To be fair would say it would have been better if under a certain height on private property without a camera did not need to be registered for private use.
What difference does the camera make? Specifically. From a Department of Transportation jurisdictional point of view.
The good news is that now people who want to use RC machines to fly someplace they're not supposed to, or to carry some not-right payload (say, a small bomb, or ferrying contraband over a prison wall, etc) will now be stopped by this new paperwork.
Much of the point of using quadcopters commercially is that you don't need any special place to launch them. Much of what people did with them before can be done with a fixed wing. Nobody needs a special place from which to launch drones, and forcing people to use one would defeat most of the purpose.
Why do you assume that "drones" are by definition now quadcopters (or multirotors of any kind)? Some of the very few commercial operations that the FAA actually allows for BLOS drone operations involve fixed-wing long range machines that approach military-grade size and complexity. We haven't moved to multirotors from fixed wing - in many cases it's exactly the opposite.
Regardless, the government is only allowing NAS integration testing and research in a handful of very specific locations, and this is one of them. You can fly your quadcopter out of your back yard (for now - many jurisdictions won't allow it), provided, soon, that you register anything over 250 grams with the federal government and give them a few dollars. They're here to help you.
This is not like taking a photo of a painting where the image itself is what's valuable.
How is an artist's work, as seen in the form of the designs on a three dimensional piece of interior decor, different than an artist's work in the form of two dimensional piece of interior decor? Please be specific.
Are you really lecturing me about checking facts while you yourself aren't making the distinction between handguns and long guns? I explicitly stated "shotguns and rifles" - the point being that when lefties get all low-information-panties-in-a-knot about "assault rifles," they are talking about something that's less relevant than good old fashioned being beaten to death.
You're talking about a powerful senator who sits on several defense and intelligence related committees who - on seeing some Code Pink protesters outside her house trying to fly a pink plastic mall kiosk toy helicopter with a 10-inch rotor (and tethered to some string!) later told reporters that she'd had people spying through her windows with a drone, and that all of them should be illegal.
"Series of tubes" is downright informative by comparison to her grasp on technology and her urge to run people's lives.
How any business can have 1/7 of the entire population of the planet as users and be considered "struggling" is a bit strange. Unless they are bleeding money giving it all away for free in order to have that many users.
If the NRA "sully supports purchase block do[sic] to mental illness" then why is there no national law to that effect?
Every state in the country already has that law. You're confusing the existing laws that prevent mentally ill people from buying guns with the actual problem, which is the dangerously unstable people who haven't been found to be mentally ill, and recorded as such in the already existing databases that are checked during the background checks performed by dealers and retailers. In other words, the existing laws are fine. The problem is that dangerously crazy people often have no interaction with law enforcement or even professional mental health care until they snap and do something awful.
Yes, it seems bizarre because it's the writer deliberately misrepresenting the situation. People don't run out to get a firearm because of rare mass shootings, they run out to get one out of concern that low-information voters and/or disingenuous politicians are going to make it harder to get one in the future.
I'm amazed how many people have the delusion that they are going to defend themselves with a gun despite the clear evidence that it almost never actually happens.
What? It happens at least tens of thousands of times a year, and depending on how you want to measure it, hundreds of thousands (brandishing a gun to prevent or end an assault, for example, is a common use of a firearm in self defense, even though shots aren't actually fired). What's your definition of "almost never?" An Uber driver in Chicago - who has a conceal carry permit - used is personal weapon to end a "mass shooting" event on Friday. The only injury was to the guy with the illegal gun who was starting to shoot at a bunch of people on the sidewalk. Didn't hear about that one? Yeah, I didn't think so. Near here in Baltimore yesterday, a couple of guys stomped into a retail store waving a shotgun around and announcing a robbery with threats to kill anyone who resisted. Someone in the store shot the one guy dead, and the other ran (and was eventually arrested). This stuff goes on all the time, and it's only your deliberate choice to ignore it that (or more likely, pretend that you don't know about it) that makes you comfortable saying "never actually happens." It happens all the time. Start googling for women home alone who fend off home invasion assaults with a family firearm: I'm sure the long list of those women you think don't exist are very glad to have had the means to defend themselves.
