How long until our skies are filled with drones?
Displaying poll results.18499 total votes.
Most Votes
- What's the highest dollar price will Bitcoin reach in 2024? Posted on February 28th, 2024 | 8470 votes
- Will ByteDance be forced to divest TikTok Posted on March 20th, 2024 | 6325 votes
Most Comments
- What's the highest dollar price will Bitcoin reach in 2024? Posted on March 20th, 2024 | 68 comments
- Will ByteDance be forced to divest TikTok Posted on March 20th, 2024 | 20 comments
Two answers (Score:2)
Either, in the sense there are drones flying around all the time: Now.
Literally filed or overcrowded with drones: Never, what would they be doing?
Re: (Score:1)
They would be: Monitoring the population for crime prevention. Delivering products purchased over the internet. Surveying, performing search and rescue (for people's pets, because people can't get lost when drones are following them 24/7), wildlife studies, maintenance and repairs, cleaning, maintaining gardens, monitoring other drones, traffic analysis, weather observation, synthetic honey production, etc. Pretty much any task you can imagine that isn't made redundant by other technology is a good use case
Re: (Score:2)
Delivery drones only work well in US suburbs. In densely populated areas there is no landing place available near the customer. To become a valid delivery mechanism it must also be better than other options, like delivery to your workplace (home delivery does not work well, because I am not a home when they deliver). Another option would be scheduled delivery in the evening or a common thing in Germany at least, some large yellow box which spits out your parcel when you type in the correct credentials (cal
Delivery drones (Score:5, Interesting)
"Truck Driver" is the most common job in the US now (well, only because the BLS separates "Teacher" into primary and secondary.
Go out and look at a city sometime. There are thousands of cars and trucks driving around, literally filling and overcrowding the streets. Now, what would they all be doing?
Yeah, drones aren't going to replace all of that, but they've got to be a cheaper way to deliver *most* of that eventually.
Take junk mail, for example. I can see the USPS trucks becoming semi-autonomous "drone carriers" that drive crates of mail around to each neighborhood, and then idle there while a small fleet of drones deliver your junk mail to your little mailbox "drop zones".
It will be cool getting your lunch and beer delivered by drone the first few times. And then it will become commonplace.
Way far out, drones will have the capacity and rating to carry commuters. And then it will literally hit the fan, so to speak.
Re: (Score:2)
Our two living zones are obviously very different. I do not see that many delivery vehicle in the streets. And for junk mail. We have a sticker on our letter box stating that no adverts should go in here which works quite perfectly for all kind of leaflets. However, the so called personalized junk gets through. Where I live, we have six parties in the house and most other housed come with at least one additional floor. The letter boxes are indoor to avoid rubbish ending up in them. On the street the wind wo
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe the drones can fly around picking up rubbish. That's one thing the side roads are filled with where I live.
Re: (Score:2)
Better they swarm the bastards in cars that toss the junk out in the first place.
Re: (Score:2)
"There are thousands of cars and trucks driving around, literally filling and overcrowding the streets. Now, what would they all be doing?
Carrying a thousand packages each.
Now imagine not thousands of cars and trucks on the road but literally millions of drones buzzing around, each with a single package.
Imagine the sound, the inevitable crashes, the energy consumption. (I'm lousy at math and making unsound assumptions but the figure I got was ten thousand times more energy to deliver a pound a mile away.. Keep in mind that the price of energy rises, and rises, and rises..)
Re:Delivery drones (Score:4, Insightful)
Heh, it's funny, I think the exact same things about using a sea of trucks to drive around delivering everything... "imagine the sound, the inevitable crashes, the energy consumption". Every one pound package comes with several tons of vehicle and fuel to deliver it, stringing along a dozen other packages along for the ride.
Sure, trucks and trains make sense for long haul stuff, especially when the route would traverse weather systems. But we could certainly squeeze out a lot of inefficiencies by sending out the last mile via drone network.
