SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
On a sunny morning in October 2014, Christopher Schmidt strolled onto the grassy fields of Magazine Beach, a public park along the Charles River in Cambridge, Mass. To get a better view of the fall scenery, he launched his drone, a DJI Phantom quadcopter equipped with a camera.
Then he saw it: a juvenile red-tailed hawk circling nearby. Within seconds, it swooped down — wings outstretched, tail flared, talons open — and flipped the drone midair. Mr. Schmidt cut the propellers, and the bird flew off, apparently uninjured. The drone dropped to the ground, undamaged except for a slight bend in its plastic landing gear.
Mr. Schmidt, a 31-year-old software developer, posted a drone's eye video of the encounter on YouTube. It has been viewed about five million times. And it is hardly the only evidence of conflict between animals and so-called unmanned aerial vehicles.
In other videos, ospreys, magpies, sea gulls and geese pursue and attack drones in flight. With a hop and punch, a kangaroo knocks one to the ground. A cheetah chases, leaps and swipes at one. A pugnacious ram head-butts a drone that hovers too low. And a particularly defiant chimpanzee at a zoo in the Netherlands whacks a buzzing intruder out of the sky with a branch.
Drones do seem to trigger a primal reaction, and not just in humans. Why?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by frojack on Saturday October 24 2015, @01:23AM
Kill it before it stings you or the kids!
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Kell on Saturday October 24 2015, @01:28AM
so-called unmanned aerial vehicles
Why "so-called"? They are unmanned; they are vehicles; they fly. They are literally unmanned aerial vehicles.
Scientists ask questions. Engineers solve problems.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Saturday October 24 2015, @02:17AM
Most are manned remotely. And oddly enough, every drone pilot I've ever seen has been a man.
Manned:
adjective
1. carrying or operated by one or more persons:
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday October 24 2015, @02:25AM
Most are manned remotely.
Which is unmanned, remote control. If it isn't carrying someone, it isn't manned.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Saturday October 24 2015, @02:58AM
Apparently you disagree with the dictionary.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/manned [thefreedictionary.com]
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/manned [reference.com]
and several others...
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 4, Touché) by maxwell demon on Saturday October 24 2015, @06:42AM
So you can do a manned space flight by sending a remote-controlled robot to space?
Actually satellites are human-controlled, too (sure, they do some things automatically, but so does the typical quadcopter; most people would not be able to fly a truly manually controlled quadcopter), So I get satellite missions are manned space flight missions?
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 2) by edIII on Saturday October 24 2015, @07:28AM
Awwwwwwwwwww..... you beat me to it :)
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday October 24 2015, @05:12PM
(Score: 3, Funny) by Username on Saturday October 24 2015, @02:28AM
They used the so-called prefix to not offend the UAV. Otherwise the UAV might get angry, strap explosives to itself and commit a terrorist attack.
Basically the same reason BBC refers to islamic state as so-called.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Saturday October 24 2015, @09:30AM
Although in this case it is rather because 'Islamic State' isn't a recognised state. It is nothing more than a large group of extremist who currently control a certain area. So the BBC uses, quite correctly in my view, the phrase 'so called'.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Saturday October 24 2015, @02:20AM
Flying things tend to behave in a few different ways. Flying things which are frequently preyed upon, tend to stay near cover. Juicy looking creatures tend to stay in or under the undergrowth, near trees, or generally close to something that they can quickly put between themselves and predators. These creatures normally act wary, if not outright nervous.
Predatory flying creatures boldly fly stable paths across the sky, without fluttering and jittering about.
Drones tend to fly stable, direct paths, rather than darting about, changing path frequently, and looking "nervous". That alone is reason enough to elicit defensive acts from most all creatures. To a predatory flying animal, the drone probably looks like competition. If not direct competition, the predator is going to resent the fact that the drone alerts prey animals to the presence of airborne threats.
Some forms of aggressive bahaviour would decrease, if the drones were to take advantage of cover, and skip and jink all about like a nervous piece of prey. Of course, that would obviously invite the attention of predators.
Hail to the Nibbler in Chief.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by frojack on Saturday October 24 2015, @03:18AM
Even predatory birds act weird near other flying things. My flight instructor in Alaska insisted that I avoid flying under bald eagles when climbing out after take off, because egals would often fold their wings and dive on (or past) big things coming up on them. He had more than on come through his windshield till he learned that lesson.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Saturday October 24 2015, @04:30AM
The guy who made the Osprey video is a total asshole, harassing them by hovering around their nest and adding the gopro logo to the front and back of the video. It's a real shame his drone didn't get fried.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by hemocyanin on Saturday October 24 2015, @04:41AM
My missive to GoPro tech support about the osprey video: http://gopro.com/help/PKBContactus [gopro.com]
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Saturday October 24 2015, @03:24PM
Agreed, that is pretty obviously harassment of nesting birds. And, I think it reinforces my comment about predator-like behaviour. Anything that is overly interested in a nest, is obviously (to the birds) interested in a meal. Eggs, or chicks, or even the adult breeding birds - there's no reason (from the bird's point of view) to hang around unless looking for a meal.
