SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
posted by
cmn32480
on Sunday July 24 2016, @06:51AM
from the i'll-still-have-to-get-up-and-answer-the-door dept.
from the i'll-still-have-to-get-up-and-answer-the-door dept.
I for one welcome our new donut and chicken carrying flying robotic overlords. It has only been a few months since the FAA stopped requiring distinct approval of each commercial sUAS (small unmanned aerial system) flight. Current regulations still require a waiver for a remotely operated flying machine that exceeds the visual range of the pilot and the story does not mention if the flight was autonomous or not. Aerial surveys and inspections that would otherwise require people to climb towers, poles, or other structures are also under way. The FAA is lagging and taking their time but there is some progress.
The story also fails to mention if the chicken sandwich was any good or the coffee was hot.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Donuts in Flight in First US-Approved Drone Delivery
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 10 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
You had some happiness once, but your parents moved away, and you had to
leave it behind.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 24 2016, @08:13AM
The FAA is lagging and taking their time but there is some progress.
Complaints about it taking too long? We're looking at a "Wild West" in the skies. The FAA needs get this right. When these things are littering up the skies, colliding with each other and/or dropping like stones it's going to hurt a lot of people.
How many car crashes will these cause? How many assholes will use them to harass, bully or stalk other people or animals? Will the media have these things all over hoping to catch a glimpse of anything they can use as click-bait? What measure of privacy or free movement going to be lost to these things? Law enforcement will love it when they can surveil people or groups without just cause or recourse.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 24 2016, @11:26AM
How many car crashes will these cause? How many assholes will use them to harass, bully or stalk other people or animals? Will the media have these things all over hoping to catch a glimpse of anything they can use as click-bait? What measure of privacy or free movement going to be lost to these things?
None of that matters. You're missing the point: it's bringing donuts.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 24 2016, @11:42AM
None of that matters. You're missing the point: it's bringing donuts.
Oooh, you're right. Get off of my lawn ... these are my donuts.
(Score: 2) by Knowledge Troll on Sunday July 24 2016, @11:57AM
Maybe this would have been a better story if it was titled 7-11 invents donut battered chicken sandwich <font size=1>oh yeah it was delivered by a drone too</font>
(Score: 2) by Knowledge Troll on Sunday July 24 2016, @12:03PM
We're looking at a "Wild West" in the skies.
It was the wild west and has been for 50 years but no one knew a problem existed because we kept to ourselves. Now it is the gold rush and the newbs let their mines leak toxic chemicals into the lake.
How many assholes will use them to harass, bully or stalk other people or animals?
Probably zero of the commercial licensed operators, which is what this is about.
Will the media have these things all over hoping to catch a glimpse of anything they can use as click-bait?
Maybe? But not unless it is autonomous which isn't yet approved for blanket use.
Complaints about it taking too long?
I'm fairly conservative here too but I think the FAA didn't need to take this long to come up with "fly it where you can see it and only during the day".
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 24 2016, @04:54PM
How many car crashes will these cause?
Seriously?! Ok, then, assuming you're not talking stunts that are already illegal under existing laws, such as playing telechicken with cars, not very many (there are few reasons drones would spend much time over roads generally, and those can generally be satisfied over medians, shoulders, or parking lanes rather than traffic lanes), and not very serious (airworthiness implies light construction, which implies maximum damage to the drones and minimum to the cars). If you are talking about those, what makes you think some new FAA rule will have any impact on the jerks who've already decided to break laws and endanger others?
How many assholes will use them to harass, bully or stalk other people or animals?
Again, this is generally illegal, so why do you think adding more rules will change it?
Will the media have these things all over hoping to catch a glimpse of anything they can use as click-bait?
It's a cost/benefit thing -- if it requires one full-time pilot per drone in the air, probably not. It's not that much more effective than paparazzi on the ground, and those aren't "all over". When they become sufficiently autonomous, possibly, but I suspect "all over" in cities won't happen till the active-drone/pilot ratio is at least 10:1. (And even then, don't expect many in low-population density areas.)
What measure of privacy or free movement going to be lost to these things? Law enforcement will love it when they can surveil people or groups without just cause or recourse.
Ah, finally, a reasonable concern that rules could help. (It's funny you imply they can't do so now, but of course they'll welcome anything to make it easier and more universal.)
But the FAA cares about safety, not privacy and freedom, so I wouldn't expect any rules to help with those. When pressure builds up on politicians to say they've done something, of course they'll have the FAA make rules to "protect your privacy", but you know they'll have mile-wide exceptions for law enforcement agencies and their contractors -- the rules will only stop you from snooping on cops, not the other way round.
The problems with drones can be summarized as "People are incredible assholes who delight in snooping on, annoying, and controlling other people"; as the problem is really with people, the solution has to start with people, not with drones. If we can't control jackasses who variously snoop on all communications, drop junk off overpasses, bully people in person, and shoot innocent people under color of law, of course we're going to see the same tendencies manifested with drones, and of course we're not going to be able to fix it there either. Maybe if we dropped the drug war, directed the sudden surplus of police resources to serve society rather than the prison industry, and enforced the bill of rights, we could start to get somewhere, but that all seems a little outside the FAA's scope.