If you can show people that what their government wants to do wont actually stop whatever criminal activity people want the government to stop (and more to the point, suggest an alternative that will be more effective in stopping the criminal activity in question) people might just listen.
I admire your optimism, but my experience suggests otherwise. When you bring someone face-to-face with an unpleasant truth, the tendency is to pull a Miracle Max (you know, fingers in their ears while loudly repeating, "nobody's hearing nothing, la la la la"). Why? Because people are generally lazy, and forcing the government to change requires effort. Typically, people are unwilling to expend that effort until things get so bad that they can no longer pretend not to see what's happening around them, and by then, it's usually too late.
It's supposed to be hard for the government to snoop on ${Random_User}. That is what prevents the government from going on fishing expeditions, which is definitely a Bad Thing.
As a simple example, I have been rather put off by the policies TSA put in effect last November, and have visited quite a few web sites protesting those measures in the last couple of months. I also have an interest in amateur model rocketry, and recently discovered that there were people building "High-Powered" rocket engines out of sorbitol, salt peter and PVC pipe, so I've recently spent quite a bit of time researching that topic, too. If you can build a rocket, you can build a crude missile by adding an appropriate payload (granted, there's also the topic of guidance systems, but that's optional -- someone so inclined could still do a lot of damage with an unguided missile). So, a paranoid government might erroneously (and make no mistake, it WOULD be an error) come to the conclusion that my recent search history suggests I might be a budding terrorist.
The Fourth Amendment exists for a reason. There are already documented cases of LEOs snooping through confidential records for other than "official" business (google it), so if abuse is already occurring, you can bet it will only get worse when there's no oversight. I, for one, don't want to have to worry how a couple of innocent searches can be concatenated to paint an incorrect, but sinister, picture of me.
You read an awful lot more into what I said than what I said, and completely ignored some of what I *did* say, too. Did you miss this part, "I don't mind helping someone out when they are genuinely struggling to get back on their feet -- I've been there myself, in fact, and I did eventually get back on my feet. " or did you just ignore it because it didn't fit your preconceived notions? If you are having a run of tough luck, then yes, there should be some assistance for you. While I'm not convinced that government bail-outs are always the best option, we, as a nation, seem to be less and less inclined to donate to private assistance, so maybe government-sponsored welfare programs are the only option any more...but IMHO, they shouldn't be.
However, I *have* heard welfare recipients straight-up asking why they should get a job when they can get more money from government hand-outs, and therefore, they become a semi-permanent lower class that will *never* move out of the poverty level because, at least first, they'll lose money to become self-sufficient. *THAT's* a problem, and is the point I was trying to make above. For that matter, if you ever take a look outside our country, you'll find that even our poor have more than the middle class in much of the rest of the world. For example, while ministering with the homeless in Anchorage this summer, I saw one guy on what had to be $500-$1000 mountain bike. No joke, this homeless guy was riding a nicer mountain bike than the one *I* own. Or, how many poor people in sub-Saharan Africa have cable TV? How many poor people in Southeast Asia have cell phones? 'Nuff said.
Regarding my donations to charities...you couldn't be more wrong. I do, in fact, donate to charities, both in my church and elsewhere. I have taken the youth group at my church to serve meals for the homeless downtown (and look forward to doing so again). I have actually ministered -- in person, on the streets of Anchorage -- to homeless people, and again, encourage the youth group to do likewise. So watch the snap judgments, and next time, try a little harder to find out what someone is actually saying before posting a scathing reply to what you (erroneously) *think* they said.
Each individual aircraft doesn't have to have TCAS; the VFR airplanes only need Mode C transponders (which if you have an electrical system, you are already required to have) and only the drones need TCAS to avoid VFR aircraft. Okay, granted -- not all airplanes have Mode C. For example, my airplane doesn't. However, in this story, the drones are being used in Houston, TX, which lies under Class B airspace, and therefore, my airplane isn't welcome there anyway. Admittedly, there are other cities that might deploy these aircraft that don't lie under Class B airspace, like my home town of Anchorage (Class C, but there are some really large chunks cut out of the traditional Class C Inner Area to make way for Merrill Field, Lake Hood and Elmendorf AFB traffic). However, FAR 91.119 states that over a congested area -- and I think Anchorage would qualify -- no one may operate an aircraft at an altitude less than 1,000 feet above the nearest obstacle within a 2,000 foot radius of the aircraft, so there's a chunk of airspace between about 1,000 and 1,500 AGL where you and I won't be flying (except for the arrival and departure routes of airports) that would probably be fine for drones of this size, although they would probably need an FAA waiver to fly at these altitudes over congested areas. When and where that happens, I would recommend NOTAMs to advise pilots that drones are in those areas. Your argument that NOTAMs aren't read by your average VFR pilot is a really, really poor excuse. Considering that the FAA and NTSB haven't had much compassion even on pilots who launched after getting a comprehensive pre-flight briefing, but wandered into a "pop-up" TFR that became active while they were already en route, AND considering that FAR 91 also requires that pilots make themselves aware of ALL information pertaining to their planned route of flight, failing to check NOTAMs before take-off is no excuse for busting through a block of airspace that is reserved for use by drones. If these measures don't provide adequate separation between VFR pilots and drones, you can bet that the next step will be TFRs for areas where the drones are in use, and I completely agree with you that TFRs over every city that launches a drone is the last thing that civilian aviation needs. However, if we don't find a way to peacefully coexist with unmanned drones in the national airspace system, that's what we'll end up with <shudder>
I don't know how that would work out in all 50 states (or in the U.S. territories), but here in Anchorage, we tried the radar speed camera things in school zones for a little while back in the '90s. AFAIK, every ticket that was challenged in court was thrown out because, while the camera could prove that a particular car was exceeding the speed limit in the school zones, they couldn't prove who was driving the car. Since it is the driver -- not the car -- that receives the ticket, the tickets were thrown out, and Anchorage eventually voted that only actual police officers could issue citations (IIRC, the speed cameras were operated by a private entity contracted by the Anchorage Muni).
