If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(WTOP)   Colorado town to issue hunting licenses and pay bounty for "killed" drones. For some reason the federal government has a problem with this   (wtop.com) divider line 156
    More: Stupid, Colorado, Federal Aviation Administration, legal liability  
•       •       •

8171 clicks; posted to Main » on 20 Jul 2013 at 4:10 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



156 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-07-20 02:14:01 PM
Only a $100 bounty? Do they have any idea how much my surface to air missiles cost? Ridiculous.
 
2013-07-20 02:43:32 PM
Good thing drones can't shoot back
 
2013-07-20 02:58:45 PM
So, they want pay folks to shoot down drones, that their tax dollars fund, with funds raised by local taxes? Sounds like a fool proof, fiscally prudent plan...
 
2013-07-20 03:01:48 PM
And to think, here I've been thinking that shooting at an aircraft, especially with the intent to shoot it down, has been a federal crime since we've had aviation laws on the book.

It's going to be funny when some nutjob decides to try to do that, and either has it crash into a house and kill someone, or has the bullet come down right into a kid's head. Not ha-ha funny, but "Dumbass" funny.
 
2013-07-20 03:12:39 PM

hardinparamedic: And to think, here I've been thinking that shooting at an aircraft, especially with the intent to shoot it down, has been a federal crime since we've had aviation laws on the book.

It's going to be funny when some nutjob decides to try to do that, and either has it crash into a house and kill someone, or has the bullet come down right into a kid's head. Not ha-ha funny, but "Dumbass" funny.


Or starts a forest fire that consumes a fair chunk of timber land. Yeah, that's going to make these folks SUPER popular...
 
2013-07-20 03:45:38 PM
Good thing there's no penalty for willful destruction of government property.
 
2013-07-20 03:49:14 PM

hubiestubert: Or starts a forest fire that consumes a fair chunk of timber land. Yeah, that's going to make these folks SUPER popular...


Ah. So we go from destruction of Government property and shooting down an aircraft, to attempted murder and probably murder, given the average of at least one death during major forest fires.
 
2013-07-20 04:03:28 PM

hardinparamedic: And to think, here I've been thinking that shooting at an aircraft, especially with the intent to shoot it down, has been a federal crime since we've had aviation laws on the book.


Traditionally, that's because shooting at an aircraft meant you were shooting at a person.  Same as shooting at a car.

It's going to be funny when some nutjob decides to try to do that, and either has it crash into a house and kill someone, or has the bullet come down right into a kid's head. Not ha-ha funny, but "Dumbass" funny.

I'm betting that won't really be a problem.  For the type of drone that you'd have any hope of downing by small arms fire, it would be small enough that it wouldn't be a serious hazard.  Plus, for that type of drone, you'd be using a shotgun firing birdshot, and I'll let you pelt me with birdshot to your hearts content from 150 yards away, so long as I get to wear my glasses.

Now, if you wanted to get *REAL* fancy, you could arm a large-ish radio control model aircraft with a semi-auto shotgun and equip it with one of those real-time cameras, and go hunting drones like a half-assed WWII fighter pilot.  That would be pretty safe:  The shot would pose no serious threat to anyone on the ground.

/You'd have to dedicate two servos:  One for the safety, and one for the trigger.
//Ask me about how GPS-enabled autonomous gliders could make Japanese balloon bombs a viable and cheap weapon.
 
2013-07-20 04:09:27 PM

dittybopper: Now, if you wanted to get *REAL* fancy, you could arm a large-ish radio control model aircraft with a semi-auto shotgun and equip it with one of those real-time cameras, and go hunting drones like a half-assed WWII fighter pilot.  That would be pretty safe:  The shot would pose no serious threat to anyone on the ground.


IIRC, that's also illegal according to the FAA for a civilian aircraft to carry air-to-air weaponry.
 
2013-07-20 04:11:45 PM

hubiestubert: So, they want pay folks to shoot down drones, that their tax dollars fund, with funds raised by local taxes? Sounds like a fool proof, fiscally prudent plan...


Well stated.
 
2013-07-20 04:12:43 PM
www.ausairpower.net
 
2013-07-20 04:13:54 PM
They're easy to shoot down, but difficult to clean and they taste horrible.
 
2013-07-20 04:13:55 PM

itsumo: hubiestubert: So, they want pay folks to shoot down drones, that their tax dollars fund, with funds raised by local taxes? Sounds like a fool proof, fiscally prudent plan...

Well stated.


The law was ghost-written by the drone manufacturer's lobby.
 
2013-07-20 04:14:09 PM
Obviously this won't pass. But, good for them.

/is my redneck showing :/
 
2013-07-20 04:16:41 PM

dittybopper: hardinparamedic: And to think, here I've been thinking that shooting at an aircraft, especially with the intent to shoot it down, has been a federal crime since we've had aviation laws on the book.

Traditionally, that's because shooting at an aircraft meant you were shooting at a person.  Same as shooting at a car.

It's going to be funny when some nutjob decides to try to do that, and either has it crash into a house and kill someone, or has the bullet come down right into a kid's head. Not ha-ha funny, but "Dumbass" funny.

I'm betting that won't really be a problem.  For the type of drone that you'd have any hope of downing by small arms fire, it would be small enough that it wouldn't be a serious hazard.  Plus, for that type of drone, you'd be using a shotgun firing birdshot, and I'll let you pelt me with birdshot to your hearts content from 150 yards away, so long as I get to wear my glasses.

Now, if you wanted to get *REAL* fancy, you could arm a large-ish radio control model aircraft with a semi-auto shotgun and equip it with one of those real-time cameras, and go hunting drones like a half-assed WWII fighter pilot.  That would be pretty safe:  The shot would pose no serious threat to anyone on the ground.

/You'd have to dedicate two servos:  One for the safety, and one for the trigger.
//Ask me about how GPS-enabled autonomous gliders could make Japanese balloon bombs a viable and cheap weapon.


Mount the weapons on Helicat for even more awesome.:D

Serious question, could you bring them down with some kind of radio "jammer"?
 
2013-07-20 04:17:03 PM
In Soviet America, drone hunt YOU!
 
2013-07-20 04:19:19 PM

mutterfark: dittybopper: hardinparamedic: And to think, here I've been thinking that shooting at an aircraft, especially with the intent to shoot it down, has been a federal crime since we've had aviation laws on the book.

Traditionally, that's because shooting at an aircraft meant you were shooting at a person.  Same as shooting at a car.

It's going to be funny when some nutjob decides to try to do that, and either has it crash into a house and kill someone, or has the bullet come down right into a kid's head. Not ha-ha funny, but "Dumbass" funny.

I'm betting that won't really be a problem.  For the type of drone that you'd have any hope of downing by small arms fire, it would be small enough that it wouldn't be a serious hazard.  Plus, for that type of drone, you'd be using a shotgun firing birdshot, and I'll let you pelt me with birdshot to your hearts content from 150 yards away, so long as I get to wear my glasses.

