Hexacopters with video?

[Simon of the Playa]

AND IT PUT LIVES AT RISK.

read the back of your fucking ticket you pain in the ass whiny hippy.

[H.G.Crosby]

you are paying GOOD MONEY for the thrill of being at risk so just shut the fuck up.

[FossaFerox]

I'm paying good money for the freedom to put MYSELF at risk, not so some asshole can do it for us while annoying the shit out of my friends and I with his shitty toy.

[FlyingMonkey]

Here's a way to deal with wayward drones in a safe manner. Once control is achieved the new operator can be as nice or destructive as they want. If all the airborne drones start landing in the embers of the man I would suspect this.

http://www.gizmag.com/skyjack-hijacks-o ... nes/30055/

[theCryptofishist]

The natives have this thing called a "bolo"...

[maryanimal]

I was taking photos of the man before it was burned. As I was walking back, and as you all know it can get crowded in a group of revelers around the man, some guy decided to try and have his copter take off in the midst of all the excitement. I'm not sure if he even knew how to work it. it hit my thigh full force not once but twice. I was wearing a sarong so not a lot of damage to my leg, however I got scratched and a little blood. it scared the crap out of me.

That being said, I think the copters are so cool! I've seen some awesome videos of the burn posted and they're absolutely fantastic I'm sure there are a few dillholes that try to swoop camps and such. I'm sure the operator isn't that far away, so a person could tell the person to knock it off, that you don't appreciate it, blah blah blah. I have no issues with the copters. I've seen some hateful comments in here about destroying others' property, yak yak yak... I personally haven't seen anyone acting like an asshat while flying and filming.

[Captain Goddammit]

The things exist in the default world too.
Any dickhead can fly his high-res camera carrying copter up to your bedroom window. Or pretty much anywhere.
Yes they are cool when used properly but when they aren't I want to be able to do something about it up to and including destroying someone else's property, depending on how deserving the owner is.

I'm wondering if a fight fire with fire approach is the way to go.
I could get my own and outfit it for aerial combat. If I could out-dog-fight the other and get right above it and drop something into one of the rotors... hmmm .... that could work!

Note: I'm talking more about at home than on the playa.

[Simon of the Playa]

I'm paying good money for the freedom to put MYSELF at risk, not so some asshole can do it for us while annoying the shit out of my friends and I with his shitty toy.

you're describing most of the large sound camps.


now please, give me your address, so that i can send you some money, so that you may buy a fucking clue.


and wear a fucking hard hat if you're so concerned, and grow a pair while you're at it.


holy moly, kids these days have the biggest sticks up their asses...


now shut up and get daddy his Lawn Darts.

[maryanimal]

The things exist in the default world too.
Any dickhead can fly his high-res camera carrying copter up to your bedroom window. Or pretty much anywhere.
Yes they are cool when used properly but when they aren't I want to be able to do something about it up to and including destroying someone else's property, depending on how deserving the owner is.
I'm wondering if a fight fire with fire approach is the way to go.
I could get my own and outfit it for aerial combat. If I could out-dog-fight the other and get right above it and drop something into one of the rotors... hmmm .... that could work!

I wasn't considering the default world in my post, but if it happened that someone was bussing around my house, I'd bring out a shotgun and blast it out of the air. That's a big privacy issue. now then, thinking the cops would come out having neighbors calling, and depending how low it was getting, some kind of trap would be set.

I love the idea of a dog fight!

[forty_eight]

this is the rage and upset about drones i've been looking for ... please continue, lol.

if there are cameras on the drones - which we know there are, i'm suspecting the "get permission of the subject in an image" crusaders will be in full rage mode.

have they checked in? i'll be reading and waiting.

[GreyCoyote]

I would of course be remiss if I didn't point-out that your average home microwave oven uses a cavity magnetron resonant at 2.45 ghz and puts-out something in the neighborhood of 1.3Kw ERP. Now, I am not saying that ANYONE would EVER do this, but a few minutes on a milling and boring machine and one can easily bring this down to... wait for it... 2.4 ghz. In fact, a quick look at the internet references will yield a table of how much to take down each of the six magnetron cavities, and for the "plaster it all across the 2.4 gig spread-spectrum" mod (IE, one cavity is resonant at each 20 mhz step from 2.30 to just over 2.45 gig the amount of material milled-off is in the neighborhood of .035 inches.

Now, were one to find himself at hypothetical surplus sale and encounter an old-school waveguide setup (dirt-cheap, sells at the scrap cost of the metal, the flange even matches the bolt pattern on the top of the magnetron!) you would have yourself a drone killer for under $125. Point. Energize. Giggle.

