Your last paragraph is what ties everything together. Keynes thought it would be a good idea to reduce the wild economic swings of the boom/bust cycle (think of smoothing out a sine wave) and proposed two things: increase government spending in the bust cycle AND THEN REDUCE IT in the boom cycle. The problem is that politicians love the power that comes with the purse, so they only do the first part, never the second. Getting people to understand that second part is harder than getting Occupy hippies to take a shower.
Absolutely they will try to mandate them. If I were more cynical, I'd say it would be paired with mandatory "upgrade" for existing guns or the inability to transfer non-smart guns (including leaving them in a will). You have to proceed from the assumption that those who advocate for this truly, at their core, despise the idea of private ownership of firearms, at least for non-elites.
The politics of gun control are similar to those of abortion: each group vigorously opposes and further restriction on their activity of choice because they assume the ultimate goal is the prohibition of that activity. Ask yourself if you would support the proposed rule or regulation against (guns/abortion) if it were applied to (abortion/guns). Admittedly, it's not a perfect analogy, but I think it would be an illuminating exercise to those who claim they "don't understand" why people don't support "common sense" rules for either.
Except that there will likely be a regulation or law that makes deliberate tampering with or defeating the smart controls a felony punishable by at least five years in prison.
See, if it had a little fruit shape and called it "iHue", this wouldn't even be news. People would've lined up for the privilege of saying, "Thank you, sir, may I have another?"
It was actually in Mount Vernon, a little more than an hour north of Seattle. The I-5 bridge that crosses the Skagit River collapsed because an oversized truck hit some support trusses.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
That's not what "targeting civilians" means. Factories and cargo ships were targeted because they affect the ability of the state to wage war. The civilians working there were non-combatants, but they weren't the targets. To say "civilians were targeted" is when you bomb school buses and pizza parlors.
You assume that the administration had a goal with respect to the region other than "getting the heck out so I can dick around with domestic policy." There has yet to be a foreign policy crisis where the strategy was little more than running down the news cycle clock.
Nope. The virtue-signalling crowd has come out loud-and-clear about oil; they want it, but in the same way they buy meat: from the store with all the dirty business completely sanitized away.
To answer your real question, though, I don't think so. Just because our energy security is assured doesn't mean that Indian and Chinese energy contracts (among others) will go away, to say nothing of the general security of Israel, Turkey, Egypt, the Suez, and other allies/strategic locations.
There're absolutely no anti-trust issues here; it's bad journalism and a public-school understanding of the legal system at best. Amazon doesn't have to sell Apple toys, just as Apple does not at all sell Fire or Chromecast devices.
How about mine? My largest quadcopter is the Hubsan X4 (and, honestly, my favorite one to fly) and has no BVR or GPS capability; hardly a drone by anyone's definition. My hexacopter is equipped with the Naza-V2 flight controller; the only autonomous capability it has is RTB.
The question was if there was a better way to distinguish RC toys from more advanced drones. I suggested that anything with BVR or autopilot (including RTB) would qualify as a drone. This isn't a hill I'm willing to die on; I fully understand that anything other than fixed-wing aircraft and helicopters are "drones" in popular media, but since we're talking about regulating anything that doesn't stay on the ground, it might be useful to have a set of working definitions.
I have several quadcopters and one hexacopter. The quads are tablet-sized toys and only the hexacopter could be considered a "drone" because of it's RTB feature (while cool, it isn't as great as it sounds due to lack of any terrain avoidance. 60 feet is not that high.) I could bolt on a $200 box that would let me program waypoints and altitudes, but I just don't fly as often as I would like.
I don't terribly mind "drone", but I do try to stick to the "-copter" terms. I think the only demonizing going on is by asshat pilots who hotdog where they shouldn't and I certain there's a lot of personal history and personality conflict behind the few drone-shooting incidents we've heard about. I seriously doubt it's as simple as "Ma, there's a UFO after the girls! Fetch th' shotgun!"
It's not a matter of "forgetting" so much as "refusing." For the average user (i.e. those who aren't excited to read update notes), there is no difference between a security update and a cosmetic/functional update. Apple has broken more than one iteration of iTunes with their updates; when users are happy with one that works, they are understandably gun-shy about installing yet another "update."
Slashdot Mirror
I eagerly await all manufacturers to not provide waivers to government or LE officials.
If you're a general, you already have the key and don't need (or want) backdoors in your radios.
Your last paragraph is what ties everything together. Keynes thought it would be a good idea to reduce the wild economic swings of the boom/bust cycle (think of smoothing out a sine wave) and proposed two things: increase government spending in the bust cycle AND THEN REDUCE IT in the boom cycle. The problem is that politicians love the power that comes with the purse, so they only do the first part, never the second. Getting people to understand that second part is harder than getting Occupy hippies to take a shower.