Now, if you wanted to get *REAL* fancy, you could arm a large-ish radio control model aircraft with a semi-auto shotgun and equip it with one of those real-time cameras, and go hunting drones like a half-assed WWII fighter pilot.  That would be pretty safe:  The shot would pose no serious threat to anyone on the ground.

/You'd have to dedicate two servos:  One for the safety, and one for the trigger.
//Ask me about how GPS-enabled autonomous gliders could make Japanese balloon bombs a viable and cheap weapon.

Mount the weapons on Helicat for even more awesome.:D

Serious question, could you bring them down with some kind of radio "jammer"?


Why jam it when you can take it over...

www.cbc.ca
 
2013-07-20 04:19:27 PM

dittybopper: Now, if you wanted to get *REAL* fancy, you could arm a large-ish radio control model aircraft with a semi-auto shotgun and equip it with one of those real-time cameras, and go hunting drones like a half-assed WWII fighter pilot. That would be pretty safe: The shot would pose no serious threat to anyone on the ground.


Now that's a reality show I would watch.
 
2013-07-20 04:19:48 PM
because freedoms, guns and socialism!
 
2013-07-20 04:20:06 PM

mutterfark: Serious question, could you bring them down with some kind of radio "jammer"?


You REALLY want to mess with the people at the FCC? Their methods are..unspeakable.

i.cdn.turner.com
 
2013-07-20 04:21:19 PM
Notabunny:Good thing drones can't shoot back yet.

FTFY
 
2013-07-20 04:22:00 PM
How dare they overfly my medicinal plant farm! That's a shooting.
 
2013-07-20 04:23:16 PM

oldernell: They're easy to shoot down, but difficult to clean and they taste horrible.


Try Frank's Red Hot.

I put that shiat on everything.
 
2013-07-20 04:24:14 PM
It may not happen, but it does send a message to those writing the regulations.

Also, it's nice to see that after all the nine-eleven panic that people are valuing privacy again.
 
2013-07-20 04:24:15 PM

hardinparamedic: hubiestubert: Or starts a forest fire that consumes a fair chunk of timber land. Yeah, that's going to make these folks SUPER popular...

Ah. So we go from destruction of Government property and shooting down an aircraft, to attempted murder and probably murder, given the average of at least one death during major forest fires.


Well, yeah, but hey $100.
 
2013-07-20 04:24:21 PM
An example of said government official:

4.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-07-20 04:25:32 PM

oldernell: They're easy to shoot down, but difficult to clean and they taste horrible.


This reminds me of the time my obnoxious vegan friend put a whole shiatload of Styrofoam deer sculptures she'd made with packages of what she considered delicious nonperishable vegan food and an 'isn't this nicer?' note in their hollow bellies into the forest the day before the first day of hunting season.

...And no, I have no idea why the hell we're friends. I think she might be my comic relief, really.
 
2013-07-20 04:26:44 PM

hardinparamedic: mutterfark: Serious question, could you bring them down with some kind of radio "jammer"?

You REALLY want to mess with the people at the FCC? Their methods are..unspeakable.

[i.cdn.turner.com image 400x300]


Lol, no. Even in a rural area I doubt it would take long to triangulate the source of transmission. I was just curious.:)
 
2013-07-20 04:27:47 PM
FYI, an R/C plane following a drone results in some serious one-on-one time with the State police...just saying.
 
2013-07-20 04:28:59 PM
send a kite after it
 
2013-07-20 04:29:40 PM

JacksonBryan: FYI, an R/C plane following a drone results in some serious one-on-one time with the State police...just saying.


That's your 'thank you' for watching the watchers.
 
2013-07-20 04:30:22 PM

hubiestubert: So, they want pay folks to shoot down drones, that their tax dollars fund, with funds raised by local taxes? Sounds like a fool proof, fiscally prudent plan...


A Republican plan, obviously.
 
2013-07-20 04:30:34 PM
Did they dust off their paranoid, "Shoot Down U.N. Black Helicopters" bill from the Clinton years, and just to a search/replace with "Drone"?  Paranoid white people are so predictable it's sad.
 
2013-07-20 04:31:11 PM

Kyosuke: JacksonBryan: FYI, an R/C plane following a drone results in some serious one-on-one time with the State police...just saying.

That's your 'thank you' for watching the watchers.


I don't remember ever getting a thank you.
 
2013-07-20 04:32:03 PM
How do they know what is a surveillance drone vs an unmanned aircraft from a university doing research?  Hell, CU-Boulder has a whole Center devoted to this:  http://recuv.colorado.edu/
 
2013-07-20 04:32:52 PM

mutterfark: Serious question, could you bring them down with some kind of radio "jammer"?


Under most circumstances, no. They're generally programed to just fly around in circles if they lose signal, but if there's a storm creating uneven pressure in the area, the automatic routines can't always keep up.
 
2013-07-20 04:33:59 PM

Fallout Zone: How do they know what is a surveillance drone vs an unmanned aircraft from a university doing research?  Hell, CU-Boulder has a whole Center devoted to this:  http://recuv.colorado.edu/


Somehow, I don't think thinking and knowing things enters into it much.
 
2013-07-20 04:36:18 PM

cptjeff: Under most circumstances, no. They're generally programed to just fly around in circles if they lose signal, but if there's a storm creating uneven pressure in the area, the automatic routines can't always keep up.


Even then, you're messing with powers that you really don't want to come down on you. You've just jammed a Government Satellite uplink.

The FCC and other Feds are going to drop the hammer on you.
 
2013-07-20 04:36:32 PM
Looks like it's time to start building drones in Colorado.

\What? It worked with the cobras in India and the rats in Vietnam
 
2013-07-20 04:37:03 PM
I know what hackers are going to learn how to do.
 
2013-07-20 04:38:21 PM
Here's a real gem from the aritcle:

The FAA... reminded the public that it regulates the nation's airspace, including the airspace over cities and towns.

He dismissed the FAA's warning. "The FAA doesn't have the power to make a law," he said.


That's some Grade A ignorance right there.
 
2013-07-20 04:38:47 PM
For hunting *wink*
 
2013-07-20 04:40:08 PM
mutterfark:

Serious question, could you bring them down with some kind of radio "jammer"?


In theory yes.  Depends on the drone - I suspect the military armed drones have some pretty sophsticated systems to prevent hijacking them.

Cheaper drones - in theory you could blanket the command frequency with noise loud enough to drown out the commands - depending on the drone it would either crash or go into some sort of safe/autoland mode.

The practically of doing this?  Hard to say - I would suggest at a minumum you would have to have a high speed steerable dish antenna and a transmitter with a couple KW on the appropriate frequency, maybe less.

Shooting at a drone with a firearm would be beyond stupid.

However, the guy who invents a steering nose cone for an estes rocket is going to be wealthy....
 
2013-07-20 04:40:14 PM
I love this brand of idiot. Of the ilk that cries out, "Show me the law that says I can't do this! yuk-yuk." Then they proceed to do something utterly inane. The FAA should respond with these yahoos' other battlecry: "We don't need no stinkin' new laws, just reinforce the existing ones!"
 
