catbasket wrote:What would be the effect of using a defibrillator on someone who hasn't had a heart attack? I'm not very confident the "It's my dad, I think he's had a heart attack" diagnosis is entirely accurate.

Defibrillators check things out first and only apply a shock if one is indicated. Deciding whether or not to shock is not left up to untrained people.

The ones here even have directions by audio, anyone should be able to correctly use these devices.

Thanks for the info - makes the defib drone sound a much more sensible piece of kit

It can also transport other emergency resources like e.g. medication for people who were stung by a wasp and are allergic to it or emergency insulin to someone suffering from Diabetes, etc.

That reminds me. Regarding this from felltoearth's link earlier:

Drones are in the news every day. Sometimes it is good, like when they drop supplies on impoverished areas that are otherwise inaccessible...

What sort of weight can these drones carry? I'm guessing that by "supplies" they mean medication/drugs etc rather than bulkier heavy stuff like food?

Defibrillators are so awesome that we have them in secured cabinets like fire extinguishers in public buildings, offices, even my local park has one on a wall.

Of course it's more fun to leave the dying person alone and go outside and look for the toy helicopter that has been remotely landed somewhere in the crowd outside

ED209 wrote:Defibrillators are so awesome that we have them in secured cabinets like fire extinguishers in public buildings, offices, even my local park has one on a wall.

Of course it's more fun to leave the dying person alone and go outside and look for the toy helicopter that has been remotely landed somewhere in the crowd outside

They qualified that in the video comments on YouTube. They acknowledge that someone should stay with the person and have a second person fetch the drone.

ETA: ideally that person is administering CPR.

ED209 wrote:Defibrillators are so awesome that we have them in secured cabinets like fire extinguishers in public buildings, offices, even my local park has one on a wall.

Of course it's more fun to leave the dying person alone and go outside and look for the toy helicopter that has been remotely landed somewhere in the crowd outside

We have them all over the place as well but not every place has access to one.

catbasket wrote:That reminds me. Regarding this from felltoearth's link earlier:

Drones are in the news every day. Sometimes it is good, like when they drop supplies on impoverished areas that are otherwise inaccessible...

What sort of weight can these drones carry? I'm guessing that by "supplies" they mean medication/drugs etc rather than bulkier heavy stuff like food?

Drones come in a lot of different sizes. These drones referred to here are the size of a van or larger.

NineBerry wrote:Drones come in a lot of different sizes. These drones referred to here are the size of a van or larger.

Pretty silly of me not to have thought of that

mrjonno wrote:How much of the airspace and ground below do you 'own' or have rights to.

In the UK its easy its zero and zero, there are privacy laws but no rules on who can dig under or fly over your property that are specific to you (there are obviously air traffic rules and collapsing the street due to digging a tunnel won't go down well with health and safery)

In the UK, someone has exclusive rights to the ground beneath a piece of land, it's just that the landowner and mineral owner are typically not the same.

ScholasticSpastic wrote:This goes back to having a reasonable expectation of privacy. And, actually, we don't always get to have one of those on our property. Sometimes it even goes arse-backward, such that a person can have a reasonable expectation of privacy within their home, and yet can be charged with indecent exposure for the things they're doing within their home.

This is my primary reason for wanting to fall back on property law rather than privacy/decency law. The former has been thrashed out into more logical shape much more thoroughly than the latter(s).

Given the limited size of property that the vast majority of people own, property rights seem like a poor method of dealing with drone issues, since most drones seem perfectly capable of taking invasive pictures while not being over someone's property.

If someone really was trying to take pictures of sunbathing children from a drone, it would seem fairly sensible for them to use a camera which didn't point directly down, and to do their flying outside any target properties.

NineBerry wrote:Shoot down any unknown drone approaching your property and thereby maybe kill your neighbour who needs emergency medical attention through it.

Shoot down a drone that size, and you might well end up killing someone else.

tolman wrote:
Given the limited size of property that the vast majority of people own, property rights seem like a poor method of dealing with drone issues, since most drones seem perfectly capable of taking invasive pictures while not being over someone's property.