There just might have been a reason the original 1940's patent referred to the microwave as a "RadarRange".

Final bit of giggle: Commercial ovens are usually tuned around 915 mhz and exceed 3KW ERP. THAT platform requires very little tuning either.

[BBadger]

Badge, you're seriously grasping at straws. If drones were banned outright then they could be reported any time they launched, would be far easier to track, etc. As it currently stands reporting a violation does jack shit since the violation is likely over by the time you find a ranger. And of course there's no way to prove who it was that broke the rules so there are no repercussions. The violation still took place and unlike non-compliant videography it was far more invasive AND IT PUT LIVES AT RISK.

Yeah, it'd be easier if they were banned, but that shouldn't be the reason for banning them. Drones are not that hard to track, certainly if people are paying attention and trying to find out where they land or are launched -- especially in areas where they're not supposed to be flying. And who cares if the violation is "over"? Just videotape or photograph it. This isn't the 1990s. There are literally thousands of cameras on everyone, everywhere to document whatever violations may occur especially for such a visible target.

Lives at risk? If this is the standard that must be met, then you should just stay home. Lives are at risk everywhere at Burning Man. You can be run over by bikes, by MVs, people on "illegal" scooters. You can fall from poorly constructed structures, crash on your bike due to unexpected dunes, run into unlit people, die of poisoning or overdose. You can even get hit by kites. The event is set up with the full knowledge that shit may happen. Most of the event is based on guidelines, not enforced strict compliance. The DMV doesn't do a full-point inspection of vehicles at BM, nor are there strict building or fire-codes, or even extensive contraband searches. It's the nature of attending this kind of event.

If you're going to claim that you actively put yourself at risk in such situations,ytou're exposed to dangers anytime you leave the safety of your camp bunker. Are you going to stay cloistered in your camp in case some MV or bike runs you over? I doubt that. You choose to leave and expose yourself to danger. And so it goes for drones as well. Nobody intends on crashing their $500 drone into other people anymore than their bike into a pedestrian. For myself, I'd be more wary of ground hazards than air hazards by any means.

Yes, they can catch people with cell phone jammers, that's because they're illegal and they can triangulate on each and every one they encounter. There's no need to figure out which is which, they can move on each one. If drones are permitted then there's no way to separate them out when you're trying to triangulate in on a given source. If 1 drone is behaving and 1 breaks the rules you have to visually track the rule breaker until you triangulate in on an active source who are unable to prove they're piloting a different drone. It isn't feasible.

And so we may triangulate the position of the drone using the eyes of everyone who notices. In the end, the drone will land, and whether or not the perpetrator is directly caught, the drone gets confiscated. $300-500 down the drain. It is the same whether or not a drone is banned or regulated.

In the end, I doubt it is going to matter much anyway. If people are going to carry out some clandestine drone survey over the city, they're going to do so in a covert, careful manner to avoid being caught. It'll happen anyway, and there are always some people who slip through the cracks, whether it involves unregistered commercial photography, driving mopeds around, fireworks, drugs, or any other banned operation. What the regulations do is ensure that people are generally not going to openly try and violate them. It's like the LEO presence ensuring that people don't use their drugs in the open. That's the point of all this, not a 100% bullet-proof solution.

[FossaFerox]

I'm paying good money for the freedom to put MYSELF at risk, not so some asshole can do it for us while annoying the shit out of my friends and I with his shitty toy.

you're describing most of the large sound camps.


now please, give me your address, so that i can send you some money, so that you may buy a fucking clue.


and wear a fucking hard hat if you're so concerned, and grow a pair while you're at it.


holy moly, kids these days have the biggest sticks up their asses...


now shut up and get daddy his Lawn Darts.

Last I checked most large sound camps weren't populated by sharp carbon fiber blades moving at speeds in the area of 100-225 MPH (depending on drone model). Drone collisions with a rotor throttled all the way up (say if the drone rolls in a gust and tries to reorient if the pilot is flying via attitude rather than manual) cause injuries that WILL end the victim's burn if not their life.

Seriously, "grow a pair?" You're talking to someone who runs up walls and plays with fire for fun. Shit, I was on fire four times last week and I'm doing it again tomorrow (though hopefully the new fire prop behaves a bit better). I have NO problem with danger. What I have a problem with is danger on someone else's terms without warning. Lawn Darts were fucking awesome. I still have a scar on my left shin from one twenty years later. Fucker went to the bone. But you know what? I CHOSE to play with them. They were a ton of fun and I'd make the decision again. What I wouldn't be okay with is someone throwing a lawn dart at my back when I don't even have any way of knowing they're being played with.