Energy usage is actually pretty good... the drones are light relative to their cargo, so less overhead.
Batteries and electric motors have improved tremendously over the past few decades, more than double the energy can be converted into useful work nowadays with brushless motors.
Solar energy keeps getting cheaper and cheaper, down from astronomical a few decades ago (as in, they only made sense for satellites) to "competitive with natural gas" now (and they're practically giving away natural gas for free as a byproduct of fracking.
Re:Delivery drones (Score:5, Insightful)
Drone's have a couple major inefficiencies:
1) Engine's scale really well with size. Thus a train with one Diesel engine and 50 truckloads is a lot more fuel-efficiant then 50 smaller truck engines.
2) They fly. Flying is the least energy-effiicant form of transportation ever invented because you have to overcome gravity and push enough air to get yourself moving, and half the time your rated airspeed is lower then your actual groundspeed because "25 MPH airspeed East" just means you're going East 25 MPH faster then the wind 9aka: the air) is. If the winds going west Fast you could actually be creeping west.
Watch birds on a windy day. It's not uncommon for them to totally fail to fly in their chosen direction and give up. Pizza Hut is not gonna tolerate not being able to deliver to half their target market because it's really fucking windy today and their energy-efficiant drones top air-speed is too slow to go that way. They are not gonna tolerate not being able to get their drones back from the second half of their delivery market because the damn drone's airspeed isn't enough to come back.
Don't get me wrong. At some point AI will be good enough that lots of little package delivery will stop arriving in trucks driven by white working class guys who actually make a living wage. Gutting the careers of white working class guys who actually make a living wage, and then insisting they shoulda been smarter 30 years ago in High School if they wanted to not be on welfare, is the kind of thing both you and the political elite seem to take joy in.
But aerial drone delivery for everything every day is not a "next five years" thing because you'd need somebody to put a couple billion into developing a mass produceable vehicle with an air-speed in the 30s (you know when the weatherman says "Strong Breeze? that means windspeed could be as high as 31 MPH).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Even in most suburbs the door is 30 ft from the street. And why pay for a drone to go 30ft?
That's the problem with the idea in the short term. The ones that can be done with current technology just aren't a lot more useful then delivery boys, and they don't cost less then delivery boys ($10 an hour).
In the long term there'll probably be all kinds of delivery drones. Walking ones, autonomous cars that have a walking one, flying ones for clear and calm days, etc. Amazon is probably actually on the right track
Re: (Score:2)
Kind of odd you compare one of the lowest population states but then compare it to the largest city in the US, though I guess 1/2 Alaska and only 7 times the population wouldn't work well ;)
BC has better roads that Alaska. Plus over half the provinces population is in the Vancouver metropolitan area. The thing is for the out of the way places: unless we have serious advances in battery/engines drones are a really bad idea they either are doing long flights from a more populated area or an expensive piece of
Re: (Score:2)
You'll never get away from the fact that flying is extremely energy intensive and has some nasty failure modes. What happens the day the drone and cargo drops out of the sky and hits a kid on the head? Remember that a falling coconut or icicle is enough to kill, a drone clearly has lethal potential.
We're working so hard on autonomous cars, why not autonomous pedestrians? Something like this [ytimg.com] making its way to your doorstep, you swipe the card and collect your pizza. Or your package from Amazon or whatever. O
Re: (Score:2)
We'll never get away from the fact that driving tons of trucks around to deliver a few pounds of goods is extremely energy intensive and has some nasty failure modes. What happens when a truck overturns on the expressway and wipes out a few minivans full of kids? We make new trucks and new kids, apparently.
hex drones have enough redundancy to cope with common failures. It will be interesting to see if robotic flying drones or robotic driving drones will come first. I would predict flying drones, since,
Re: Delivery drones (Score:2)
Dude : droning on against disbelievers is not helpful to your cause.