Absolutely they will try to mandate them. If I were more cynical, I'd say it would be paired with mandatory "upgrade" for existing guns or the inability to transfer non-smart guns (including leaving them in a will). You have to proceed from the assumption that those who advocate for this truly, at their core, despise the idea of private ownership of firearms, at least for non-elites. The politics of gun control are similar to those of abortion: each group vigorously opposes and further restriction on their activity of choice because they assume the ultimate goal is the prohibition of that activity. Ask yourself if you would support the proposed rule or regulation against (guns/abortion) if it were applied to (abortion/guns). Admittedly, it's not a perfect analogy, but I think it would be an illuminating exercise to those who claim they "don't understand" why people don't support "common sense" rules for either.
Except that there will likely be a regulation or law that makes deliberate tampering with or defeating the smart controls a felony punishable by at least five years in prison.
"Posted from AC's iPad"
See, if it had a little fruit shape and called it "iHue", this wouldn't even be news. People would've lined up for the privilege of saying, "Thank you, sir, may I have another?"
Nah, the agents who should be monitoring them don't because of orders from on high, lest they be accused of racism.
Silly oversight...they made them gun-free zones, but not bomb-free! Someone needs to put up some signs, then this will all go away.
Right. And the Democrats and Socialists have made it so much better.
The Bush Administration never said Iraq had anything to do with 9/11. That's a false narrative that was pushed by anti-war activists back in 2002.
And, just so we're clear on how rights work, we have a right to firearms whether or not there's a second amendment.
It was actually in Mount Vernon, a little more than an hour north of Seattle. The I-5 bridge that crosses the Skagit River collapsed because an oversized truck hit some support trusses. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
That's not what "targeting civilians" means. Factories and cargo ships were targeted because they affect the ability of the state to wage war. The civilians working there were non-combatants, but they weren't the targets. To say "civilians were targeted" is when you bomb school buses and pizza parlors.
You assume that the administration had a goal with respect to the region other than "getting the heck out so I can dick around with domestic policy." There has yet to be a foreign policy crisis where the strategy was little more than running down the news cycle clock.
Nope. The virtue-signalling crowd has come out loud-and-clear about oil; they want it, but in the same way they buy meat: from the store with all the dirty business completely sanitized away. To answer your real question, though, I don't think so. Just because our energy security is assured doesn't mean that Indian and Chinese energy contracts (among others) will go away, to say nothing of the general security of Israel, Turkey, Egypt, the Suez, and other allies/strategic locations.
...in Radio Shack gift certificates. Also, the bigotry towards Texas is truly astonishing.
Don't egg him on. He kneads this desk the yeast.
This is why you wear a kilt (utilikilit or otherwise...or hell, wear a skirt. It's 2015 and apparently that's ok now) in the "traditional manner".
There're absolutely no anti-trust issues here; it's bad journalism and a public-school understanding of the legal system at best. Amazon doesn't have to sell Apple toys, just as Apple does not at all sell Fire or Chromecast devices.
How about mine? My largest quadcopter is the Hubsan X4 (and, honestly, my favorite one to fly) and has no BVR or GPS capability; hardly a drone by anyone's definition. My hexacopter is equipped with the Naza-V2 flight controller; the only autonomous capability it has is RTB. The question was if there was a better way to distinguish RC toys from more advanced drones. I suggested that anything with BVR or autopilot (including RTB) would qualify as a drone. This isn't a hill I'm willing to die on; I fully understand that anything other than fixed-wing aircraft and helicopters are "drones" in popular media, but since we're talking about regulating anything that doesn't stay on the ground, it might be useful to have a set of working definitions.
I have several quadcopters and one hexacopter. The quads are tablet-sized toys and only the hexacopter could be considered a "drone" because of it's RTB feature (while cool, it isn't as great as it sounds due to lack of any terrain avoidance. 60 feet is not that high.) I could bolt on a $200 box that would let me program waypoints and altitudes, but I just don't fly as often as I would like. I don't terribly mind "drone", but I do try to stick to the "-copter" terms. I think the only demonizing going on is by asshat pilots who hotdog where they shouldn't and I certain there's a lot of personal history and personality conflict behind the few drone-shooting incidents we've heard about. I seriously doubt it's as simple as "Ma, there's a UFO after the girls! Fetch th' shotgun!"
It's not a matter of "forgetting" so much as "refusing." For the average user (i.e. those who aren't excited to read update notes), there is no difference between a security update and a cosmetic/functional update. Apple has broken more than one iteration of iTunes with their updates; when users are happy with one that works, they are understandably gun-shy about installing yet another "update."
Painting the left as the bad guys would've deep-sixed the movie before the critics had a chance to pan it.
...said the Chinese hacker/foreign ministry.