search
top

Soda Enforcement Drones

A sad state of affairs in today’s totalitarian society as envisioned by Mike Bloomberg:

8 Responses to “Soda Enforcement Drones”

  1. Harold says:

    In a comment about the questions brought up by the EPA using drones for their Region 7, the states of Iowa, Kansas (we have farming friend here too), Missouri (mine), and Nebraska, it was pointed out:

    The difference between UAVs and police helos is that due to noise, the people are both aware of and can hold their local officials in check if they believe constant overhead surveillance is being done at a rate inconsistent with their desires. UAVs at 5000 ft, on the other hand, will not tip themselves off–and thus the citizen will never know if he is being surveilled or not.

    • Jake says:

      the people are both aware of and can hold their local officials in check if they believe constant overhead surveillance is being done at a rate inconsistent with their desires.

      Sounds like a feature, not a bug. Of course, those same local officials probably don’t see it that way, and the Feds certainly don’t.

    • 46 HAC says:

      Cost and crew safety are probably major factors in going to a drone.
      When I was last active in Helicopter flight( long time ago) a turbine helo was expected to have 16 hours of maintenance for every hour of flight. Recips were more maintenance intensive. Damage or destroy a drone and the crew logs off their computer. Helicopter crews may incur more trauma.

  2. Cargosquid says:

    Hmmmm…. its illegal and wrong to point lasers at aircraft.

    Does that include drones? Do lasers dazzle their optics?

    • Patrick says:

      Try reliably hitting a small optic moving at 100+ MPH with a laser from a distance of almost a mile. You can do it, for maybe a millisecond. Then the software in the drone corrects and moves on. Unlike humans, they don’t need eyes to fly. It’s all math. Even if all optic sensors go out, they can fly home and land.

      The drones are safe from our laser-pointers. I doubt we are safe from their optics, though.

      We seriously need some protections from this stuff. Maybe a privacy amendment to the constitution. I’ve never been a fan of making laws or passing amendments, but we need a Big Thing to help fix this. We’re getting our privacy killed by ten thousand tiny slices.

  3. Kristopher says:

    Obey the law. When in NYC, buy and drink 40 oz malt liquors in public.

  4. dustydog says:

    Drones and satellites won’t reduce crime. They will just change the timing (to times of obscuring weather).

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. One Step Forward, Two Steps Back — Rod's Alter Ego - [...] Source [...]
top