I do believe that the actions of the GoPro operator are illegal in many places. It probably depends on how healthy the population is, and how many conservationists are in the area. It would be nice if he were busted for harassing wildlife by the local game commission.
Hail to the Nibbler in Chief.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday October 24 2015, @05:20PM
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Saturday October 24 2015, @06:34PM
I can't see that. Why would that be illegal? The power companies have easements across the land, they don't own the land over which the lines run. The drone presents no danger to the power line. The power line is a danger to the drone, of course, but the reverse isn't true. As for danger, it is being operated in a sparsely populated area - I see no people who might be engangered if the drone fouls on the electrical cables, and falls to the ground.
The only unethical, immoral, and/or illegal act I see here, is harassing the birds.
Hail to the Nibbler in Chief.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday October 24 2015, @07:26PM
The drone presents no danger to the power line.
The drone was right over the lines on the video and not that far away. If it lost power, for example, it could have dropped on/between lines and dinged them or create an arcing hazard.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Saturday October 24 2015, @08:24PM
I could be wrong, but I don't think the drone is large enough to short two wires together. It MIGHT be large enough to short one line to the tower, but I don't see that as likely. Those birds don't short lines to towers, nor do squirrels. The possibility exists, the probability is exceedingly slim. A vehicle that weighs between 20 and 50 pounds isn't going to damage a high tension line by striking it. It's just going to bounce off.
Smaller, lighter, local neighborhood electric lines might be damaged by a 50 pound vehicle, but again, it's not really likely. The likelihood of shorting two lines together increases, with those lower voltage lines - but I've seen that happen for real. Lights flicker, breakers trip, and transformers can pop. We see that kind of thing when an automobile hits a phone pole. Or, some idiot in a truck backs into a pole.
Prosecuting attorneys would agree with you. They have a habit of piling on charges until some simple infraction carries a life sentence. Personally, I can't see any real hazard presented by operating small drones near high tension lines.
Hail to the Nibbler in Chief.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday October 24 2015, @09:32PM
I could be wrong, but I don't think the drone is large enough to short two wires together.
My thinking here is that the wires could be very close to arcing with the drone making the final drop in resistance or introduction of ionized particles between high voltage lines to start damaging arcs. Birds at least don't conduct well and don't have electrical motors and other parts which can generate ionized particles.
Also, a drone could damage an insulator. Those tend to be fragile though from the video, the drone was attacked by the osprey before it could get close enough to fall on an insulator.
Prosecuting attorneys would agree with you. They have a habit of piling on charges until some simple infraction carries a life sentence. Personally, I can't see any real hazard presented by operating small drones near high tension lines.
We should care not because these power lines happen to be under tension, but because shorting them happens to cause a lot of pricey problems.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday October 25 2015, @04:41AM
Alright - I'll give you your first point. Tension lines do strange things sometimes. We had an ice storm here some years back. A lot of electrical crews were brought in from all over the country. One crew of two was on the highline, inspecting the lines. It was raining fairly hard that day. One of them heard the call of nature, stepped out of his truck, looked up and down the clear cut for spectators, unzipped, and cut loose. That was his last act in this life. One of those lines arced out, and burnt him where he stood.
There was simply no reason for that line to arc to ground, a distance of about 25 feet. No reason for it to strike a man below the line. No reason for a urinating man to be struck. Stuff happens. His partner was very clear that it was NOT lightning that struck the man, he saw the arc jump from a tension wire to his partner's head.
Hail to the Nibbler in Chief.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by khallow on Saturday October 24 2015, @02:21AM
So basically, the hawk, seagull and magpie attacks are the only ones that did anything merely because the drone was in the air. All three birds tend to be territorial. Every other one would have drawn an attack, if a human had done the very same thing. If the animal is responding to the drone, then the drone is too close.
Drones do seem to trigger a primal reaction, and not just in humans. Why?
So how many people here would have been ok with an unknown, loud drone with whirling propellers coming up to within three feet of you and then following you around that closely? It's personal space.
(Score: 2) by hankwang on Saturday October 24 2015, @06:45AM
"And the ram is the most idiotic of all."
From his youtube clips and facebook page, it looks like the ram is actually the drone operator's pet and that they have a good time together.
https://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=-1sZSPCgXbA [youtube.com]
Avantslash: SoylentNews for mobile [avantslash.org]
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Saturday October 24 2015, @04:23AM
This random video was in the queue after one of the hawk videos: squirrel steals airplane: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IANwb_qT1gg [youtube.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 24 2015, @07:16AM
I told you they'd be hawking drones