Selfie drones are a huge problem in the ancient ruins of Provence, and the New York Times is ON IT

boing
22

Incorporate the nectar-burning fuel cells and who needs bees anyway.

2 Likes
23

You wanted…?

24

Sounds more like beer fuel to me…wait, Mr.Fusion?

1 Like
25

Yeah, that fits the narrative perfectly, too!

26

I shudder to think of 17- and 18-year-olds receiving drones for Christmas and on their winter vacations crashing the contraptions into unsuspecting sunbathers.

I know what she means! Imagine having to be annoyed my 17 and 18 year olds. Shudder!

Horrible. Terrible. This cannot stand!.

27

You really don’t need a narrative. It’s a remotely operated camera that can almost literally go anywhere - whilst allowing the operator to remain mostly (or completely) anonymous. They’re amazing devices for very specific uses, but put it in the hands of your average joe and it’s a purely distilled, creepy annoyance device.

Is this really up for debate? Maybe it is, but I’d be surprised.

:stuck_out_tongue: Don’t get me wrong the article is … well it’s silly. But I don’t think that’s a hugely silly point. The issue is likely less to do with you being annoyed at your children and more to do with the ensuing legal case from their attempted creeping and subsequent assault.

28

Here, have a minidrone.

29

:slight_smile: To be clear I have nothing against the devices - I know I’d have a bunch of fun with them. But buzzing around a field or in your home is quite different to taking remote picks in a public space. It’s the remotely operated camera angle that’s the nasty bit. It’s like mobile CCTV with even less oversight. Also they’re a bit dangerous to fly around tourist spots aren’t they?

30

What, that they’re annoying? Sure it is. That’s a subjective position.

I’m just pointing out that “they’re annoying!” fits the Conspiracy Theory narrative to have the government make laws against 'em.

I mean it is a conspiracy theory - it is designed to fit a lot of things into its narrative. :wink:

31

Well I guess :stuck_out_tongue: In the same way that creepshots being annoying is subjective. Or swinging a can of coke on the end of a rope around a market square is subjectively annoying.

It’s a buzzy health and safety risk with a camera attached to it. What’s not to find annoying? I’ve certainly never heard anyone say “Oh wow, what a lovely drone! I hope it sticks around for a while.” :laughing:

32

I assisted with some panorama photography shots from a drone platform. Nobody seemed to care, except one guy fawning over the machine.

Everything is a health and safety risk. Compare with the common, widely accepted ones ranging from bicyclists to golf balls to soccer balls - getting hit with one can be pretty unpleasant and usually neither announces its presence in advance with a buzzing sound.

I like to see places. I hate to travel. I hope for a robust telepresence solution in as near future as it can be.

Not really. The tiny lightweight ones are certainly pretty harmless.

33

Yeah, I remember when those attempted creeping laws were put in to effect…

Sorry but the anti drone crowd are simply easily outraged and looking for things to be upset about. It’s all self absorbed silliness IMO with people complaining that drones allow their picture to be taken while in public view (shocking!) or about the excessive noise (hello 18 wheelers) etc etc.

What oversight is there now if I want to put cameras all over my property and record everyone and everything the cameras can capture? What oversight is there for me walking around filming everything I see? What about a helicopter tour? Are there laws or regulations about filming from the air? It seems to me that the anti drone crowd want special laws just for these devices which don’t apply to anything else.

I had no idea. You must have some great stories you can share about how drones are hurting people out to do the tourist thing. I bet they are deadly when compared to things like cars and trains.

1 Like
34

And that’s precisely why those activities are rarely allowed in busy public spaces.

35

All those cars and trains flying in close proximity to people in tourist spots? Operated by unlicensed users?

Justify yor hobby however you like, it’s not concern driving trollies, it’s pointing out the bleeding obvious.

Honesty sometimes…

Read your comment reply back and try as hard as you can to not see all the awful arguments you’re making. Different thread, different topic and you’d be labelled a trolley.

36

They’re theoretically dangerous around aircraft – for the same reason that birds are dangerous around aircraft.

But so far they are not known to be as dangerous as birds around tourists.

They do scare the bejeesus out of entitled NYT commenters who think they own the right to ancient sites, however.

If you ever, EVER, again put me on the same side of an argument as @dacree I will find you, and I will kill you. With a drone.

3 Likes
37

Right, it’s not a concern http://lmgtfy.com/?q=tourist+hit+by+car and http://lmgtfy.com/?q=tourist+hit+by+train
But I’m sure there are plenty of stories about the same thing happening with drones right?

1 Like
38

I guess I’m alone here. The idea of these things buzzing around places of Beauty I find quite upsetting. I guess if you like tech more than you like architecture or nature you may struggle I understand?

Also fascinating to see that people don’t think they a hazard - they’re an OBVIOUS hazard around crowds - what are you people smoking? Can I have some?

39

Honestly just stop it, it’s embarrassing.

40

You’re referring to the tourists, right?

41

In equal measure.