Stop the frankenstienish stretched analogies. Some folk here have creative alternatives and are not trolls ; they deserve serious answers.
And yes, they are right about the danger - a sudden gust of wind that lifts a large, twisting, plastic sheet can foul all of a drone's propellors - whether 6 or 16. Which can fly it into a powerline, a soft skull, another drone, or your windshield doing 67 mph.
You do.not.want to be below one of t
Re: (Score:2)
Why can't we have land locked drones? Then we have the best of both worlds.
Re: (Score:2)
I drove for UPS this last holiday season. Most days I went out with about 400 items and because of my pickup route (they gave m
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ugh, people keep wanting to talk about how drones are soooo much more inefficient than hauling tons of truck up and down hills. Yes, trucks and trains have their place for long haul efficiencies. At some point that breaks down once you start hauling more truck cargo to the final delivery point.
Also, if we had drone delivery systems, we wouldn't need such large refrigerators. But what little refrigerators I did have I wouldn't deliver by air. Unless I lived on top of an inaccessible mountain. Like some
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Let me know when a drone can deliver 5 cases of liquids as efficiently as a UPS truck. And since a UPS truck is already in my neighborhood every day, it is already efficient enough (key word).
What drones are trying to reduce and eliminate the cost of drivers. I just can't wait for an Amazon drone to get robbed by something who captures it, delivering some low weight, high value target, like jewelry.
Re: (Score:2)
Moreover every drone needs a pilot.
Whereas before you had one working class guy who was convinced he was rich as croesus because with seniority he could get to $40k with multiple geeks who think $40k is the starting negotiating point.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Flying is way less energy efficient than ground transport. Probably cheaper for small packages. But I don't think drones will ever replace restocking the grocery store, bars etc.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, I was just going by:
http://www.npr.org/blogs/money... [npr.org]
*We used data from the Census Bureau, which has two catch-all categories: "managers not elsewhere classified" and "salespersons not elsewhere classified." Because those categories are broad and vague to the point of meaninglessness, we excluded them from our map.
Looks like the BLS info also splits up "Heavy and Tractor-Trailer Truck Drivers" from "Laborers and Freight, Stock, and Material Movers, Hand"
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Life in the cloud, indeed.
Re: (Score:2)
Literally filed or overcrowded with drones: Never, what would they be doing?
This reminds me of a classical line: "there is a world market for maybe five computers"
Missing option (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
This is an US centric site. Only because it is accessible from almost everywhere does not mean that they cover your location and respect your world view ;-)
But what about flying cars? (Score:2)
Will flying cars be self driving or driven by puny humans?
If all flying cars had surveillance cameras and weapons remotely operated, not by the car owner / driver, then wouldn't the flying cars serve a dual porpoise?
Re: (Score:2)
Nature is far ahead of us. Flying dogs (Flughunde in German) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M... [wikipedia.org] are already there. In English they are also called flying foxes, but that should be still close enough as a starting point for new dog breeds. They are also infestations of various diseases, just like the original.
Time to stock up on shotgun shells (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
So a shotgun is not really going to work.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep. Any good deer rifle should do nicely. Caliber wont matter much, but for height you will need something high powered with a high muzzle velocity, like a .308 or .30-06.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe. But when you miss and the bullet comes back down and kills someone, you won't be very popular.
Even if you manage to hit it, the bullet and the debris could still do some serious harm.
Re: (Score:3)
That is silly. A falling bullet has a much lower speed than one that was just shot. I've been hit by shotgun pellets at the end of their range, it was like having gravel slung at you.
A returning bullet CAN hit someone, and possibly injure them if everything is lined up right, or there is a very low angle of fire, but they have a small fraction of the energy they had in the first km after being fired.
Re: (Score:2)
A falling bullet has a much lower speed than one that was just shot.
What makes you think that? The Its potential energy at the top of its upward trajectory is not that much different to what it was when it came out of the gun - and it will be pretty much the same when it gets back down to the same level it was fired from (thanks to gravity, with a small effect of wind resistance).