And again, if drones are permitted then LEO gets free reign to increase their surveillance of the burn and do so covertly, which personally I'm not fond of, though that isn't my main motivation.

Oh, and Badge, the drone's value shouldn't be a factor. You shouldn't be allowed to risk someone else's life just because you can afford to comfortably gamble $500. If they fuck up bad enough and should otherwise be facing jail time (say for gross negligence resulting in bodily harm or manslaughter) the fact that they can choose to instead forfeit their untraceable toy is bullshit. You'll never find the operator in BRC, especially if you're only looking for him AFTER he fucks up and hurts someone.

[Lonesomebri]

this is the rage and upset about drones i've been looking for ... please continue, lol.
if there are cameras on the drones - which we know there are, i'm suspecting the "get permission of the subject in an image" crusaders will be in full rage mode.
have they checked in? i'll be reading and waiting.

The drone operators, like professional photographers, have money and are cool, nobody is gonna stop them. It's the small fry the control freaks are after, the guy with the point and shoot, someone trying to "barter" their way into debt, moop not included in a sanctioned publicized photo shoot, anyone not in a placed camp.

[theCryptofishist]

#16 is possibly relevant.

[Simon of the Playa]

this is the rage and upset about drones i've been looking for ... please continue, lol.
if there are cameras on the drones - which we know there are, i'm suspecting the "get permission of the subject in an image" crusaders will be in full rage mode.
have they checked in? i'll be reading and waiting.

[/size]*control freaks are after, the guy with the point and shoot, someone trying to "barter" their way into debt, moop not included in a sanctioned publicized photo shoot, anyone not in a placed camp.


*see also "second year meglomaniacs"

[BBadger]

Last I checked most large sound camps weren't populated by sharp carbon fiber blades moving at speeds in the area of 100-225 MPH (depending on drone model). Drone collisions with a rotor throttled all the way up (say if the drone rolls in a gust and tries to reorient if the pilot is flying via attitude rather than manual) cause injuries that WILL end the victim's burn if not their life.

Last time I checked, there were also hulking, not-street-legal, uninsured, overladen mutant vehicles that have run over bikes without any notice and could easily wreck a fragile human body even at 5mph. There are also multi-watt lasers that could permanently blind you in an instant -- both on installations and handheld. You'll also find wooden and steel structures that may not be structurally sound, correctly tied down, or simply made to withstand the elements. They have sharp edges too!

Pick your poison.

Oh, and Badge, the drone's value shouldn't be a factor. You shouldn't be allowed to risk someone else's life just because you can afford to comfortably gamble $500. If they fuck up bad enough and should otherwise be facing jail time (say for gross negligence resulting in bodily harm or manslaughter) the fact that they can choose to instead forfeit their untraceable toy is bullshit. You'll never find the operator in BRC, especially if you're only looking for him AFTER he fucks up and hurts someone.

The value of the drone simply implies that people have a stake in preventing these drones from crashing, or for that matter having it confiscated for some meaningless joyride around the city. Losing the drone is like getting fined for some stupid act. It's a negative incentive.

And there is a lot of stuff out at Burning Man that someone can "fuck up" for someone else and not be liable or have a hard time extracting payment. Are you going to sue the darktard who caused you to endo because he wasn't lit up when you hit him while riding? The 4-ton mutant vehicle that ran over your leg because the driver didn't come to a full stop before letting you off -- even though he was going only 5mph? The large wooden structure that collapses on you when you were taking shelter from the wind? The insurance-less MV that loses its brake controls and crashes into your car? These are just a subset of the risks you take at Burning Man. Something you signed up for when you agreed to enter the gates. This is not a kindergarten where the sharp corners on everything are filed down for the childrens' safety. This is an inherently dangerous event.

So I find this whole "danger" argument relatively weak, as if drones really stand out against everything else. There's lots of danger at Burning Man, much of it more dangerous than drones (like motor vehicles). Drones are just another different "dangerous" aspect of the event, and so far not regulated because they're new. We don't ban every other potentially dangerous or abuse-worthy thing at Burning Man, and so it should be with drones unless there is a specific pattern of failure that has been demonstrated, not just speculated. BMOrg pushes safety, but can only go so far if they also wish to foster an environment of creativity, risk-taking, and the rewards that result.

[H.G.Crosby]

yeah,

what She Said.