The problem is that some people ARE killers and we can't tell who they are in most cases prior to them putting bullets into people
Yup, just like people driving cars. Some are irresponsible or even malicious, and between them, kill far more people that murderers with guns. People with pipes, clubs, and bare hands kill more people every year than those with all shotguns and rifles of any kind combined (says the FBI).
It is simply ludicrously easy for mentally ill people to get firearms and ammunition and groups like the NRA fight even the most reasonable efforts to contain the problem tooth and nail.
Now you're just lying. The NRA fully supports purchase blocks do to mental illness. What you're complaining about is that families, friends, and coworkers who know that somebody is dangerously unstable won't bother to subject those people to legal/medical scrutiny. That's a political correctness problem that is WAY up stream of the retail gun purchase layer.
Are you really not following the part where any such order involves the delay, travel, paperwork, fees, background check and multiple visits to a licensed FFL in order to consummate the purchase?
Let's face it, a lot of "GunTV viewers will be people channel surfing after an evening of watching Fox News and looking for solutions to their problems that are all focused on "them people out there".
I wonder if you can appreciate the depth of the irony here.
But there are plenty of under-funded (tax-wise, etc) counties and municipalities that have poor populations or shabby parts of town... and nothing like the violence we see in New Orleans, Chicago, Detroit, Baltimore. That's not for lack of policing, it's for the presence of the violent gangs in the first place. Violence doesn't magically pop into existence the moment a cop isn't present. Somebody has to decide to live like that, in some local scale model of feudal Europe. Local cultures in those towns make that choice in some places, and make a different choice in other places. It doesn't matter if the local government is "every man for himself" or state-wide... none of that would matter if the local population's culture didn't give rise to and tolerate gangs full of violent people, and refuse to help put them away. The evidence is that most cities aren't like that.
Scores of times killing many scores of innocent people. But this was NEVER a problem to address because they were white and christian....
No, it was no problem to address because those people are hunted down and killed or locked up, depending on how they behave. They don't have hundreds of millions of dollars at their disposal, thousands of compatriots in armored vehicles driving around their neighborhood beheading entire villages, burning people alive, and then recruiting thousands more people by showing the videos online. They're not sending killers into places like Paris, mixed in with refugees, to shoot up restaurants and concert venues full of people. Unless perhaps you can point to where that sort of organized terrorist undertaking is being sustained by teams of people, murder and all, in the US, supported by the groups you're talking about, who then brag about funding and supporting it online? No? I see.
When you can't trust your neighbour not to go on a shooting rampage society has already failed.
No, society's failing is in not recognizing that some people don't want to be assimilated, and consider our society to be inherently evil and in need of being destroyed.
Street parties, neighbourhood parties, things that bring people together and strengthen the social structure.
See above. How will a street party help with someone who has come into the country on a fiance visa having already decided that she's here to help destroy the social structure she's been raised to think of as inherently evil?
Going all "report your neighbour" is going to build up the walls of distrust and lead to more problems.
So when these two killers' neighbor thought they were being very suspicious (as it turns out, a 100% accurate assessment), and some interaction with law enforcement might have exposed their bomb-making factory and other preparation for the slaughter they just carried out, your concern is that those two people (who think you should die), might get their feelings hurt, and become distrustful? Are you even listening to yourself?
More pertinent, radicalized man goes into medical clinic in Colorado, shoots it up to make a political point and somehow that *isn't* terrorism?
No, crazy guy who's been living in a series of broken down shacks and trailers without any electricity or running water, and with a long history of irrational violence and apparently delusional behavior does a very bad job killing a bunch of people, and does so without any claim to be part of some larger movement or in coordination with others or any sort of cogent goal beyond the sort of babbling that we also got out of a number of other damaged-goods spree killers in recent memory.