2013-07-20 04:41:25 PM
I wish Colorado was beachside, I would move there.
 
2013-07-20 04:44:04 PM
With radio-controlled aircraft, there is a recent surge in FPV (first person video)Essentially, aim for the drone, and gun it. With the surge in 2.4 Ghz radios and suuch, inexpensive. Just ebay the rest.
 
2013-07-20 04:45:50 PM

cptjeff: mutterfark: Serious question, could you bring them down with some kind of radio "jammer"?

Under most circumstances, no. They're generally programed to just fly around in circles if they lose signal, but if there's a storm creating uneven pressure in the area, the automatic routines can't always keep up.


Thanks for the info. I wasn't thinking so much about military type drones, btw, more along the lines of the article: small privately owned drones. Franky, the image of some yokel firing a shotgun at a Predator is kind of amusing in a 'imma throw rocks at your tank' way.
 
2013-07-20 04:47:09 PM

puddleonfire: I wish Colorado was beachside, I would move there.


ahh, a waterfront devotee. I wonder where s/he resides... checks profile... Phoenix?!
/jus playin"
 
2013-07-20 04:48:00 PM
lol
Its also illegal to fire a rifle or deer slug into the air.  Good luck taking down a drone with bird-shot!
 
2013-07-20 04:48:35 PM
Aaron Cross didn't need a permit.
 
2013-07-20 04:48:54 PM

Ablejack: I love this brand of idiot. Of the ilk that cries out, "Show me the law that says I can't do this! yuk-yuk." Then they proceed to do something utterly inane. The FAA should respond with these yahoos' other battlecry: "We don't need no stinkin' new laws, just reinforce the existing ones!"


And the House Republicans will vote to water down the laws for Real Muricans, in the I've-Lost-Count-th attempt to repeal Obamacare.
 
2013-07-20 04:49:31 PM
In Colorado?

I think they may have a special "It's coming right for us" version of the SYG law making this drone shooting idear totes legal.

/Totes.
 
2013-07-20 04:51:28 PM
It is discussion threads like this that keep me coming back to Fark for all my news commentary.  Unfortunately, I am not being sarcastic.
 
2013-07-20 04:52:07 PM

quatchi: In Colorado?

I think they may have a special "It's coming right for us" version of the SYG law making this drone shooting idear totes legal.

/Totes.


funnied.
/you should get notified automatically, dontchathink? or perhaps we do; just I've never been.
 
2013-07-20 04:52:18 PM
Meh....the Federal gov't needs biatchslapped sometimes.   This may be one of those times...
 
2013-07-20 04:55:16 PM
drone=rc helocopter with go pro cam on it looking in your bedroom window
 
2013-07-20 04:56:44 PM

hubiestubert: hardinparamedic: And to think, here I've been thinking that shooting at an aircraft, especially with the intent to shoot it down, has been a federal crime since we've had aviation laws on the book.

It's going to be funny when some nutjob decides to try to do that, and either has it crash into a house and kill someone, or has the bullet come down right into a kid's head. Not ha-ha funny, but "Dumbass" funny.

Or starts a forest fire that consumes a fair chunk of timber land. Yeah, that's going to make these folks SUPER popular...


Or lets aliens from the 8th Dimension take over.
 
2013-07-20 04:59:18 PM
Well, if the point of this is to call attention to the fact America is having flying spy planes forced on us, then I'm ALL FOR IT.

Sometimes it's the thought that counts.
 
2013-07-20 04:59:56 PM

Ablejack: funnied.
/you should get notified automatically, dontchathink? or perhaps we do; just I've never been.


I don't think the smart/funny buttons are actually connected to anything. Could be wrong.
 
2013-07-20 05:00:22 PM

megarian: oldernell: They're easy to shoot down, but difficult to clean and they taste horrible.

Try Frank's Red Hot.

I put that shiat on everything.


Mmmm. I keep a bottle of it on my desk for that very reason.
 
2013-07-20 05:00:30 PM
CSB: Deer Trail is the nearest town to  this place. Some guy was shooting video with a Quadrocopter during the NASA event there last weekend,

/Nobody shot at it
//Never actually been to Deer Trail
///Whole lotta nuthin' out there
 
2013-07-20 05:00:47 PM

slykens1: Aaron Cross didn't need a permit.


www.flicksandbits.com


"Damn right!"
 
2013-07-20 05:01:50 PM
yeah that $100 will sure cover those legal expenses to defend your self on charges of destruction of government property
 
2013-07-20 05:02:12 PM

SpiderQueenDemon: oldernell: They're easy to shoot down, but difficult to clean and they taste horrible.

This reminds me of the time my obnoxious vegan friend put a whole shiatload of Styrofoam deer sculptures she'd made with packages of what she considered delicious nonperishable vegan food and an 'isn't this nicer?' note in their hollow bellies into the forest the day before the first day of hunting season.

...And no, I have no idea why the hell we're friends. I think she might be my comic relief, really.


That's a rather involved prank.  But I can respect that kind of effort.
 
2013-07-20 05:03:20 PM
"Look out, Ned, it's headed right for us!"
 
2013-07-20 05:05:48 PM
United Police States of America
 
2013-07-20 05:06:16 PM

bmwericus: mutterfark:

Serious question, could you bring them down with some kind of radio "jammer"?


In theory yes.  Depends on the drone - I suspect the military armed drones have some pretty sophsticated systems to prevent hijacking them.

Cheaper drones - in theory you could blanket the command frequency with noise loud enough to drown out the commands - depending on the drone it would either crash or go into some sort of safe/autoland mode.

The practically of doing this?  Hard to say - I would suggest at a minumum you would have to have a high speed steerable dish antenna and a transmitter with a couple KW on the appropriate frequency, maybe less.

Shooting at a drone with a firearm would be beyond stupid.

However, the guy who invents a steering nose cone for an estes rocket is going to be wealthy....


Shooting a global hawk or similar large, jet powered drone would be beyond stupid.

A "102nd use for a dead cat"* drone would be ideal for bird shot.  There are a large class of useful drones that need not be able to carry a hellfire missile to complete its mission.  I assume that most flying over the US would not need hellfire missiles.  Small size will reduce mission range, but since every congressman wants military bases in his district, that shouldn't be too much of a problem.  For observing districts with less corrupt congressman (who avoid flying in small planes), you can go a long way by simply flying slower (domestic flights need not worry about other drones intercepting them).

I'd wonder if this was started by someone with an interest in making drones that are at least extremely difficult to bring down with small arms fire (I'm sure we've lost a few in Afghanistan, and it is reasonable to think rednecks are better armed than the Taliban.  AR-15s also have better range than AK-47s.)  Since this type of political thought isn't unknown among defence engineers, it might have started that way.  Of course, since the number of tea partiers likely outnumber the defence engineers, I wouldn't count on it.

