In the discussion thread: Here Come the Drone Wars in America -- The Public vs. Overzealous Police [View all]
Response to Pholus (Reply #7)
Mon Jul 22, 2013, 08:03 PM
intaglio (8,020 posts)
8. Surely the point is that you are trying to convince doubters, not me
which is something your juvenile response could not do.
My "description" of Luddites was not a description, it was a comment on the flaw in their campaign and related it directly to the argument you made. If I had wished to describe them there would have been a great deal more detail.
Now let's deal with the impractical armed lightweight drone.
You have obviously done your research into armed "drones" and with your massive depth of knowledge please advise how a lightweight machine is able to control the recoil of a shotgun or light grenade launcher. You see attempting to fit the equivalent of a rocket motor on the bottom of a lifting body is not practical without a massive upgrade in engine power. A lightweight machine does not have the mass to damp the recoil effects.
Next you can advise us from your in-depth research why an overweight drone coming close to theoretically dangerous criminals or crowds is going to be more effective than an overweight police officer firing from behind a riot shield? This is especially true in the case of flash-bangs and tear gas because they are technically indirect fire weapons. Baton rounds (what you think of as rubber bullets) might be possible except for the recoil problem mentioned earlier and the horrible law suits to which the PD would be open when people are maimed. Fired tasers against a single person are feasible but here you come up against the problem that such use of tasers are a heat of the moment response, giving no time for a drone to be deployed.
Like the PD you have given as an example you seem supremely unaware of how drones are controlled. Importantly they have far less autonomy than military drones (like Predator). These machines cannot make decisions "on the fly" so the operator is critical. Most people who fly these simpler machines use the traditional watch to see where it is and make adjustments or they use preprogrammed waypoints and examine data gathered between those waypoints. Only once it has reached a given position is the on-board camera guided to look at the area of interest. A screen feed from an on-board camera as the only control at low level is impractical for 2 reasons:
1) humans either require a lot more input than just vision so a lot of extra software and hardware is needed to stop the machine crashing when in crowded areas like streets;The alternative is to loose clutter by gaining height but that looses the advantage of a machine intended for ground level operation. This gain in height does not affect the observational role of the machine because image stabilisation software will correct for much of the unavoidable jitter.
It seems to me that the unnamed PD you have said did this very stupid thing were either paid to attempt deployment for publicity or were royally rooked out of a large sum of money for an impractical system.
Finally you might explain why are still indulging in the fantasy that what you do outside is private and can in no circumstances be looked at without your permission when existing technology already "spies" on you?
So as far as I can see you have made yet another badly thought out post and the only supporting example you can find strengthens my case rather than yours.
Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Surely the point is that you are trying to convince doubters, not me
|The Straight Story||Jul 2013||#18|
|The Straight Story||Jul 2013||#23|
|Warren DeMontague||Jul 2013||#31|
|Warren DeMontague||Jul 2013||#33|
|Warren DeMontague||Jul 2013||#35|
Please login to view edit histories.