The US government to shoot vaccine laced M&M's at diseased ferrets using drones UPDATE:They're not shooting M&M's just pellets

[NumLock21]

They're not shooting M&M's just pellets. Misleading title, disappointed.

 

 

[dalekphalm]

1 minute ago, NumLock21 said:

They're not shooting M&M's just pellets. Misleading title, disappointed.

 

 

According to the article, they are indeed M&M's, not pellets. The Vaccine is in the guk that coats the M&M's....

nope

 

You're right. But it's not a misleading title, just outdated:

Quote

This article was amended on 15 July 2016. An earlier version incorrectly reported that the drones would shoot vaccine-laced M&Ms. In fact the vaccine takes the form of pellets made in-house by the US Fish and Wildlife Service.

So the original article had M&M's. They updated the article with a correction, though. @yt1993 please update the Original Post and Title to reflect the new information.

[Guest]

5 hours ago, dalekphalm said:

"The US"? Who is the "US" in this case? Is "The US" the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS)? No? Then it doesn't matter. Regular government agencies can't just requisition equipment from totally separate government agencies or organizations. Usually that's a very strictly regulated and limited power.

 

The US Fish and Wildlife Service had a task that needed to be done, and likely had a set budget to afford to do it. If they thought Crop Dusters would have been more efficient and cost effective, they would have used them.

 

A crop duster can cover more area, yes. But not nearly to the same degree of accuracy. They can cover extremely wide areas in broad strokes or straight lines. They cannot cover a tightly packed grid nearly as well though, since a plane would have to turn around and basically come back along a nearly identical course as it originally flew. That's very inefficient.

 

A set of multiple drones, however, could cover the same area, without needing jet fuel/airplane fuel, and can be programmed with extreme accuracy using GPS and autonomous computer controlled flight grids.

 

Honestly it feels like you're arguing just for the sake of arguing. You're not countering my points or the facts very well.

FWS has planes.

 

Also, FWG has to buy those drones.

[yt1993]

8 hours ago, dalekphalm said:

According to the article, they are indeed M&M's, not pellets. The Vaccine is in the guk that coats the M&M's....

nope

 

You're right. But it's not a misleading title, just outdated:

So the original article had M&M's. They updated the article with a correction, though. @yt1993 please update the Original Post and Title to reflect the new information.

Done,

Thanks for letting me know!

[Bhav]

Am I the only human that hates the taste of peanuts? M&Ms, Snickers and peanut butter are all the devils food.

[dalekphalm]

On 2016-07-16 at 5:48 PM, MagnesiumPC said:

FWS has planes.

 

Also, FWG has to buy those drones.

I'm sure they have some planes - that they have and use for specific purposes.

 

Does that mean those planes were available for this specific project? No. Does that mean those planes were suitable for this specific project? No. Does that mean those planes were Crop Dusters, or any type of plane that could remotely service this type of project? No.

 

Planes might have worked. But drones did. Could using planes have been more efficient? Maybe. I don't know, and you sure as hell don't know either. We don't have the costs breakdown on this project, nor the projected cost if used planes instead.

 

Besides, now they have a fleet of drones that they can use for all kinds of other things. Buying a fleet of drones, for an organization like FWS? That's an investment that they won't regret. Think of all the possible applications they could use them for. Small, light, quick, able to have pre-programmed courses via GPS that don't rely on having to pay a friggin pilot to fly an airplane. Not having to worry about buying actual airplane fuel (Sure they need to be charged, but electricity is comparatively very inexpensive).

 

Again, you're not countering my points or introducing new arguments. I welcome a good discussion, but you're replying with 3 word replies that don't disprove my arguments.