Finally, no.  This isn't like the "black helicopter idiocy."  The "black helicopter idiocy" included such things as "I can't eyeball a flag on the aircraft, therefore it must have gold fringe and I don't have to follow US law".  Of course, there is always the question of how many people willing to shoot a drone don't hold property rights equal to human rights. Such issues make you wonder if they would be equally happy shooting a hang glider.

/* Not obscure.  You're just old.
// Yes, I went there.  On caturday.
 
2013-07-20 05:10:23 PM
I can see a win-win situation in this kind of civil disobedience. It's buried deep beneath many layers of perversity, but it's there.
 
2013-07-20 05:11:52 PM

DaAlien: CSB: Deer Trail is the nearest town to  this place. Some guy was shooting video with a Quadrocopter during the NASA event there last weekend,

/Nobody shot at it
//Never actually been to Deer Trail
///Whole lotta nuthin' out there


Just watched a youtube vid of a lap around that joint. Nice track.
 
2013-07-20 05:11:55 PM

yet_another_wumpus: bmwericus: mutterfark:
Shooting at a drone with a firearm would be beyond stupid.
...
A "102nd use for a dead cat"* drone would be ideal for bird shot.
...
AR-15s also have better range than AK-47s.
...

Correction.  In no way am I suggesting shooting at *any* drone in places they aren't used for assination with anything larger than bird shot.  Next thing you know it will be raining down .30-30 ammunition, and some joker will decide to justify his purchase of a .50 sniper rifle.
 
2013-07-20 05:15:26 PM

JacksonBryan: FYI, an R/C plane following a drone results in some serious one-on-one time with the State police...just saying.


Did you follow them around three corner turns, or whatever the urban legend is?

bmwericus: mutterfark:

However, the guy who invents a steering nose cone for an estes rocket is going to be wealthy....


Now I want a (cheap) model rocket with vector thrust.
 
2013-07-20 05:19:08 PM
Don't hunt the drones.  Hunt the men driving them.  A drone is much easier replaced than the man operating it.
 
2013-07-20 05:24:02 PM
There's big money waiting for those who develop counter-drone tech.  It covers a whole collection of technologies, everything from drone detection systems, guided skyrockets, anti-drone drones, even using balloons to get anti-drones to altitude so they can attack from a descending angle.  Telescopes with corrected virtual images, so while it looks like you are shooting a drone, you are shooting an adjusted angle for where the drone is going to be when the bullet arrives in that space.  Then there are solid state lasers to blind and burn drones.

All extremely illegal, mind you.  But insanely profitable.
 
2013-07-20 05:26:49 PM

hardinparamedic: cptjeff: Under most circumstances, no. They're generally programed to just fly around in circles if they lose signal, but if there's a storm creating uneven pressure in the area, the automatic routines can't always keep up.

Even then, you're messing with powers that you really don't want to come down on you. You've just jammed a Government Satellite uplink.

The FCC and other Feds are going to drop the hammer on you.


We're calling it a usability study and bulletproofing the system. Crowd-sourcing the beta if you will. If we don't show them how easy it is to shut them down they won't be prepared for the terrorists they are intended to thwart.

I'm a patriot doing my civic duty.
 
2013-07-20 05:37:14 PM
The only 'Drones' I'm aware of in the area here are those hobbyists can buy at a shop and fly like an RC aircraft. A lot of them have cameras built in because folks like having a birds eye view. YouTube has a few videos from cameras placed in the cockpits of these large RC planes and they're pretty cool.

It's kind of like you're in there flying the thing.

Besides, if the cops want aircraft surveillance, they can use a helicopter costing a grand an hour or so and can be heard coming miles away. Folks have no problem with one of those hovering over their neighborhood looking for crooks. Why should they be pi$$ed over a smaller, quieter version that isn't costing them a ton in taxes for maintenance and aviation fuel.

Heck. I'd like to have a drone with a camera just to look around and have fun with. Folks were happy as heck when they came out with automatic cameras years ago that could fit in the plastic nose cone of a model rocket and take a short reel of film during the flight. Even though they had to wait several days to get the film developed and show it from a projector. Model aircraft enthusiasts were as happy as peas in a pod.

No one worried about being spied upon.

Then again, CB radios were popular in cars and, if you knew what you were doing, you could park your car outside of an RC field, turn your CB to a certain channel, key the mike and watch aircraft fall from the skies. They could jam the RC signal.

Attach an illegal booster (called a linear) and you could jam signals even better. Though illegal, those devices could be bought almost anywhere. They doubled the range of your car CB radio.

When they came up with RC helicopters that ran on gas engines, the enthusiasts were real thrilled. More power. Longer flight time.

The only difference is today is that drones are quieter, you can get images in real time or stored to download and don't have to wait two or three days for the film to get developed. Plus, those video cams are actually cheaper than the tiny, film cameras that were used.

BTW. I've seen 1/4 scale gas powered B52 RC bombers. Those babies can carry a lot of video cams, powerful real time transmitters and the heavy batteries to support them.

No one complained about them.
 
2013-07-20 05:40:00 PM
api.ning.com

www.conservativecommune.com
 
2013-07-20 05:48:09 PM
Headline: bla bla
Actual story: not bla bla
 
2013-07-20 05:50:13 PM
Another town full of people who have no idea what the laws are.
 
2013-07-20 05:53:20 PM
And, in the meantime, they are trying to get a drone test site in Colorado.  Can see multiple civilian uses for drones.  Bring 'em on.
 
2013-07-20 05:54:31 PM

oldernell: They're easy to shoot down, but difficult to clean and they taste horrible.


you just have to remove all of the silver skin
 
2013-07-20 05:56:38 PM

hardinparamedic: mutterfark: Serious question, could you bring them down with some kind of radio "jammer"?

You REALLY want to mess with the people at the FCC? Their methods are..unspeakable.


The iranians claim that they have. It's nonsense, but ecm might be the best way to fight drones.
 
2013-07-20 05:58:22 PM

grimlock1972: yeah that $100 will sure cover those legal expenses to defend your self on charges of destruction of government property


Maybe not, but I bet it'll go pretty far in the canteen at Guantanamo Bay.
 
2013-07-20 06:03:03 PM
i.imgur.com
Interested in acquiring your anti-drone technology
 
2013-07-20 06:04:15 PM

oldernell: They're easy to shoot down, but difficult to clean and they taste horrible.


Nicknamed the Pink bunkadoo ;)
 
2013-07-20 06:12:41 PM
"The FAA doesn't have the power to make a law," he said.

25.media.tumblr.com
 
2013-07-20 06:22:25 PM
Obama will fix this! He just needs a few more terms.
 
2013-07-20 06:23:26 PM

hardinparamedic: cptjeff: Under most circumstances, no. They're generally programed to just fly around in circles if they lose signal, but if there's a storm creating uneven pressure in the area, the automatic routines can't always keep up.

Even then, you're messing with powers that you really don't want to come down on you. You've just jammed a Government Satellite uplink.

The FCC and other Feds are going to drop the hammer on you.