[Thecatman]

I remember in 2007 or 2008, while at the top of the temple, somebody on the ground operating an RC helicopter with a camera on it.

[FossaFerox]

Very well put Badge.

I maintain that there are still a few important points that set Drone's apart from things like MVs and lasers and should put them in the same category as firearms when it comes time to draw up rules and regulations

The first is contribution. MVs are a mainstay of the event, technology and art coming together to provide for an otherworldly experience. There's a reason regular vehicle traffic was banned and MVs were allowed to continue following the death and serious injuries in '96. What do Drones add to the experience? They don't do anything to add to the burn WHILE it's happening for anyone save the operator. If they have any immediate impact at all it's a negative one.

Sure, some of the videos are cool, but unless they're flying low enough to put lives at risk they're not remarkably different from the video shot by regular air traffic. More to the point, detracting from the immediate experience for the purpose of making cool videos flies in the face of what the event is supposed to be (something you experience as opposed to something you watch). While that absolutely isn't reason to ban them (or other photography) by itself, it certainly prevents the videos they provide from counting in their favor.

Second, it comes down to enforceability and accountability. MVs are registered. Checking their registration is super easy since the nature of their operation puts their credentials (or lack thereof) in full view of rangers/BLM/LEO hundreds of times each day that they're operating. Even if an MV is uninsured, if one runs over your campsite you can find out who did it and there will be consequences. You can't hide an MV very easily. I'm not advocating lawsuits for the sake of lawsuits, but TTITD is not a fairy-land and actions should have consequences at the end of the day.

If I ride an MV, climb a tower, dance on your dance floor, or drink your kool-aid I'm assuming some amount of risk. I'll accept the consequences of my actions. However, if you drive an art car over my camp or crash a drone into it I expect there to be consequences for your malice/negligence. In only one of those two scenarios is there any degree of accountability.

Finally, forewarning is huge when it comes to risk. You can see and hear an MV coming, they aren't designed to operate in otherwise occupied space so when accidents do happen they generally don't involve people being caught completely off guard. Same goes for being on a dance floor with lasers, near the char-cade, or climbing a structure you didn't build yourself. You're aware of the risk that's there. That makes any risk far more acceptable since people can choose whether or not to take on that risk. With drones you aren't given that option.

[trilobyte]

FF, if you think UAV/drones are any more or less dangerous than a Mutant Vehicle, you're a fool. Maybe it's inexperience, maybe naiveté, or something else, but you'd still be a fool. MV's have already proven themselves to be involved in both injuries and deaths on the playa - if you're going to regulate, restrict, or ban something (that you don't like) based on the possible potential for injury upon innocents, there is no argument that could possibly exempt mutant vehicles. Any single one of the hundreds of vehicles on the playa could be used to hit pedestrians, cyclists, or even camps and art installations should the operator of such a vehicle prove to be either incapacitated or have malicious intent - the same applies for UAV's.

IMO, Burning Man isn't a place to ban anything and everything that has a theoretical potential to cause harm (hell, if it did then UAV's pose less of a threat than either MV's or bikes). If anything, Burning Man is a place to allow those things to exist in some form. Because where there is risk, there is also opportunity. Fire burns (and kills), but it also provides an opportunity for great art.

[Captain Goddammit]

I won't clutter up the page cutting and pasting the whole thing, but what FossaFerox just said above is brilliant.
MVs and art installations are not comparable to drones.
They are the opposite. Drones detract from other's experience. People aren't allowed to bring MVs that only serve their owner.
Sure the same can be said about generators but no one is trying to lump them with drones and they aren't going to slash anyone's face.
Art installations and MVs need to be built strong enough to at least have a chance of surviving the random people who choose to climb all over them. That's because participants choose to do those things even when told not to.
Another big difference: Art installations and MVs are custom built and one of a kind. Drones are store bought. People come to BRC for the art.

It was mentioned up above about MV safety regarding drivers letting passengers off before they stop; the truth is the reverse of that. Short of building a "Jail Cell" MV, there's nothing the drivers can do about that, it's the passengers who choose to jump on and off when the cars are moving, often even when told not to. It's participant's choice to assume extra risk.
Sure BM is inherently dangerous and it would suck if we had an OSHA agent at every corner. But for the most part, participants can choose their desired level of risk. You don't have to climb that art piece or stand near that fire spewing contraption. It's a pretty safe place if you want it to be for yourself. But the drones just come out of nowhere.

