6 ms·

Radio controlled quadcopters, whether navigating automatically or not, fall under the definition of "drone". The terminology is fine, and the attempt at redefin

Radio controlled quadcopters, whether navigating automatically or not, fall under the definition of "drone". The terminology is fine, and the attempt at redefinition is a losing battle.

q3k 12y ago
The terminology is not fine when used in an article - this word can mean: - a cheap Chinese $10 toy that goes out of range after 300m - a racing quadrocopter built at a hackerspace to research autonomous operation, with a tracking GPS, hour-long battery life and first-person-view camera - a professional, thousands-of-dollars, remotely controlled photo rig - a military machine designed to kill human beings in a semi-autonomous manner If I saw one of these near my house I wouldn't so much as blink. If I saw another I would be immediately relocating to another country.
- engendered 12y ago
  And you really read this article and think "Oh, they might be talking about a missile-equipped military drone"? Of course you don't. This is pedantry nonsense that, while becoming common, is really that someone wants to argue, in utter futility, about the definition of a word. For years HN was caught up naval gazing about the difference between hacker and cracker. Now it is this drone garbage.
  - d_theorist 12y ago
    I think you mean "pedantic nonsense".
  - TeMPOraL 12y ago
    It is important, because it shines light on the seriousness and meaningfulness of the issue. Of course I wasn't thinking about an armed Predator (I mentioned it only to highlight the high end of the scope of things that people call "drones"). But here are some questions I'd like the article to answer: - Was it a helicopter or a fixed-wing aircraft? - Was it something small or the kind of fixed-wing that companies use to do terrain imaging (think 3x4 meters, $10k+/piece)? - Was it a cheap radio-controlled toy or something capable of flying BVR or autonomously? - If fixed wing, was it a proppeler plane or a jet? A lot depends on those answers. If that was just a random dude who bought a Phantom off eBay, then it's not really worth even writing about. On the other hand, it that was a model jet, it has very serious safety implications related to both speed and the noise its engines generate. Furthermore, if that was just an RC heli then again it's probably nothing, while if it was a long-flight-duration BVR/autonomous vehicle, it could be anything from a shady company doing something illegal to criminals scoping places for a strike. Reading this article, I can't really be sure if that "mysterious drone" was any of the above, or if someone just strapped few LEDs to a pidgeon. As for lumping everything under the name "drone" - for the last few years when you saw a news article with the word "drone" in it, it was usually followed by either a causalty count or remarks about police power abuse. People are scared of this term. Also, it feels sort of weird to call a cheap toy-quadcopter "a drone", much in the same way as calling a tank "a car".
    - engendered 12y ago