As opposed to a well educated devout Muslim professional and his recently imported hyper-devout, radicalized wife from Pakistan (where she was associated with a notoriously radical mosque) by way of Saudi Arabia... who ran a bomb-making factory in their condo, and clearly had long baked their plan, along with attempting to wipe their digital history clean before using an alias to remind the world they were working on behalf of a huge and growing violent Islamist group as they set out to kill a bunch of people in a known-to-be-defenseless gathering with obvious plans to do more of the same.
This latest one was little more than a bad weekend in Chicago. Given that Chicago can't be controlled...
Of course it can be controlled. The problem is that the entrenched liberal local government and voters in Chicago don't want to admit the nature of the problem, or take the steps needed to control it - because that would be, you know, mean. Or racist. Or something.
Other large cities (even ones with much worse local economies) have far less draconian gun laws, less of a police presence, more guns owned per capita... and not even a pale shadow of the violence problem that Chicago (or Baltimore, or New Orleans) has. This is a local culture problem, period.
That said, there are some substantial qualitative differences between local street corner turf wars and grudge killings... and religiously motivated theo-thug terror killings done in the name of a large and growing, well funded, well organized Islamist group's international agenda. Those things manifest themselves differently, and involve pretty specific demographics, travel, and communication.
AG Loretta Lynch was just explaining that if people use unpleasant rhetoric about Muslims, the Department of Justice would "go after them." She also told Muslim parents that if their kids are bullied at school, they should call the DoJ immediately.
You know, not talk to the principal, or local law enforcement, no. Call the federal government.
No mention other people being bullied, of course.
So watch that rhetoric, people! The Obama administration just said they feel they have the power to "go after you" if you're found being... mean? Insensitive?
Slashdot Mirror
To be fair would say it would have been better if under a certain height on private property without a camera did not need to be registered for private use.
What difference does the camera make? Specifically. From a Department of Transportation jurisdictional point of view.
The good news is that now people who want to use RC machines to fly someplace they're not supposed to, or to carry some not-right payload (say, a small bomb, or ferrying contraband over a prison wall, etc) will now be stopped by this new paperwork.
Much of the point of using quadcopters commercially is that you don't need any special place to launch them. Much of what people did with them before can be done with a fixed wing. Nobody needs a special place from which to launch drones, and forcing people to use one would defeat most of the purpose.
Why do you assume that "drones" are by definition now quadcopters (or multirotors of any kind)? Some of the very few commercial operations that the FAA actually allows for BLOS drone operations involve fixed-wing long range machines that approach military-grade size and complexity. We haven't moved to multirotors from fixed wing - in many cases it's exactly the opposite.
Regardless, the government is only allowing NAS integration testing and research in a handful of very specific locations, and this is one of them. You can fly your quadcopter out of your back yard (for now - many jurisdictions won't allow it), provided, soon, that you register anything over 250 grams with the federal government and give them a few dollars. They're here to help you.
It's still stupid
Needing use license from an artist to commercially reproduce their work is stupid?
This is not like taking a photo of a painting where the image itself is what's valuable.
How is an artist's work, as seen in the form of the designs on a three dimensional piece of interior decor, different than an artist's work in the form of two dimensional piece of interior decor? Please be specific.
Jesus christ, you just put Val Kilmer in the same sentence as Tila Tequila?
Yes. That's just how insightful a comment it was.
So, pretty much this is like Mickey Rourke, Val Kilmer, or Tila Tequila?
are committed with guns
Are you really lecturing me about checking facts while you yourself aren't making the distinction between handguns and long guns? I explicitly stated "shotguns and rifles" - the point being that when lefties get all low-information-panties-in-a-knot about "assault rifles," they are talking about something that's less relevant than good old fashioned being beaten to death.
... did he do all of this from a server in his house?
Why do the Japanese always choose December 7th to travel long distances and invade places?
Still nothing like a "series of tubes" though.
You're talking about a powerful senator who sits on several defense and intelligence related committees who - on seeing some Code Pink protesters outside her house trying to fly a pink plastic mall kiosk toy helicopter with a 10-inch rotor (and tethered to some string!) later told reporters that she'd had people spying through her windows with a drone, and that all of them should be illegal.