The zing of the day.
 
2013-07-20 06:33:03 PM

Rik01: The only 'Drones' I'm aware of in the area here are those hobbyists can buy at a shop and fly like an RC aircraft. A lot of them have cameras built in because folks like having a birds eye view. YouTube has a few videos from cameras placed in the cockpits of these large RC planes and they're pretty cool.


Here's the best one made that's not in the thousands of dollars, a DJI Phantom. Less than $700. 15 minutes of flying time with a GoPro on it. Very little "jello" affect in the picture. It's got built in GPS, if it loses communication with the controller, it returns home.
 
2013-07-20 06:43:12 PM

vygramul: "The FAA doesn't have the power to make a law," he said.


The ignorance on which part of the government makes laws in this thread is hitting new highs.
 
2013-07-20 06:45:02 PM

NightOwl2255: Rik01: The only 'Drones' I'm aware of in the area here are those hobbyists can buy at a shop and fly like an RC aircraft. A lot of them have cameras built in because folks like having a birds eye view. YouTube has a few videos from cameras placed in the cockpits of these large RC planes and they're pretty cool.

Here's the best one made that's not in the thousands of dollars, a DJI Phantom. Less than $700. 15 minutes of flying time with a GoPro on it. Very little "jello" affect in the picture. It's got built in GPS, if it loses communication with the controller, it returns home.


How long until the police whine about being filmed - er, I mean, "interfered with" and have those things banned?
 
2013-07-20 06:47:20 PM

Benjimin_Dover: vygramul: "The FAA doesn't have the power to make a law," he said.

The ignorance on which part of the government makes laws in this thread is hitting new highs.


Not compared to the ignorance that is displayed by someone who thinks that congress would have to pass a new law in order to authorize the FAA to bring serious shiat down on someone who shot at a drone.
 
2013-07-20 06:50:51 PM
bmwericus:
Shooting at a drone with a firearm would be beyond stupid.

Given the kind of person we're talking about here, I have to say...

Your point is?
 
2013-07-20 06:57:25 PM

hardinparamedic: And to think, here I've been thinking that shooting at an aircraft, especially with the intent to shoot it down, has been a federal crime since we've had aviation laws on the book.

It's going to be funny when some nutjob decides to try to do that, and either has it crash into a house and kill someone, or has the bullet come down right into a kid's head. Not ha-ha funny, but "Dumbass" funny.


If a 29 ounce battery powered drone crashes into your house and kills someone you need to seriously consider some structural upgrades. The only drones that operate close enough to the ground to be shot down with small arms are the little Remote Control toy helicopters. The kind that have already been used to harass hunters, peek through windows with digital cameras and generally spy on people for thrills.
 
2013-07-20 06:59:50 PM
I was cleaning my gun and it went off. Prove that it didn't .
 
2013-07-20 06:59:50 PM
Anti-drone technology? What does that do? Make long-winded boring people shut up?

Is there an ap available at present?

/Asking for a friend.
 
2013-07-20 07:00:12 PM
Do they get a bonus if it's releasing chem trails when they shoot it down?
 
2013-07-20 07:06:26 PM
images.wikia.com

What's all this buzz about killing drones?
 
2013-07-20 07:09:58 PM
All your interwebs are spied, your email readed, now your ass will be monitored from the sky.

You're gonna need to rewrite that national anthem.
 
2013-07-20 07:19:06 PM

mrbach: All your interwebs are spied, your email readed, now your ass will be monitored from the sky.

You're gonna need to rewrite that national anthem.


Well, I've long ago ditched the "home of the brave" bullshiat from that tune when this country started pissing itself over whatever nonsense our fevered little brains could imagine (as opposed to actual threats).  But, I was looking for a good reason to toss out "land of the free."  This may do it.

Aside from that, however, I don't really care.  I figure if the NSA is curious, anything they're going to find poking around in my emails is going to pale in comparison to the vast majority of internet users.
 
2013-07-20 07:19:31 PM

wildcardjack: [images.wikia.com image 600x317]

What's all this buzz about killing drones?


Quit bee-ing such a busy-body!

/Don't wanna hear no complaints.
//This is Fark.
///You will never find a more retched hive of puns and villainry anywhere else on the net.
 
2013-07-20 07:20:48 PM

ex-nuke: hardinparamedic: And to think, here I've been thinking that shooting at an aircraft, especially with the intent to shoot it down, has been a federal crime since we've had aviation laws on the book.

It's going to be funny when some nutjob decides to try to do that, and either has it crash into a house and kill someone, or has the bullet come down right into a kid's head. Not ha-ha funny, but "Dumbass" funny.

If a 29 ounce battery powered drone crashes into your house and kills someone you need to seriously consider some structural upgrades. The only drones that operate close enough to the ground to be shot down with small arms are the little Remote Control toy helicopters. The kind that have already been used to harass hunters, peek through windows with digital cameras and generally spy on people for thrills.


I'm not keen on cops and the military using drones, but the ones you mentioned are what I'll be shooting down, should I see one.
 
2013-07-20 07:30:28 PM
Finally! A target worthy of my surplus ZSU-23.
 
rka
2013-07-20 07:40:28 PM

hubiestubert: hardinparamedic: And to think, here I've been thinking that shooting at an aircraft, especially with the intent to shoot it down, has been a federal crime since we've had aviation laws on the book.

It's going to be funny when some nutjob decides to try to do that, and either has it crash into a house and kill someone, or has the bullet come down right into a kid's head. Not ha-ha funny, but "Dumbass" funny.

Or starts a forest fire that consumes a fair chunk of timber land. Yeah, that's going to make these folks SUPER popular...


Deer Trail is in the eastern plains of Colorado. No trees. Even North Dakotans drive through and go "God, this place looks desolate."

Most of the state has these sorts of town on Ignore.
 
2013-07-20 08:03:17 PM
So shooting at a drone is not the brightest idea considering that your bullets which are going up still have to come back down somewhere at a pretty high velocity...

So how about radio controlled aircraft in general designed to more safely disable drones? All you'd really need to knock most of them out of the air is to use a length of cord to foul a prop. Make it a net if you're feeling fancy. Could be a new (clandestine) hobby for citizens...
 
2013-07-20 08:10:25 PM

hardinparamedic: dittybopper: Now, if you wanted to get *REAL* fancy, you could arm a large-ish radio control model aircraft with a semi-auto shotgun and equip it with one of those real-time cameras, and go hunting drones like a half-assed WWII fighter pilot.  That would be pretty safe:  The shot would pose no serious threat to anyone on the ground.

IIRC, that's also illegal according to the FAA for a civilian aircraft to carry air-to-air weaponry.


I don't think the FAA has jurisdiction over model aircraft under a certain size.  Plus, it's already been done.
 
2013-07-20 08:21:00 PM

LouDobbsAwaaaay: Did they dust off their paranoid, "Shoot Down U.N. Black Helicopters" bill from the Clinton years, and just to a search/replace with "Drone"?  Paranoid white people are so predictable it's sad.