      You know it wasn't fixed wing. You know it wasn't a helicopter. These are both absurd misdirections to try to justify the nonsensical demands for specificity. Reading this article, I can't really be sure if that "mysterious drone" was any of the above, or if someone just strapped few LEDs to a pidgeon. 99.9% of readers read the article and knew it was quadcoptors. The 0.1% knew it was quadcopters, but want to engage in a ridiculous bit of nonsense on HN, playing to the crowd. much in the same way as calling a tank "a car" Hardly, and that analogy is absurd. More like if a bomb went off in a cafe you would be declaring that "IS IT A NUCLEAR BOMB? WAS IT A PLASTIC BOMB? A TNT BOMB? A BLACK POWDER BOMB? A REPURPOSED ARTILLERY SHELL WARHEAD? A...." It's just noise. Noisy bullshit that is ruining HN.
      - TeMPOraL 12y ago
        > You know it wasn't fixed wing. You know it wasn't a helicopter. These are both absurd misdirections to try to justify the nonsensical demands for specificity. I really don't know. It's nowhere in the article - neither stated nor implied. > 99.9% of readers read the article and knew it was quadcoptors. [citation needed] > The 0.1% knew it was quadcopters, but want to engage in a ridiculous bit of nonsense on HN, playing to the crowd. Excuse me for trying to get a coherent picture out of that article. Also, you realize that contemporary journalism is mostly misleading mixed with blatant lies? I'd be wary of accepting as a fact whatever is not stated but what you're led to implicitly belive. > "IS IT A NUCLEAR BOMB? WAS IT A PLASTIC BOMB? A TNT BOMB? A BLACK POWDER BOMB? A REPURPOSED ARTILLERY SHELL WARHEAD? A...." Nope. Try a headline "a mysterious explosion occured, no one got hurt" and me asking whether it was a gas explosion, a conventional explosive, or just some random kid who discovered that mixing potassium nitrate with sugar leads to fun things happening.
- filoeleven 12y ago
  > If I saw one of these near my house I wouldn't so much as blink. If I saw another I would be immediately relocating to another country. So one is not a threat, but two are? (Pedantry begets pedantry.) Overloading the term "drone" with all of the meanings above may not be optimal, but if enough context is given to roughly determine the class of drone under discussion then there is no reason to complain. The article mentions the following: "Small drones are inexpensive and easy to buy but their appearance in recent months over sensitive locations has worried French authorities."
d_theorist 12y ago
Fine, but they don't specify. The objection is against vagueness, not inaccuracy.
CamperBob2 12y ago
No, it's not even remotely "fine." Would you consider it "fine" if the media couldn't distinguish between an Airsoft gun and a bazooka? That's exactly what's happening when the term "drone" is applied to everything in the air that doesn't have a pilot on board.
- engendered 12y ago
  They clarified specifically what they meant. Zero reasonable readers came out of that article confused to any degree. This is classic HN autism, and this "hurr durrr drone" bullshit appears in each and every thread that mentions "drones", even if every single participant knows what they're talking about, without specifically declaring that it's an XYZ. Don't be the problem. Don't be the noise. Don't be the stupidity.
  - TeMPOraL 12y ago
    Since I'm apparently not a reasonable reader, please correct me and answer the questions I seek answers to that I mentioned elsewhere in the thread[0]. [0] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9107812 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9107812