People are frequently killed by bullets being fired into the air - as described in this article. [bbc.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I really hope you try it and get yourself put in some ass-rape hell-hole with the other felons [forbes.com]. Please, go shoot at somebody's drone.
Re: (Score:2)
If you're going to be firing up into the air, maybe you should go with the birdshot out of consideration for other people in the area.
Re: (Score:2)
Nah - Cheney never aims above face level.
Re: (Score:1)
Will birdshot take out a drone, or should I go with #4 buck?
I would just go with smaller bird shot in a 16 or 12 gauge shell. That should do the job just fine on plastic drones, and even screw up metal alloy ones to the point of no-fly.
Be sure to use Steel shot however, and not lead. Lead is poisonous, and can potentially damage the water supply and harm wildlife where it falls. Steel shot just disintegrates to rust, and is relatively harmless to nature.
Re: (Score:2)
Will birdshot take out a drone, or should I go with #4 buck?
I would just go with smaller bird shot in a 16 or 12 gauge shell. That should do the job just fine on plastic drones, and even screw up metal alloy ones to the point of no-fly. Be sure to use Steel shot however, and not lead. Lead is poisonous, and can potentially damage the water supply and harm wildlife where it falls. Steel shot just disintegrates to rust, and is relatively harmless to nature.
The real issue here is that drones will only get bigger. It's time for a new open source hardware/software project, we could call it GNU MANPAD [wikipedia.org]. Fighting drones with drones, what delicious irony.
Re: (Score:2)
If you live inside city limits, your choice of whether to discharge a firearm is probably the bigger question.
Drone License (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You're drone
Sorry, I meant 'Your drone' not 'You are drone' Not enough time between compiles these days to check things.
Re: (Score:1)
There are three things certain in life: Death, Taxes and Grammar Nazis.
Re: (Score:2)
Never will happen (Score:3)
Drones face various problems originating from general avionic and technical/physical limitations, their purpose, material resources, interaction with humans, and energy. Beside all that there are economical strings attached. For example, it might be feasible to deliver packages via copter to the front door of people living in those US suburbs where everyone has a lawn, a car or two, and the roads are wide. However, such living conditions are not the most prominent ones on earth. In Europe people live in much denser populated areas. While there are some areas where you have single houses these areas are small and often mixed in with other housing structures for more than one family sharing the same exit. Even more large parts of European cities are filled with building structures with 4-8 floors with many parties living in the same house or compound. If you visit Beijing or any other Chinese city you can observe that people live in large compounds with 30 or more story buildings. While in Europe you could at least speculate about opening a window, you cannot do that in such buildings. And in China you should not open the window if you are not interested in lung problems. So parcel delivery does not work very well in most areas. It also does not work when I am not at home. However, what works is delivering it to my workplace by humans (drones cannot fly in we cannot open windows).
If you allow copters and humans interact then you have to make sure that there is enough distance between copter and human even for emergency situations. All of this makes parcel copters not to be very likely to become a dominant transportation tool.
Another use case are surveillance copters for police and media. They are already in use. However, they are only then cheaper than non flying cameras when you do not have too many of them.