As long as you aren't dressed like a deer you're probably safe, though.
 
2013-07-20 08:22:37 PM

mongbiohazard: So how about radio controlled aircraft in general designed to more safely disable drones? All you'd really need to knock most of them out of the air is to use a length of cord to foul a prop. Make it a net if you're feeling fancy. Could be a new (clandestine) hobby for citizens...


Or you could just use a slingshot and a fishing reel.  I use one to put up antennas, and you can get pretty accurate with it, and the projectile isn't going to go that far.

But again, you can fire some #6 shot at a drone and no one on the ground will be in any serious danger.
 
2013-07-20 08:26:46 PM

dittybopper: I don't think the FAA has jurisdiction over model aircraft under a certain size.  Plus, it's already been done.


If you're flying it in any controlled airspace and using it to shoot at other aircraft, the FAA damn sure well has jurisdiction over it. And many other federal letter agencies as well.
 
2013-07-20 08:28:48 PM

dittybopper: mongbiohazard: So how about radio controlled aircraft in general designed to more safely disable drones? All you'd really need to knock most of them out of the air is to use a length of cord to foul a prop. Make it a net if you're feeling fancy. Could be a new (clandestine) hobby for citizens...

Or you could just use a slingshot and a fishing reel.  I use one to put up antennas, and you can get pretty accurate with it, and the projectile isn't going to go that far.

But again, you can fire some #6 shot at a drone and no one on the ground will be in any serious danger.


Until a few hundred pounds of drone crashes into their living room. But up until that point, they're perfectly safe.
 
2013-07-20 08:34:49 PM
Sounds like some town in Colorado wants to have a few more craters and that the survivors want a nice, long, and involuntary vacation.

That, and I'd think that the US Government pays more for turning people in that shoot these things down - along with the people that decided on this measure.
 
2013-07-20 08:35:02 PM

mutterfark: Serious question, could you bring them down with some kind of radio "jammer"?


Many of modern drones use spread spectrum transmissions for the control links. Very difficult to completely jam without the right equipment. Several kilowatts of broad band noise in the right frequency band directed at the aircraft would likely make them want to operate it elsewhere.

As for bringing them down, some of the more sophisticated devices are set up with a fail safe to return to a specific set of coordinates in the event of a loss of the control link. So interrupting the link is likely to just run them off.

It is unlikely that someone would get caught unless they were stupid enough to brag about it or someone rats them out. The folks at the FCC are nice enough. But they aren't very proactive. They don't sit around monitoring the airwaves listening for violations. They respond to complaints. Even at that, unless public safety is directly affected, you pretty much have to feed them the information on a silver platter. And if you do that, don't expect them to jump right on it.
 
2013-07-20 08:36:06 PM

Nick Nostril: Finally! A target worthy of my surplus ZSU-23.


-2 or -4?  I always thought the quads look biatchin'.  Especially because the designers were smart enough so that the ZSU can be used in a ground fire mode as well.  Which would be a drag if you were downrange.
 
2013-07-20 08:52:19 PM
For when you turn around and see a drone out the bathroom window, this item works quite well.

media.rd.com
 
2013-07-20 08:52:52 PM

InternetSecurityGuard: Many of modern drones use spread spectrum transmissions for the control links. Very difficult to completely jam without the right equipment. Several kilowatts of broad band noise in the right frequency band directed at the aircraft would likely make them want to operate it elsewhere.


Or to follow up with a large-scale bombardment of the area in question.

As for bringing them down, some of the more sophisticated devices are set up with a fail safe to return to a specific set of coordinates in the event of a loss of the control link. So interrupting the link is likely to just run them off.

If they really wanted to be nasty, deploy weaponry.  Effectively, the person screwing with the signal just gave the instruction to kill innocent people.
 It is unlikely that someone would get caught unless they were stupid enough to brag about it or someone rats them out. The folks at the FCC are nice enough. But they aren't very proactive. They don't sit around monitoring the airwaves listening for violations. They respond to complaints. Even at that, unless public safety is directly affected, you pretty much have to feed them the information on a silver platter. And if you do that, don't expect them to jump right on it.

Given the expense of the drones, the FCC would be the least of the worries.  That, and I'd think that they'd hand a nice and tidy sum to people that cooperate with finding, prosecuting, and convicting the people that caused the interference and/or damage.
 
2013-07-20 08:53:10 PM

The Irresponsible Captain: It may not happen, but it does send a message to those writing the regulations.

Also, it's nice to see that after all the nine-eleven panic that people are valuing privacy again.


Only rednecks in flyover states.

Good, loyal liberal living in big cities still don't care much for privacy.
 
2013-07-20 08:54:38 PM
The actual ordinance is hilarious, starting off with inventing the concept of a municipality having a "sovereign airspace":

An ordinance to defend the sovereign airspace of the Town of Deer Trail, Colorado [...]

And working up to the "Supremacy clause", the concept that the federal constitution, statutes, and U.S. treaties override state law and lower levels of municipalities,  which they handle by declaring it is exactly the opposite of what it says.

Further, the unsolicited or unwanted incursion of any unmanned aerial vehicle into the airspace of the Town of Deer Trail, represents an unlawful attack from a belligerent foreign power. Whether such incursion into the Town of Deer Trail airspace is committed on the part of any government entity or a non-government or corporate actor, each incursion of an unmanned aerial vehicle shall be considered an act of war against the sovereignty of the town and its citizens.
 
2013-07-20 08:59:43 PM

SwiftFox: And working up to the "Supremacy clause", the concept that the federal constitution, statutes, and U.S. treaties override state law and lower levels of municipalities, which they handle by declaring it is exactly the opposite of what it says.


Which means they have to accept being prosecuted & convicted for downing US Government drones or accept Detroit's cancellation of the bankruptcy.
 
2013-07-20 09:00:25 PM
Better idea. We just send subbys mom out to flash the camera burning the operators eyes right out of his skull.
 
2013-07-20 09:12:06 PM

new_york_monty: Only a $100 bounty? Do they have any idea how much my surface to air missiles cost? Ridiculous.


Real Americans shoot down drones with their assault rifles. Yes, beyond visual range at 30,000 feet. That's just how they roll - they are an elite fighting force.

/Dumbasses.
 
2013-07-20 09:18:49 PM
People should be taking advantage of the general lawlessness around low-flying aircraft to build and fly their own drones, instead of shooting them down. Put enough consumer drones in the air and the government will have to allow for personal drones. Drones are the new guns.
 
2013-07-20 09:19:46 PM

hardinparamedic: hubiestubert: Or starts a forest fire that consumes a fair chunk of timber land. Yeah, that's going to make these folks SUPER popular...

Ah. So we go from destruction of Government property and shooting down an aircraft, to attempted murder and probably murder, given the average of at least one death during major forest fires.


See, I was thinking about using an EMP weapon.
 