It would seem to me that tickets issued by the drones would fail for the very same reason.
The country's children are obese, why, because our food industry has made economic choices, often without knowing long term effects on our bodies and the bodies of our children. It seems resonable to take collective action to say we need to come off that fat roller coaster if we want to outlive our children. Economic incentives is the way to go, tax breaks and taxes combined to make it in peoples and companies economic interest to not continue with unhealthy practices.
Gotta disagree with you there. You can blame the food industry all you want, but that doesn't excuse us, the parents, when we buy McDonald's for dinner five days a week because we can't be bothered to, you know, make healthy choices or cook a healthy meal for our families. It's we-the-parents' fault for plopping our kids down on the sofa with a Nintendo or cable TV instead of taking them to the park to play, because we are so self-centered that we can't take time to actually play and interact with our kids. If I'm too stupid or too lazy to look out for my child's best interests, then pointing fingers at the "food industry" is just rationalizing my own shortcomings as a parent. That doesn't help anything; in fact, it makes the problem worse because it allows me to delude myself into believing I'm a victim, rather than acknowledging the fact that I have the ability to change things so that my kid(s) grow up healthy.
It seems like your comment on stupid choices would suggest that if someone makes a wrong choice, they should starve, or be homeless, or suffer and die on their own, what do you care, its not your dollar. Well it is your dollar that picks up the mess and my dollar, that runs the emergency rooms and the soap kitchens and Medicaid and Social Security. You don't want to pay but you do, just more and at the end the process and after people have suffered needlessly. I guess its a heart thing, a we are all Americans and we pull together thing. The wild west shootem up died a long time ago, except maybe in Tuscon. I just hope civilization comes quickly to those parts of the country that have not experienced it yet.
Your argument doesn't follow your stated goals. It's a simple fact of life that you reap what you sow. If we take away the consequences of making bad decisions, what incentive do people have to make good decisions, particularly if the good decisions require more work/discipline/expense up front? If I follow you correctly, you say pay out now so that everyone has food, a house, and medical care, even if they didn't work for it. But if the government is going to provide those things, then why should I work my backside off to provide those things for my family AND to pay for someone else's family, too?
And therein lies the problem: for government to clean up the messes people make of their lives, someone has to be paying into the system. If enough people decide to ride the government's shirttails, then who is left to pay for all of the government programs? I don't mind helping someone out when they are genuinely struggling to get back on their feet -- I've been there myself, in fact, and I did eventually get back on my feet. But what I don't want is a huge, government-sponsored pyramid scheme that penalizes those who are making good choices (higher taxes to pay for big, socialist government programs), while providing a free ride to those who can take care of themselves, but just choose not to.
Seems to me that there is a really big difference between seeing massive leakage of heat from a house with IR thermography and being able to image people through walls due to their heat signature. I wouldn't call the first example a privacy violation, while I would certainly hope the second example would be. If the drones have cameras that are sensitive enough to image people through the walls or roof of a house, that's a problem. If not...meh.
Yes. FAR 91.119 defines the minimum altitudes at which aircraft can legally operate. The reg is broken into three parts for fixed-wing aircraft (presumably including drones, although that isn't explicitly stated in this particular reg): 1) anywhere: an altitude allowing, if a power unit fails, an emergency landing without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface; 2) over congested areas:...an altitude of 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a horizontal radius of 2,000 feet of the aircraft; 3) over other than congested areas: an altitude of 500 feet above the surface, except over open water or sparsely populated areas and over open water or sparsely populated areas, the aircraft may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle or structure.
