is a pretty common reaction when you see a megacorp consuming the world.