Each drone requires energy and must be recharged or refueled regularly. All that energy must come from somewhere. If this is more carbon based fuel, we will have increased pollution in cities. We try to get rid of that presently so that will most likely be limited or forbidden. Leaving H2 or electricity (E). H2 requires a lot of energy to be produced and same applies to electricity. However, H2 allow longer flying time while the fuel is more expensive then electricity. Anyway, energy cost is a relevant factor. For a town of 250 000 inhabitants you have 100 roads (densely populated area) with lets say they are layed out like a checkers board (true that does not really fit any town or city in Europe, but who cares). That gives you 104 persons per tile, which would be not enough for where I live, but anyway. Each tile is 200 x 200 m. Making the road length 9800 m. To completely cover the area a drone must fly up and down that approx 10 km. Lets assume that this is done in 20 km/h (median bicycle speed) a complete sweep requires 30 min (29.4). As a typical robbery requires only several minutes, lets say 5, you need 6 drones to get that amount of coverage. That means you need 600 drones and most likely another 600 at the recharger. I do not know what these drones police uses at demonstrations cost, but police equipment is always extra expensive, so 10000 EUR/$ would be an assumable price. 12 000 000 EUR/$ + maintenance + training. Too expensive for the police. Especially, more expensive than just a view officers which could do the same on a bicycle.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There's a lot of issues with that, the most obvious being getting the potentially valuable content to the right person (without someone else picking it up), and the potential of breaking because of the drop.
Re: (Score:2)
Pneumatic Tubes (Score:3)
I'm still holding out for pneumatic tubes to everyone's house or apartment.
Missing option (Score:2)
Very soon (Score:4, Insightful)
I've thought about this a lot; obviously it's inevitable that police will start using quadcopters more and more (they already do) and probably it's a matter of time (I'd say about 5-10 years) before small autonomous drones start supporting police work, for example tracking suspects.
At the same time, drones will become cheaper and cheaper and I'm afraid many of us nerds won't be able to resist letting them out, looking around, racing eachother through the mall, spying on the girl next door, those kind of things. And you know what? They're pretty much anonymous; nobody's going to trace the drone that crashed into your backyard (or into a police drone) back to you if you do it well.
And then there will be terrorists; it's going to be a matter of time before a plain old stupid terrorist attack is carried out using a drone. But that will be only the beginning; while they may sound like SciFi fantasy, assasination drone-swarms will very soon be almost trivial to create. You WILL see video footage of people being attacked by hordes of drones in the not too distant future...
And that will be the end of privacy as we know it. Once we've had enough of annoying nerds and their drones, terrorists and their drones and criminals and their killer swarms, we will start doing something about it. And that something is not going to be pretty; in order to be able to trace a drone back to a person, continuous surveillance is inevitable. Unauthorized drones will probably be shot automatically.
And if we're really unlucky, all this will result in drone parts without DRM-support becoming illegal to own...
This is not going to be fun at all.... :|
I hope you're right as the mail (Score:2)
it's going to be a matter of time before a plain old stupid terrorist attack is carried out using a drone.
There are those who would argue this has already happened. Just depends on who you ask.
I purchased a used telly once, taking over payments for a friend who had it on installments from the furniture place. It had a remote control included, which I promptly threw away. The logic I recall using was, Jesus Chraist, how exhausting an activity is television viewing that one might need to avoid standing up to change the channel?
If we can convince the folks bent on destruction for entertainment to sit on their hind ends and remotely attack us...Shit, we've got them!
Now? If the remote's batteries a
Crows (Score:3)
They mob bald eagles that pass through my neighborhood and chase them off. It would be a simple matter to train them to knock down drones.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You have to get the baby crows and hand feed them to adulthood. Once you do you can train them to do damn near anything. They can even learn to mimic human speech to a limited degree. If you've ever hunted them you'll know they're pretty damn smart. I remember as a teenager planting corn in our garden, I had just finished hand planting corn seed in a 360 foot long row and stood up and looked back and saw about 30 or 40 of the little black bastards eating the corn. I yelled at them and they just looked
The answer is never, duh! (Score:2)
In the future... (Score:5, Funny)
Looking at the latest event in France, I'm pretty sure that time is not very far ahead.
Re: (Score:2)
That was in the sequel.
Zero. None. They're already here (Score:1)
I live in Yemen, you insensitive clod!
AC
What about now? (Score:2)
Perhaps "filled with drones" is not exactly accurate, but nowadays almost anything interesting you go to, you are almost sure to see at least one drone.