Radio controlled quadcopters, whether navigating automatically or not, fall under the definition of "drone". The terminology is fine, and the attempt at redefinition is a losing battle.

q3k 12y ago

The terminology is not fine when used in an article - this word can mean: - a cheap Chinese $10 toy that goes out of range after 300m - a racing quadrocopter built at a hackerspace to research autonomous operation, with a tracking GPS, hour-long battery life and first-person-view camera - a professional, thousands-of-dollars, remotely controlled photo rig - a military machine designed to kill human beings in a semi-autonomous manner If I saw one of these near my house I wouldn't so much as blink. If I saw another I would be immediately relocating to another country.

engendered 12y ago
And you really read this article and think "Oh, they might be talking about a missile-equipped military drone"? Of course you don't. This is pedantry nonsense that, while becoming common, is really that someone wants to argue, in utter futility, about the definition of a word. For years HN was caught up naval gazing about the difference between hacker and cracker. Now it is this drone garbage.
- d_theorist 12y ago
  I think you mean "pedantic nonsense".
- TeMPOraL 12y ago
  It is important, because it shines light on the seriousness and meaningfulness of the issue. Of course I wasn't thinking about an armed Predator (I mentioned it only to highlight the high end of the scope of things that people call "drones"). But here are some questions I'd like the article to answer: - Was it a helicopter or a fixed-wing aircraft? - Was it something small or the kind of fixed-wing that companies use to do terrain imaging (think 3x4 meters, $10k+/piece)? - Was it a cheap radio-controlled toy or something capable of flying BVR or autonomously? - If fixed wing, was it a proppeler plane or a jet? A lot depends on those answers. If that was just a random dude who bought a Phantom off eBay, then it's not really worth even writing about. On the other hand, it that was a model jet, it has very serious safety implications related to both speed and the noise its engines generate. Furthermore, if that was just an RC heli then again it's probably nothing, while if it was a long-flight-duration BVR/autonomous vehicle, it could be anything from a shady company doing something illegal to criminals scoping places for a strike. Reading this article, I can't really be sure if that "mysterious drone" was any of the above, or if someone just strapped few LEDs to a pidgeon. As for lumping everything under the name "drone" - for the last few years when you saw a news article with the word "drone" in it, it was usually followed by either a causalty count or remarks about police power abuse. People are scared of this term. Also, it feels sort of weird to call a cheap toy-quadcopter "a drone", much in the same way as calling a tank "a car".
  - engendered 12y ago
    You know it wasn't fixed wing. You know it wasn't a helicopter. These are both absurd misdirections to try to justify the nonsensical demands for specificity. Reading this article, I can't really be sure if that "mysterious drone" was any of the above, or if someone just strapped few LEDs to a pidgeon. 99.9% of readers read the article and knew it was quadcoptors. The 0.1% knew it was quadcopters, but want to engage in a ridiculous bit of nonsense on HN, playing to the crowd. much in the same way as calling a tank "a car" Hardly, and that analogy is absurd. More like if a bomb went off in a cafe you would be declaring that "IS IT A NUCLEAR BOMB? WAS IT A PLASTIC BOMB? A TNT BOMB? A BLACK POWDER BOMB? A REPURPOSED ARTILLERY SHELL WARHEAD? A...." It's just noise. Noisy bullshit that is ruining HN.
    - TeMPOraL 12y ago
      > You know it wasn't fixed wing. You know it wasn't a helicopter. These are both absurd misdirections to try to justify the nonsensical demands for specificity. I really don't know. It's nowhere in the article - neither stated nor implied. > 99.9% of readers read the article and knew it was quadcoptors. [citation needed] > The 0.1% knew it was quadcopters, but want to engage in a ridiculous bit of nonsense on HN, playing to the crowd. Excuse me for trying to get a coherent picture out of that article. Also, you realize that contemporary journalism is mostly misleading mixed with blatant lies? I'd be wary of accepting as a fact whatever is not stated but what you're led to implicitly belive. > "IS IT A NUCLEAR BOMB? WAS IT A PLASTIC BOMB? A TNT BOMB? A BLACK POWDER BOMB? A REPURPOSED ARTILLERY SHELL WARHEAD? A...." Nope. Try a headline "a mysterious explosion occured, no one got hurt" and me asking whether it was a gas explosion, a conventional explosive, or just some random kid who discovered that mixing potassium nitrate with sugar leads to fun things happening.
filoeleven 12y ago
> If I saw one of these near my house I wouldn't so much as blink. If I saw another I would be immediately relocating to another country. So one is not a threat, but two are? (Pedantry begets pedantry.) Overloading the term "drone" with all of the meanings above may not be optimal, but if enough context is given to roughly determine the class of drone under discussion then there is no reason to complain. The article mentions the following: "Small drones are inexpensive and easy to buy but their appearance in recent months over sensitive locations has worried French authorities."

d_theorist 12y ago

Fine, but they don't specify. The objection is against vagueness, not inaccuracy.

CamperBob2 12y ago

No, it's not even remotely "fine." Would you consider it "fine" if the media couldn't distinguish between an Airsoft gun and a bazooka? That's exactly what's happening when the term "drone" is applied to everything in the air that doesn't have a pilot on board.

engendered 12y ago
They clarified specifically what they meant. Zero reasonable readers came out of that article confused to any degree. This is classic HN autism, and this "hurr durrr drone" bullshit appears in each and every thread that mentions "drones", even if every single participant knows what they're talking about, without specifically declaring that it's an XYZ. Don't be the problem. Don't be the noise. Don't be the stupidity.
- TeMPOraL 12y ago
  Since I'm apparently not a reasonable reader, please correct me and answer the questions I seek answers to that I mentioned elsewhere in the thread[0]. [0] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9107812 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9107812