[FossaFerox]

Trilo, I'm not saying they aren't dangerous I'm saying that:

1) Their danger is of a different, more predictable nature.
2) Their danger is excusable since they ADD to the experience of the event rather than detract from it.
3) Their danger is more permissible since at the end of the day the owner can be held accountable decreasing the likelihood of them taking stupid risks. At the end of the day a drone operator is facing the loss of a $500 store-bought toy, not the loss of a priceless MV/art piece and possibly their freedom.

[theCryptofishist]

MV's have already proven themselves to be involved in both injuries and deaths on the playa - if you're going to regulate, restrict, or ban something (that you don't like) based on the possible potential for injury upon innocents, there is no argument that could possibly exempt mutant vehicles. Any single one of the hundreds of vehicles on the playa could be used to hit pedestrians, cyclists, or even camps and art installations should the operator of such a vehicle prove to be either incapacitated or have malicious intent - the same applies for UAV's.

My general feeling (in part as a result of my experience in ESD) about MVs includes a whole section that has them as some variant of la Belle Dame san Merci. (Excuse my french.) There is a total way to slice them as being blood=thirsty and evil, but forgiven because they are so amazing and beautiful.
And I still love all my friends who have worked DMV, and my friend's MVs, and famous MVs made by people I've never met, and yes, I have torn across the playa to get close to one. Anyway, I said a section, so I'd appreciate it if we didn't have to argue about what I just said as being a general attack and stereotyping.

[Captain Goddammit]

I'm not quite sure what the fuck (excuse my French) you just said...!

[lucky420]

I'm not sure what any of you said

[ygmir]

who's on first?

[theCryptofishist]

Stupid 19th century poems. Femme Fatale. Lulu. The female of the species is deadlier than the male. All that sexist crap...

Only it's car on burner not heartless woman on idiot poet.

[trilobyte]

I think danger is a part of the equation... not just for UAV's and MV's, but for the whole of the event. It's about figuring out the acceptable level of risk and having a space where a whole lot of things are possible. The 'zero risk management' way of thinking would put up as many rules and as many bans as possible, but I think that leads to a watered down, Disney-fied experience. If you haven't seen it, I highly recommend checking out a talk on risk management that Joseph Pred (Burning Man's outgoing Emergency Services Operations Chief) gave a couple years ago at Google's I/O conference. Check it out here (skip to 18:20 in the video to get to where his 5 minute piece begins).

[BBadger]

The first is contribution. MVs are a mainstay of the event, technology and art coming together to provide for an otherworldly experience. There's a reason regular vehicle traffic was banned and MVs were allowed to continue following the death and serious injuries in '96. What do Drones add to the experience? They don't do anything to add to the burn WHILE it's happening for anyone save the operator. If they have any immediate impact at all it's a negative one.

(I'm only going to address this part above and below. I'm not discounting the other parts, but I think they have been discussed already).

It's not all negative, just maybe from your view. Unfortunately, I think many of your arguments above about "contribution" are stemming from an inherent dislike of drones in general, and the assumption that the way things are now are a template for the future. Drones are a relatively new technology, and we really haven't seen what people can do with them.

I'm looking forward to seeing drones used for purposes beyond that of just video taking, just as motor vehicles used for more than just transportation. Give this technology some time. Will we see sky art? Air singing telegrams? Mail delivery? Vertical music and sound? Swarms of lights? Extremely large 3D art? Reconfigurable star-fields? Sky lanterns without the MOOP? The sky is literally the limit on this one, and we shouldn't base our policies for the future only on the limitations and expectations of the present.

Drones have many analogies and parallels to MVs. Remember also that many mutant vehicles were pretty lame in the beginning too -- so much so that definitions had to be made distinguishing them from "art cars". Also, for the most part, most MVs are self-serving except for their decoration factor. We should also think that MVs are a great example of what can be done if we allow the event to be a little more dangerous than the default world.

Sure, some of the videos are cool, but unless they're flying low enough to put lives at risk they're not remarkably different from the video shot by regular air traffic. More to the point, detracting from the immediate experience for the purpose of making cool videos flies in the face of what the event is supposed to be (something you experience as opposed to something you watch). While that absolutely isn't reason to ban them (or other photography) by itself, it certainly prevents the videos they provide from counting in their favor.

Meh, these "immediate experience" arguments are too subjective to be a playa-wide policy. Immediacy is not defining how the "event is supposed to be" for others. Will we also ban all cell phones because the chatter interferes with my experience through one-sided conversations? Or cameras because they image moments that "should" only be experienced in person? How about those annoying blinking LEDs that people wear that distract from the dark of night? Or those MVs that block my view of the sunset and play music I don't like? This is all really flimsy.