So no, flying at 2 feet above your house is not legal, although I don't know if it would qualify as "trespassing". The FAA also has a rule about careless and reckless operation, which I would expect to cover this as well.
And an exponential increase in risk to everyone in the air. The simple fact is, these aircraft can not comply with FAA regulations and therefore transfer 50% of the "see and avoid" burden to every other pilot in the air. Its simply not fair. Especially when you consider the hugely increased burden of attempting to visually detect such a small aircraft in what is likely to be busy airspace.
I think you overstate the problem, a bit. If the drones don't comply with FAA regulations, then they are illegal in the airspace. Somehow, I doubt that's the case. As to the "see and avoid" argument, can you say "TCAS"? It works -- I once ended up in freezing mist which partially obscured my windshield in a Cessna 172. A Beech 1900 departing the airport to which I was returning had me on TCAS before they ever took off; I never saw the Beech (and while a 1900 isn't nearly the same size as even a 737, it's still not a small airplane). I don't know how well TCAS would work detecting aircraft that did not have a working Mode C transponder, but I rather suspect that wouldn't be an issue in Houston, since the city is under Class B airspace with a 30 mile Mode C veil. Also, AOPA Pilot recently had an article about drones in use in...Montana, I think?...that stated that Customs and Border Patrol had airspace restrictions in the area where drones were in use. So, even if TCAS and Class B airspace alone didn't provide sufficient protection against collision, there may be a Notice to Airmen in effect over Houston for certain altitudes and flight paths above the city when drones are in use. Consequently, I really doubt the drones pose much hazard for aircraft in flight. Like it or not -- and I'll be honest, I'm not entirely jazzed by it -- pilotless or remotely piloted aircraft are only going to get more common inside national airspace.
I think you misunderstand what the Constitution says. Your Constitutional rights place limits upon what the Federal Government can do to you, not what a private entity (i.e., your employer) can do. Therefore saying that your employer cannot prohibit certain activities (for example, bringing a gun onto their private property) because it is "unconstitutional" is incorrect. AFAIK, you won't be arrested for possessing a firearm on their property, but they have the right to tell you to remove yourself or your property from their premises while you are in violation of their policies. If you refuse, they can have you arrested for trespassing.
Disclaimer: IANAL, YMMV, etc., but this is how I understand the law. A critique of my analysis by someone who is a legal professional is welcome.
Frankly I'm surprised they haven't done it yet. I guess no PAC has decided to push the issue.
It takes a lot of people in Congress to agree on something to pass an Amendment. It's kind of hard to get that many people in Congress to agree on anything. Therefore, why go to the work amending the Constitution if you can get away with just ignoring instead? That's a lot less effort. But I think you are right on the money (no pun intended) about the PAC.
I agree that the debate is stupid, but not for the reasons you give. Specifically:
b) Guilt by association is a logical fallacy. Yes, there are a significant number of racists who cling to this. There are also a significant number of people who don't like Obama's politics, but aren't racist, who also cling to this. Furthermore, there are a number of racists who think Obama walks on water, but that doesn't mean anyone who likes him is automatically a racist, too.
c) no, it's about whether or not he is a natural-born or naturalized citizen. It makes a difference because naturalized citizens cannot ever hold the office of President (barring a Constitutional amendment).
d) because if he is not a natural born citizen, he is ineligible to hold the office of President. I'm sorry, but that is kind of a big deal...if it were true (and just to be clear, I'm not a "birther", so I don't really believe it is true).
And yeah, the 'birther' debate IS over his nationality. Which is American. Born in the USA. A natural citizen. Like his mother. End of discussion.
You do realize that there is a difference between a U.S. citizen, a natural-born citizen and "born in the USA", right? Couple of examples: my brother is a natural-born citizen, but was born in Japan. You might be able to make the argument that, since he was born in a military hospital, on a U.S. Air Force base in Japan, it was American territory, but I'm not certain that is correct (it may be, but I'm not certain). However, both of my parents were U.S. citizens, therefore, my brother IS a natural-born U.S. citizen regardless. Case 2: Arnold Schwarzenneger, IIRC, was born in Austria to Austrian parents. He is a "naturalized" U.S. citizen, but not a "natural-born" U.S. citizen. Case 3: No specific examples, but anyone who was born in the U.S.*, regardless of the nationality of their parents, is a natural born U.S. citizen. These distinctions are important to the "birther" issue because the Constitution of the United States requires that the President be a natural born citizen, not a naturalized citizen. For example, regardless of his political prospects, Arnold Schwarzenneger could NEVER be the president of the United States unless Congress decided to pass an Amendment changing the nationality requirements of the President. Therefore, no, the debate is not over Obama's nationality -- it's over whether or not he is a natural born citizen.
*Yes, there is some debate about whether the children of illegal immigrants are actually natural born citizens, due to some of the language in the U.S. code that defines "natural born". That fine point is 1) still being debated and 2) not relevant to this discussion, so I chose not to go there.