Height (Score:1)
Never (Score:2)
The most important problem is that every smallest drone is an obstacle for the aircraft. 1-2 collisions - and ALL drones except officially licensed will be banned. The strict rules would not help: See the road traffic rules and their violation.
The economical reasons that disallow every citizen from owning a helicopter instead of SUV are secondary.
Never (Score:2)
By the time it might/could happen, stealth tech would be mature enough. But all this buzzing noise outside...
P.S. Never, because drones do not solve any particular problem. Or: "Never underestimate the bandwidth of a station wagon full of tapes hurtling down the highway." (c)
Weather is more tough than expected... (Score:2)
This poll all depends on your personally (Score:2)
To some the sky will be half full of drones, to others the sky will always be half empty.
Can't Wait! (Score:2)
Drones? Filled? Power. (Score:2)
What kind of drones are we talking about here? Also what definition of "filled".
I see two types.
1) Large surveillance drones.
2) Quadcopter type small drones.
I see more near term for an increased presence of large surveillance type drones in much the same way we use aerial photography and satellites. Apart from the possible negative spying potential, much of that is positive. Increased mapping, and better mapping related services. Getting aerial photography is prohibitively expensive and time consuming, part
Soon, I hope (Score:2)
What's the best shot for drones? What choke gives the best pattern?
never happen. (Score:2)
Filled (Score:2)
"Filled?" I think you may underestimate just how big the sky is.
Suggestion for next poll topic (Score:2)
PS: I've listened to enough propaganda pushing the reclassification of RC cars and planes as drones. And my only guess why they try and do this is to make
I voted never, then I listened to the news... (Score:2)
Re:First time a Muslim packs one with explosives (Score:4, Informative)
If that only applies to Muslims then we should not worry about right wing bombers using drones or Hindu fanatics. What the fuck? Why do you limit that to Muslims? The only group using drones to kill people is, as far as I know, the US military.
Re:First time a Muslim packs one with explosives (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
That or the GP is just anti Islam, but given the current climate it may just be a convenient boogie man.
Sorry but as the saying goes "the nail that sticks out gets hammered". Bot ISIL and Boko Haram are real organizations who are doing very public, very evil things in the name of Muslims. They are not "boogie" men. You don't have to be anti-islam to pick them as the poster child for terrorism.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Sorry but as the saying goes "the nail that sticks out gets hammered". Bot ISIL and Boko Haram are real organizations who are doing very public, very evil things in the name of Muslims. They are not "boogie" men. You don't have to be anti-islam to pick them as the poster child for terrorism.
Yes, but ISIL and Boko Haram are followers of Islam the same way that the KKK are followers of Christianity.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:First time a Muslim packs one with explosives (Score:4, Insightful)
Dude, if you want to know what Muslims think about Boko Harem you should probably avoid all news sources where the bottle blonde to hijab ratio is infinity.
Daesh, as ISIS is called by actual Muslims, is hated. There are no official Muslim political leaders, including the Iranians, who haven't condemned it. Most of them (again, including the Iranians) have sent troops to fight it. Quite a few have lost more troops to Daesh then we ever will, because we refuse risk American lives. Most of their recruits are actually westerners.
They're the guys from France's Islamic 5% who got out of High School and looked for those high-paying working class jobs, discovered that in the 21st century those are a myth, and furthermore that if you're in France and you aren't on the exact college track you can't get into a good college, and said "Fuck this France Shit, I'm returning to my roots and violently opposing all this French Shit; and since my holy book was written by the same guy who ordered the slaughter of the Canaanites I'm actually gonna be following the letter of my religious laws when I rape that Yazidi chick to avenge myself on all the French Catholic chicks who turned me down." They're basically what happens when you put a bunch of Non-white Muslims into a culture that consistently turns a significant group of it's young men into white supremacist racist thugs.
