You’re making the ASSumption that Apple will not return the drone and will be a hypocrite because of criminal acts perpetrated by others against it years ago. Apple is under no obligation to rush to return this drone to someone claiming to be the owner. If the idiot feels Apple is committing a crime, he’s free to file a complaint. I don’t feel his chances for a speedy return will be forthcoming. Apple will act in its best interest, not the errant drone operator’s. It has nothing to do with being a vigilante and is nonsense to even bring it into play.
Quite the opposite, I am assuming that Apple will eventually return the drone to the rightful owner.
It will happen probably sooner rather than later because this type of story does not benefit Apple. This story detracts from the type of discussion Apple favors: conversation about their products and services.
Remember, you are the one who took the vigilante stance. Do you forget what you wrote?
"Screw that. Apple is under no obligation to rush to return this drone. The irresponsible owner would have to prove it's theirs. And from the photo, it appears to be not easily retrievable. Apple shouldn't risk injury to workers or damage to their property because of this idiot. Make him sue to get his info and hand him a large bill for retrieval."
Everything you have written takes defiant, indignant, vigilante stance. It is also clear that you do not respect/understand the law nor do you remember how the judicial system works.
Anyhow, have a wonderful day!
But Apple could also make a complaint to the FAA, turn over the drone to the FAA and let the FAA determine if the owner was in any violation of air space. You have any problem with the FAA keeping the drone, unless the owner pay the fine for violating air space, if that's the case? Along with a bill from Apple to cover any cost of retrieving the drone, plus any damages to their solar panels.
There may be no FAA law broken for flying a drone over private property but there may have been a law broken for filming someone's private property without their permission. And Apple already know he was filming Apple new HQ. It's not the case of him just flying over Apple property to get from A to B.
For the owner, it might be a case of having to pay more to get the drone back, than it's worth. But he's going to be liable for the FAA fine, if any, regardless if he gets his drone back or not. And Apple can still go after him for damages, if it's significant, even if the FAA confiscated the drone.
In this case, Apple do not have to return the drone to its owner, Apple can choose to turn it over to the proper authorities and let them handle the justice part, to answer Apple complaint.
zroger73 said: Now, apply this to self-driving cars. Sure, there will be failures, injuries, and deaths, but I'll bet the number of crashes resulting from human error will be far greater.
Self-driving cars don't fall asleep, drive under the influence of drugs and alcohol, faint due to medical conditions, text, eat, talk, apply makeup, try to beat red lights, speed, or turn around swatting unruly children (or spouses) in the back seat like human drivers do.
No, they just drive into the sides of semis when conditions aren't right, or the program for that variation hasn't been written yet.
To be fair, it was an older Tesla that drove into the side of a semi and at the time, Tesla was not considered a self-driving car. Even though Tesla call it "auto-pilot mode" and the car can make a lot of the decisions in driving, it was no where near a true self-driving car as it still required a driver in the driver seat to help drive the car. Now new Teslas can supposedly be converted into a true self-driving car as they now have all the hardware, but still lack the software and testing.
Most self-driving cars accidents seems to be fender benders and most were the fault of the cars with drivers. Haven't heard about any high speed accidents involving self-driving cars, not cars in "auto-pilot mode". But maybe that's becasue they haven't been fully testing them on freeways yet.
To be fair, it was an older Tesla that drove into the side of a semi and at the time, Tesla was not considered a self-driving car. Even though Tesla call it "auto-pilot mode" and the car can make a lot of the decisions in driving, it was no where near a true self-driving car as it still required a driver in the driver seat to help drive the car. Now new Teslas can supposedly be converted into a true self-driving car as they now have all the hardware, but still lack the software and testing.
Most self-driving cars accidents seems to be fender benders and most were the fault of the cars with drivers. Haven't heard about any high speed accidents involving self-driving cars, not cars in "auto-pilot mode". But maybe that's becasue they haven't been fully testing them on freeways yet.
True, the guy wasn't following the directions and was likely taken in by the illusion and branding, etc. Yes, it is supposedly improving, but the easy part has been accomplished... now they will have to tackle edge cases (which are limitless). Since this whole concept of AI is flawed, this means filling the database with examples, and hoping eventually they gather enough data to lower the rate of incidents enough to be accepted by governments and society.
My problem is the hype vs reality. I'm a person, not a statistic. Even if they accomplish a lower accident rate than the average, I don't want to be the guy the Tesla semi hits when it goofs up, and no way in hell will I let it be 'driving' for me. I'd love some types of assist technologies, as it can keep an eye on more things at once than I possibly can, or maybe see that moose before it leaps onto the highway. But, 'reading' other human drivers and making the crucial decisions... that's the realm of real intelligence, not skip-logic.
Didn't a while back that Apple requested people to stop flying drones over their building. I figured it would stop after that, but its continued. These people are in fact trespassing flying over private property.
A DJI Phantom can lift almost 2/3 of its own weight. The DJI Phantom that fell on Apple's roof weighs about 3 lbs. A slightly more powerful drone with a recovery hook attached could be used to retrieve it.
Ands if that drone damaged any of those solar panels I’m sure the drone’s owner will not be pleased with the bill he gets from Apple. As for the drone itself, good luck getting it back after trespassing on Apple’s private property.
I'd assume Apple doesn't own the airspace. It's not an airport.
Also, what if some kid was flying their kite and same thing happened to the kite? Just a thought.
Comments
There may be no FAA law broken for flying a drone over private property but there may have been a law broken for filming someone's private property without their permission. And Apple already know he was filming Apple new HQ. It's not the case of him just flying over Apple property to get from A to B.
For the owner, it might be a case of having to pay more to get the drone back, than it's worth. But he's going to be liable for the FAA fine, if any, regardless if he gets his drone back or not. And Apple can still go after him for damages, if it's significant, even if the FAA confiscated the drone.
In this case, Apple do not have to return the drone to its owner, Apple can choose to turn it over to the proper authorities and let them handle the justice part, to answer Apple complaint.
My problem is the hype vs reality. I'm a person, not a statistic. Even if they accomplish a lower accident rate than the average, I don't want to be the guy the Tesla semi hits when it goofs up, and no way in hell will I let it be 'driving' for me. I'd love some types of assist technologies, as it can keep an eye on more things at once than I possibly can, or maybe see that moose before it leaps onto the highway. But, 'reading' other human drivers and making the crucial decisions... that's the realm of real intelligence, not skip-logic.
Here are a few articles that might be of interest, and some videos of AI behaving badly:
https://www.wired.com/story/self-driving-cars-challenges/
https://hackernoon.com/why-elon-musk-is-wrong-about-ai-a093b83ac99a
https://www.engadget.com/2016/08/15/technological-singularity-problems-brain-mind/
https://plus.google.com/+SelfDrivingCar/posts/j9ouVZSZnRf