2013-07-20 09:20:41 PM

rka: hubiestubert: hardinparamedic: And to think, here I've been thinking that shooting at an aircraft, especially with the intent to shoot it down, has been a federal crime since we've had aviation laws on the book.

It's going to be funny when some nutjob decides to try to do that, and either has it crash into a house and kill someone, or has the bullet come down right into a kid's head. Not ha-ha funny, but "Dumbass" funny.

Or starts a forest fire that consumes a fair chunk of timber land. Yeah, that's going to make these folks SUPER popular...

Deer Trail is in the eastern plains of Colorado. No trees. Even North Dakotans drive through and go "God, this place looks desolate."

Most of the state has these sorts of town on Ignore.


My experience in Colorado is pretty much confined to the Mesa Verde/Durango region. Pretty country, and a lot of farms both legal and sometimes "recreational." Overall, nice folks. Still like Mancos, if only for The Columbine and the horse hitches for the local ranchers...
 
2013-07-20 09:23:26 PM

SwiftFox: The actual ordinance is hilarious, starting off with inventing the concept of a municipality having a "sovereign airspace":

An ordinance to defend the sovereign airspace of the Town of Deer Trail, Colorado [...]

And working up to the "Supremacy clause", the concept that the federal constitution, statutes, and U.S. treaties override state law and lower levels of municipalities,  which they handle by declaring it is exactly the opposite of what it says.

Further, the unsolicited or unwanted incursion of any unmanned aerial vehicle into the airspace of the Town of Deer Trail, represents an unlawful attack from a belligerent foreign power. Whether such incursion into the Town of Deer Trail airspace is committed on the part of any government entity or a non-government or corporate actor, each incursion of an unmanned aerial vehicle shall be considered an act of war against the sovereignty of the town and its citizens.


I believe that the colloquial term for what you were going for is "good luck with that"...
 
2013-07-20 09:35:00 PM

mccallcl: People should be taking advantage of the general lawlessness around low-flying aircraft to build and fly their own drones, instead of shooting them down. Put enough consumer drones in the air and the government will have to allow for personal drones. Drones are the new guns.


Or, maybe the government can have drones, and the public can have "right-to-privacy kinetic interceptors.."

//seems only fair
 
2013-07-20 10:13:24 PM
There's only one way to kill a drone.
www.prlog.org
 
2013-07-20 10:14:00 PM
Problem solved...cdn3.warhistoryonline.com
 
2013-07-20 10:15:41 PM
When I see laws like this and laws like raising the age limit for buying guns in a single county, I see a nation that is grappling with problems that it is too damn lazy or too stupid to know how to fix effectively.

On the surface, it's cute and funny, but when you look a little deeper, it becomes kind of sad.
 
2013-07-20 10:16:01 PM

Somaticasual: Or, maybe the government can have drones, and the public can have "right-to-privacy kinetic interceptors.."


Those are called "bullets."
 
2013-07-20 11:18:54 PM
Nick-Nack, Patty-Whack, give the dog a drone.
 
2013-07-20 11:30:33 PM

new_york_monty: Only a $100 bounty? Do they have any idea how much my surface to air missiles cost? Ridiculous.


Costs are coming down.  Surely it's a minor hardware/software hack to make a drone chase down another drone.
 
2013-07-20 11:35:33 PM
When did Americans become ok with mass surveillance and drones?
 
2013-07-20 11:39:18 PM
cdn.pjmedia.com
I should also be paid a bounty for infecting the NSA computer monitoring my internet/phone usage with a virus.
 
2013-07-21 12:13:55 AM

SpiderQueenDemon: This reminds me of the time my obnoxious vegan friend put a whole shiatload of Styrofoam deer sculptures she'd made with packages of what she considered delicious nonperishable vegan food and an 'isn't this nicer?' note in their hollow bellies into the forest the day before the first day of hunting season.


Yeah, that's pretty funny. The food is what takes it over the line from activism into trolling.
 
2013-07-21 12:15:47 AM

hubiestubert: So, they want pay folks to shoot down drones, that their tax dollars fund, with funds raised by local taxes? Sounds like a fool proof, fiscally prudent plan...


This

hardinparamedic: And to think, here I've been thinking that shooting at an aircraft, especially with the intent to shoot it down, has been a federal crime since we've had aviation laws on the book.

It's going to be funny when some nutjob decides to try to do that, and either has it crash into a house and kill someone, or has the bullet come down right into a kid's head. Not ha-ha funny, but "Dumbass" funny.


And also this.
 
2013-07-21 12:32:18 AM

Oznog: new_york_monty: Only a $100 bounty? Do they have any idea how much my surface to air missiles cost? Ridiculous.

Costs are coming down.  Surely it's a minor hardware/software hack to make a drone chase down another drone.


ts2.mm.bing.net

ts4.mm.bing.net
 
2013-07-21 12:50:02 AM

The_Original_Roxtar: [cdn.pjmedia.com image 379x214]
I should also be paid a bounty for infecting the NSA computer monitoring my internet/phone usage with a virus.


God bless your poor, dear, sweet heart, but you do try so very hard, don't you?
 
2013-07-21 01:15:44 AM

Deep Contact: There's only one way to kill a drone.
[www.prlog.org image 796x533]


Also somewhat effective:

www.startrekmedia.com
 
2013-07-21 01:20:39 AM
Are there really that many drones just flying around America? I can't say I've ever seen one "in the wild."
 
2013-07-21 02:17:49 AM

new_york_monty: Only a $100 bounty? Do they have any idea how much my surface to air missiles cost? Ridiculous.


Yeah but you were going to use them anyway, this way you get $100 and do something more constructive than taking down another asiana flight.
 
2013-07-21 02:23:17 AM
Their heart is in the right place, poor execution of protest though.
 
2013-07-21 03:27:49 AM

mutterfark: hardinparamedic: mutterfark: Serious question, could you bring them down with some kind of radio "jammer"?

You REALLY want to mess with the people at the FCC? Their methods are..unspeakable.

[i.cdn.turner.com image 400x300]

Lol, no. Even in a rural area I doubt it would take long to triangulate the source of transmission. I was just curious.:)


A decent directional antenna with proper shielding should take care of any triangulation issues. ;-)
 
2013-07-21 04:49:57 AM
The only drones I want to kill are the ones down at the government offices who are wasting so much of our tax money and oxygen. What's the going bounty on THEM?
 
2013-07-21 04:50:26 AM

Notabunny: Good thing drones can't shoot back


That was sarcasm, right?
 
2013-07-21 05:33:29 AM

hubiestubert: hardinparamedic: And to think, here I've been thinking that shooting at an aircraft, especially with the intent to shoot it down, has been a federal crime since we've had aviation laws on the book.

It's going to be funny when some nutjob decides to try to do that, and either has it crash into a house and kill someone, or has the bullet come down right into a kid's head. Not ha-ha funny, but "Dumbass" funny.

Or starts a forest fire that consumes a fair chunk of timber land. Yeah, that's going to make these folks SUPER popular...