BH is just as despised. Their justification is that Western Education is evil, and yet the people of Chibok thought Western-style education was so important for their daughter's future they sent the girls to school on an alert day to take Western-style tests. In English. They certainly wish they hadn't now. All the criticism I've seen of President Jonathan's handling of the situation is that he didn't take it seriously, he let BH conquer vast tracts of the country, and that this may have been an electoral ploy becau7se said vast tracts were mostly Moslem and were poised to vote against him.
Re: (Score:3)
KKK are christian as much as Lenin was Atheist. Except that Lenin killed way more people than the KKK ever could, in the name of Atheism (religious persecution).
Of course, I realize that Lenin was not an authentic Atheist according to all the atheists I talked to, just like the KKK isn't authentic Christianity to all the Christians I talk to.
However, ISIL/ISIS has ISLAM in their name, and have killed more people in the last month than KKK has in 70 years, so there is that strawman to also take into consider
Re: (Score:2)
Who the heck nicknamed them ISIS, with the same spelling as a god from an entirely different (paegan) religion?! I guess the reporters must have been to stupid to call them Dese or some other phonetically similar name...
Ahem...We are the same people who brought you the month-day-year format of star-date reckoning, and, the homogenous distance "football fields".
Re: (Score:2)
No. Go stand in the corner.
Both ISIL and Boko Haram believe they have a mandate to spread Islam by the means their Quaran told them to.
They are doing very well so far.
Re: (Score:2)
KKK were not just followers of Christianity. It was prominent Christian leaders that defined and promoted the KKK agenda. Just like they did with ...the Nazi agenda ...and the Crusades ...and the pogroms ...and the Salem Witch trials ...and the inquisition ...and slavery ...and the American genocide of the Native American population
just of the top of my head.
So Christianity is just as bad as Islam.
Re: (Score:2)
Well you're AC, which makes you automatically stupid on Slashdot.
Nonetheless, Christian leaders led the Nazi's and the KKK. The fact that other Christian leaders fought against them doesn't negate that fact, just as other muslims are fighting against Iran and ISIS doesn't make Iran and ISIS Islamic movements.
Re: (Score:3)
The issue is this: it is not possible for reasonable people wishing to talk about a serious problem to cram in enough disclaimers to convince people like you that we're not closet raci
Re: (Score:2)
Just view the word Muslim like Nazi and then it becomes clear. The constant banging of the drums against muslim/islamic terrorists seems to cause people's mind to shut down as they now are being painted as the universal bad guy.
Well... yes.
Do you perhaps have another explanation for what we are seeing?
Kindly share it with us.
Re: (Score:2)
prior to that, it's anonymous law.
Re:First time a Muslim packs one with explosives (Score:4, Insightful)
Don't be ridiculous.
When a white guy who has a problem with Islam guns down an entire family in cold blood, partly because he couldn't handle that the woman wore headscarves, nobody in a position of authority will even conclusively rule it's a hate crime. OTOH anytime somebody named Mohamed gets in a fight with somebody not named Mohamed it is immediately labeled terrorism.
So yes, while the OP may be racist, he's also got an excellent point on how the US political and social elites will respond if the first asshole to abuse drone technology happens to be Islamic.
Re: (Score:2)
under five pound cargo weight of Amazon's delivery drones suggest your bombs will be small and more pesky than punchy
Re: (Score:2)
I thought a long time ago that a prime target would be a stadium. Say load up the Goodyear blimp with grenades and drop a couple dozen into the crowd at the Superbowl. Probably more casualties in the stampede than the explosion. 5lb bomb might get a stampede going though I suppose especially if the skies are already filled with other (non-armed) drones. People won't know that the other 100 in the air overhead have cameras or bombs.
Anyways, terrorism has an asymmetrical effect. For example 9/11 while tragic
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The question is, will these drones be watching you for the police, NSA, and other illegal unconstitutional uses - or will they be watching you and selling your metadata to the police, NSA, etc for private corporations.
Yes.