"Series of tubes" is downright informative by comparison to her grasp on technology and her urge to run people's lives.
How any business can have 1/7 of the entire population of the planet as users and be considered "struggling" is a bit strange. Unless they are bleeding money giving it all away for free in order to have that many users.
Answers own question.
Taxes ARE low
Other than the part where they are actually among the highest in the world. Other than that part.
If the NRA "sully supports purchase block do[sic] to mental illness" then why is there no national law to that effect?
Every state in the country already has that law. You're confusing the existing laws that prevent mentally ill people from buying guns with the actual problem, which is the dangerously unstable people who haven't been found to be mentally ill, and recorded as such in the already existing databases that are checked during the background checks performed by dealers and retailers. In other words, the existing laws are fine. The problem is that dangerously crazy people often have no interaction with law enforcement or even professional mental health care until they snap and do something awful.
If you're shopping on TV, you're probably not thinking all those things through.
So? How does that change the facts of what's involved in actually possessing the purchase?
Which is among the most bizarre reactions ever.
Yes, it seems bizarre because it's the writer deliberately misrepresenting the situation. People don't run out to get a firearm because of rare mass shootings, they run out to get one out of concern that low-information voters and/or disingenuous politicians are going to make it harder to get one in the future.
I'm amazed how many people have the delusion that they are going to defend themselves with a gun despite the clear evidence that it almost never actually happens.
What? It happens at least tens of thousands of times a year, and depending on how you want to measure it, hundreds of thousands (brandishing a gun to prevent or end an assault, for example, is a common use of a firearm in self defense, even though shots aren't actually fired). What's your definition of "almost never?" An Uber driver in Chicago - who has a conceal carry permit - used is personal weapon to end a "mass shooting" event on Friday. The only injury was to the guy with the illegal gun who was starting to shoot at a bunch of people on the sidewalk. Didn't hear about that one? Yeah, I didn't think so. Near here in Baltimore yesterday, a couple of guys stomped into a retail store waving a shotgun around and announcing a robbery with threats to kill anyone who resisted. Someone in the store shot the one guy dead, and the other ran (and was eventually arrested). This stuff goes on all the time, and it's only your deliberate choice to ignore it that (or more likely, pretend that you don't know about it) that makes you comfortable saying "never actually happens." It happens all the time. Start googling for women home alone who fend off home invasion assaults with a family firearm: I'm sure the long list of those women you think don't exist are very glad to have had the means to defend themselves.
The problem is that some people ARE killers and we can't tell who they are in most cases prior to them putting bullets into people
Yup, just like people driving cars. Some are irresponsible or even malicious, and between them, kill far more people that murderers with guns. People with pipes, clubs, and bare hands kill more people every year than those with all shotguns and rifles of any kind combined (says the FBI).
It is simply ludicrously easy for mentally ill people to get firearms and ammunition and groups like the NRA fight even the most reasonable efforts to contain the problem tooth and nail.
Now you're just lying. The NRA fully supports purchase blocks do to mental illness. What you're complaining about is that families, friends, and coworkers who know that somebody is dangerously unstable won't bother to subject those people to legal/medical scrutiny. That's a political correctness problem that is WAY up stream of the retail gun purchase layer.
Let's face it, a lot of "GunTV viewers will be people channel surfing after an evening of watching Fox News and looking for solutions to their problems that are all focused on "them people out there".
I wonder if you can appreciate the depth of the irony here.
But there are plenty of under-funded (tax-wise, etc) counties and municipalities that have poor populations or shabby parts of town ... and nothing like the violence we see in New Orleans, Chicago, Detroit, Baltimore. That's not for lack of policing, it's for the presence of the violent gangs in the first place. Violence doesn't magically pop into existence the moment a cop isn't present. Somebody has to decide to live like that, in some local scale model of feudal Europe. Local cultures in those towns make that choice in some places, and make a different choice in other places. It doesn't matter if the local government is "every man for himself" or state-wide ... none of that would matter if the local population's culture didn't give rise to and tolerate gangs full of violent people, and refuse to help put them away. The evidence is that most cities aren't like that.