Absolutely. Just as some jackass with a camera, good lenses, and a stepladder is perfectly capable of invasive pictures while not being over someone's property. And yet, we don't hear anyone agitating against public availability of telephoto lenses, or cameras, or stepladders. Ultimately, drones don't provide a way to do something new- they provide a new way to do something people are already sometimes doing. And, as the end most people fear in this discussion is already addressed in law, using new tools to that end is also already addressed in law- whereas outlawing or restricting an entire class of a technology because you're afraid of one possible use for that technology is generally a direction that law shies away from.

If someone really was trying to take pictures of sunbathing children from a drone, it would seem fairly sensible for them to use a camera which didn't point directly down, and to do their flying outside any target properties.

In most jurisdictions, there is no law against taking pictures of sunbathing children. This is true whether or not one uses a drone. Or whether or not one uses a telephoto lens and a stepladder. It rapidly becomes illegal to do so if doing so involves entering private property in many jurisdictions. So I continue to fail to see how the feared behavior isn't already addressed and clarified by existing law, and how you're not merely up in arms because someone might do this thing in a novel way. If those children are visible to someone not on their property, they have no reasonable expectation of privacy and thus, unless they are sunbathing in a way that would make images of them illegal in their own right, taking their picture isn't often an issue.

NineBerry wrote:Shoot down any unknown drone approaching your property and thereby maybe kill your neighbour who needs emergency medical attention through it.

If life saving drones are going to be a common thing then that would seem to be justification for regulating the airspace where they need to travel.

purplerat wrote:
If life saving drones are going to be a common thing then that would seem to be justification for regulating the airspace where they need to travel.

is a very good point.

ScholasticSpastic wrote:In most jurisdictions, there is no law against taking pictures of sunbathing children. This is true whether or not one uses a drone. Or whether or not one uses a telephoto lens and a stepladder. It rapidly becomes illegal to do so if doing so involves entering private property in many jurisdictions. So I continue to fail to see how the feared behavior isn't already addressed and clarified by existing law, and how you're not merely up in arms because someone might do this thing in a novel way. If those children are visible to someone not on their property, they have no reasonable expectation of privacy and thus, unless they are sunbathing in a way that would make images of them illegal in their own right, taking their picture isn't often an issue.

I'm not 'up in arms' at all.

In reality, children seem likely to be at much greater risk of eventual harm as a result of sunbathing than as a result of being observed sunbathing.

tolman wrote:
I'm not 'up in arms' at all.

Noted.

When we get to a point in a conversation where someone's saying the equivalent of "won't somebody think of the children!" it becomes easy to assume that we're not being entirely rational anymore. In this case, I mis-categorized due to what I'll paraphrase as "won't somebody think of the sunbathing children!" with respect to intrusive drones. I agree with you: They're at greater risk from the act of sunbathing than from being observed by a drone.

Ban all cameras!!!

*flew my quad** every day this week. The world did not end.

**Not a drone. Drones are autonomous. I use that one for different purposes.

ScholasticSpastic wrote:

purplerat wrote:
If life saving drones are going to be a common thing then that would seem to be justification for regulating the airspace where they need to travel.

is a very good point.

It certainly is.
Others have pointed out that certain locations, big buildings with lots of people etc have defibrillators more and more. The idea of the drone version is to cover wider areas which wouldn't necessarily be given a building specific one. They are designed to he idiot proof. No shock can be given unless the machine has diagnosed one is needed. The faster one is on scene, the better the chance of saving a life.
As for delivering medicines, antidotes etc to remote areas. Fucking A! what a use for them .

People just flying them around for fun, bound to get on others' tits. I have limited patience for this sort of stuff. I still prefer launching a helium balloon powered sky hook to eject unwanted drones into the stratosphere. They'll return to earth...........eventually........somewhere maybe.

It would've been more sensible of the guy to call the police and accuse the owners of the drone of sexual harassment. Blasting shit with guns is always dopey.