I've been there, it's more likely to start a brush fire than anything else but even then the brush is sort of sparse...on a side note I got drunk at the bar pictured in the Wikipedia article once.  Good times.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deer_Trail,_Colorado
 
2013-07-21 05:42:01 AM
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2371530/Privacy-vigilantes-sh o ot-drones-face-jail-FAA-warns-town-offers-100-prize-hunters-hit-sky.ht ml

The Daily Fail has picked on this as well...I am genuinely curious as to what people who have never been here must think about Colorado since we're famous for mountains, South Park and tragedies.
 
2013-07-21 07:46:11 AM
www.rawstory.com

The man with the plan

/I think the weed is starting to take effect out there.  As if they weren't already a little loopy anyway.
//nothing wrong with a little weed.  Just don't get all shoot-happy about it.
 
2013-07-21 07:54:16 AM

ZeroCorpse: Are there really that many drones just flying around America? I can't say I've ever seen one "in the wild."


Because you can't see them. Or hear them. Despite what nutjob sites would have you believe, Pakistanis do not look up and see or hear drones buzzing around.
 
2013-07-21 11:57:59 AM

vygramul: Benjimin_Dover: vygramul: "The FAA doesn't have the power to make a law," he said.

The ignorance on which part of the government makes laws in this thread is hitting new highs.

Not compared to the ignorance that is displayed by someone who thinks that congress would have to pass a new law in order to authorize the FAA to bring serious shiat down on someone who shot at a drone.


They are both pretty much near the bottom of the mental scale. It would be like comparing 5 degrees Kelvan and 10 degrees Kelvan and claiming that one is colder than the other.
 
2013-07-21 12:19:50 PM

Benjimin_Dover: They are both pretty much near the bottom of the mental scale. It would be like comparing 5 degrees Kelvan and 10 degrees Kelvan and claiming that one is colder than the other.


That's a beautiful glass house you have there.
 
2013-07-21 12:32:37 PM

Benjimin_Dover: vygramul: Benjimin_Dover: vygramul: "The FAA doesn't have the power to make a law," he said.

The ignorance on which part of the government makes laws in this thread is hitting new highs.

Not compared to the ignorance that is displayed by someone who thinks that congress would have to pass a new law in order to authorize the FAA to bring serious shiat down on someone who shot at a drone.

They are both pretty much near the bottom of the mental scale. It would be like comparing 5 degrees Kelvan and 10 degrees Kelvan and claiming that one is colder than the other.


That would be like laughing and saying the FAA DOES pass laws, as opposed to laughing at someone being stupid to begin with.
 
2013-07-21 03:11:49 PM

Benjimin_Dover: vygramul: Benjimin_Dover: vygramul: "The FAA doesn't have the power to make a law," he said.

The ignorance on which part of the government makes laws in this thread is hitting new highs.

Not compared to the ignorance that is displayed by someone who thinks that congress would have to pass a new law in order to authorize the FAA to bring serious shiat down on someone who shot at a drone.

They are both pretty much near the bottom of the mental scale. It would be like comparing 5 degrees Kelvan and 10 degrees Kelvan and claiming that one is colder than the other.


That's because the gov. is ruled by executive fiat these days. Long live the King!

As long as the King! does what he's told by his backers, he gets to live.
 
2013-07-21 03:51:54 PM

RedVentrue: Benjimin_Dover: vygramul: Benjimin_Dover: vygramul: "The FAA doesn't have the power to make a law," he said.

The ignorance on which part of the government makes laws in this thread is hitting new highs.

Not compared to the ignorance that is displayed by someone who thinks that congress would have to pass a new law in order to authorize the FAA to bring serious shiat down on someone who shot at a drone.

They are both pretty much near the bottom of the mental scale. It would be like comparing 5 degrees Kelvan and 10 degrees Kelvan and claiming that one is colder than the other.

That's because the gov. is ruled by executive fiat these days. Long live the King!

As long as the King! does what he's told by his backers, he gets to live.


25.media.tumblr.com
 
2013-07-21 05:30:59 PM

cgremlin: mutterfark: hardinparamedic: mutterfark: Serious question, could you bring them down with some kind of radio "jammer"?

You REALLY want to mess with the people at the FCC? Their methods are..unspeakable.

[i.cdn.turner.com image 400x300]

Lol, no. Even in a rural area I doubt it would take long to triangulate the source of transmission. I was just curious.:)

A decent directional antenna with proper shielding should take care of any triangulation issues. ;-)


I'm pretty familiar with direction finding.

You have to actually have direction finders in range, more than one, in order to triangulate a signal.  That's a major farkin' expense, putting them everywhere.  Not very practical.

Of course, if a bunch of drones keep falling out of the sky in a particular area, that's going to interest those.  Might end up finding that an RC-12 or RC-7B might end up orbiting nearby when they fly a drone overhead, just to DF your ass.

My advice:  If you're gonna do something like that, jam the piss out of it, then move.
 
2013-07-21 05:33:39 PM

semiotix: SpiderQueenDemon: This reminds me of the time my obnoxious vegan friend put a whole shiatload of Styrofoam deer sculptures she'd made with packages of what she considered delicious nonperishable vegan food and an 'isn't this nicer?' note in their hollow bellies into the forest the day before the first day of hunting season.

Yeah, that's pretty funny. The food is what takes it over the line from activism into trolling.


Honestly, I'd be all like "Hey, now I got side dishes!  Bonus!".

A nice picture of the vegan food on a plate next to some venison, sent back, would have been even sweeter.
 
2013-07-21 05:50:15 PM

hardinparamedic: dittybopper: Now, if you wanted to get *REAL* fancy, you could arm a large-ish radio control model aircraft with a semi-auto shotgun and equip it with one of those real-time cameras, and go hunting drones like a half-assed WWII fighter pilot.  That would be pretty safe:  The shot would pose no serious threat to anyone on the ground.

IIRC, that's also illegal according to the FAA for a civilian aircraft to carry air-to-air weaponry.


RC models aren't legally classified as aircraft for the purposes of the FAA.  In fact, they aren't regulated at all, except for the requirement that they generally stay below 400 feet and away from airports.  Technically, you could build a full-sized remote control Cessna RC aircraft and fly it remotely, because they also don't put any size restrictions on model aircraft.  As long as it's not manned, and it's actively flown (ie., not autonomous), and as long as you keep it away from airports, below 400 feet, and generally not over inhabited areas, they don't care.

But the point I was making was still valid:  You ain't gonna shoot down a Predator or Global Hawk.  But there are other drones that are much, much smaller that you could conceivably destroy.  Hell, just using a regular RC aircraft with a camera as a kamikaze would probably work with the smaller sorts of low altitude drones.
 
2013-07-21 08:51:47 PM

Gyrfalcon: The only drones I want to kill are the ones down at the government offices who are wasting so much of our tax money and oxygen. What's the going bounty on THEM?


Less than the one that gets put on people that do that, unfortunately.

Unless they're from a certain state's "economic development" department.
 
Displayed 156 of 156 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report