Scores of times killing many scores of innocent people. But this was NEVER a problem to address because they were white and christian....
No, it was no problem to address because those people are hunted down and killed or locked up, depending on how they behave. They don't have hundreds of millions of dollars at their disposal, thousands of compatriots in armored vehicles driving around their neighborhood beheading entire villages, burning people alive, and then recruiting thousands more people by showing the videos online. They're not sending killers into places like Paris, mixed in with refugees, to shoot up restaurants and concert venues full of people. Unless perhaps you can point to where that sort of organized terrorist undertaking is being sustained by teams of people, murder and all, in the US, supported by the groups you're talking about, who then brag about funding and supporting it online? No? I see.
Really? Are you so badly informed? If so, you have no place in this argument.
Thank you for proving me right.
Really. Which coherent political purpose did you find the crazy homeless guy to be supporting? Specifically.
When you can't trust your neighbour not to go on a shooting rampage society has already failed.
No, society's failing is in not recognizing that some people don't want to be assimilated, and consider our society to be inherently evil and in need of being destroyed.
Street parties, neighbourhood parties, things that bring people together and strengthen the social structure.
See above. How will a street party help with someone who has come into the country on a fiance visa having already decided that she's here to help destroy the social structure she's been raised to think of as inherently evil?
Going all "report your neighbour" is going to build up the walls of distrust and lead to more problems.
So when these two killers' neighbor thought they were being very suspicious (as it turns out, a 100% accurate assessment), and some interaction with law enforcement might have exposed their bomb-making factory and other preparation for the slaughter they just carried out, your concern is that those two people (who think you should die), might get their feelings hurt, and become distrustful? Are you even listening to yourself?
More pertinent, radicalized man goes into medical clinic in Colorado, shoots it up to make a political point and somehow that *isn't* terrorism?
No, crazy guy who's been living in a series of broken down shacks and trailers without any electricity or running water, and with a long history of irrational violence and apparently delusional behavior does a very bad job killing a bunch of people, and does so without any claim to be part of some larger movement or in coordination with others or any sort of cogent goal beyond the sort of babbling that we also got out of a number of other damaged-goods spree killers in recent memory.
... who ran a bomb-making factory in their condo, and clearly had long baked their plan, along with attempting to wipe their digital history clean before using an alias to remind the world they were working on behalf of a huge and growing violent Islamist group as they set out to kill a bunch of people in a known-to-be-defenseless gathering with obvious plans to do more of the same.
As opposed to a well educated devout Muslim professional and his recently imported hyper-devout, radicalized wife from Pakistan (where she was associated with a notoriously radical mosque) by way of Saudi Arabia
Not seeing the difference? Pay more attention.
This latest one was little more than a bad weekend in Chicago. Given that Chicago can't be controlled ...
Of course it can be controlled. The problem is that the entrenched liberal local government and voters in Chicago don't want to admit the nature of the problem, or take the steps needed to control it - because that would be, you know, mean. Or racist. Or something.
... and not even a pale shadow of the violence problem that Chicago (or Baltimore, or New Orleans) has. This is a local culture problem, period.
... and religiously motivated theo-thug terror killings done in the name of a large and growing, well funded, well organized Islamist group's international agenda. Those things manifest themselves differently, and involve pretty specific demographics, travel, and communication.
Other large cities (even ones with much worse local economies) have far less draconian gun laws, less of a police presence, more guns owned per capita
That said, there are some substantial qualitative differences between local street corner turf wars and grudge killings
AG Loretta Lynch was just explaining that if people use unpleasant rhetoric about Muslims, the Department of Justice would "go after them." She also told Muslim parents that if their kids are bullied at school, they should call the DoJ immediately.
... mean? Insensitive?
You know, not talk to the principal, or local law enforcement, no. Call the federal government.
No mention other people being bullied, of course.
So watch that rhetoric, people! The Obama administration just said they feel they have the power to "go after you" if you're found being