I googled that a little while ago, and found estimates between 1:8000000 and 1:24000000. So yes, I'd say that the probability that any given U.S. resident, in the United States, would be killed by a terrorist is somewhat less than one in a billion...but are still pretty much insignificant.
1) He's off by a factor of 50, which while not great, is still orders of magnitude better than the 1:1 odds of being spied upon that he quotes. Even if both stats are off by a factor of 50, the point still stands; or
2) He's engaging in the ancient and time-honored art of hyperbole, in which case his point STILL stands.
Well, yes. That is, after all, exactly what I said.
You, and I, are no more valuable than any other clever critter. We are just more clever than the others.
Which is just your own opinion. In my opinion, yes -- I, my wife, my daughter, my friends, etc., have a greater value (to me) than other critters on this earth. If you want to put yourself on a level playing field with a cockroach or a slime mold (or even a chimpanzee or dolphin), then knock yourself out. I humbly disagree, but you are certainly entitled to your own opinion.
This is not about what is best for the Earth, or nature, or other species. It is about what is best for humans, and a limited number of humans at that.
Well, yes. Since I don't think we have yet devised the destructive potential of a Dark Star-type planet buster bomb, and since the ecosystem even around Chernobyl has shown to be remarkable persistent, I rather doubt that human beings have the capability to "destroy" the earth yet. We may make a bit of a mess of it, but life tends to be remarkably resilient. So, yes, this whole debate is about whether or not we can affect the earth's climate to an extent that we no longer can survive here. That's not exactly news, so I don't really understand what point you are trying to make here.
Meh. Considering that I tend to be particularly attached to the human race -- and especially attached to a few of it's six or seven billion members -- then I'd tend to agree with those who say that anything likely to kill off all, or even a sizable portion, of the human race is a Pretty Bad Thing. YMMV.
Well, I suppose this only applies to my opinions and perhaps to a small circle of friends around me, but, well, that fact that I am one of the humans makes humans a lot more important, IMHO.
Slashdot Mirror
True 'nuff
I never said people were consistent or made sense...
Why not mandate that all travel plans must be sent ahead of time to a central data base that will keep the records just in case?
Oh, you mean like "Secure Flight"?
If you can show people that what their government wants to do wont actually stop whatever criminal activity people want the government to stop (and more to the point, suggest an alternative that will be more effective in stopping the criminal activity in question) people might just listen.
I admire your optimism, but my experience suggests otherwise. When you bring someone face-to-face with an unpleasant truth, the tendency is to pull a Miracle Max (you know, fingers in their ears while loudly repeating, "nobody's hearing nothing, la la la la"). Why? Because people are generally lazy, and forcing the government to change requires effort. Typically, people are unwilling to expend that effort until things get so bad that they can no longer pretend not to see what's happening around them, and by then, it's usually too late.
Why PP isn't a "+5 Insightful" is beyond me...
Two words: "Chilling Effect".
It's supposed to be hard for the government to snoop on ${Random_User}. That is what prevents the government from going on fishing expeditions, which is definitely a Bad Thing.
As a simple example, I have been rather put off by the policies TSA put in effect last November, and have visited quite a few web sites protesting those measures in the last couple of months. I also have an interest in amateur model rocketry, and recently discovered that there were people building "High-Powered" rocket engines out of sorbitol, salt peter and PVC pipe, so I've recently spent quite a bit of time researching that topic, too. If you can build a rocket, you can build a crude missile by adding an appropriate payload (granted, there's also the topic of guidance systems, but that's optional -- someone so inclined could still do a lot of damage with an unguided missile). So, a paranoid government might erroneously (and make no mistake, it WOULD be an error) come to the conclusion that my recent search history suggests I might be a budding terrorist.
The Fourth Amendment exists for a reason. There are already documented cases of LEOs snooping through confidential records for other than "official" business (google it), so if abuse is already occurring, you can bet it will only get worse when there's no oversight. I, for one, don't want to have to worry how a couple of innocent searches can be concatenated to paint an incorrect, but sinister, picture of me.
You read an awful lot more into what I said than what I said, and completely ignored some of what I *did* say, too. Did you miss this part, "I don't mind helping someone out when they are genuinely struggling to get back on their feet -- I've been there myself, in fact, and I did eventually get back on my feet. " or did you just ignore it because it didn't fit your preconceived notions? If you are having a run of tough luck, then yes, there should be some assistance for you. While I'm not convinced that government bail-outs are always the best option, we, as a nation, seem to be less and less inclined to donate to private assistance, so maybe government-sponsored welfare programs are the only option any more...but IMHO, they shouldn't be.
However, I *have* heard welfare recipients straight-up asking why they should get a job when they can get more money from government hand-outs, and therefore, they become a semi-permanent lower class that will *never* move out of the poverty level because, at least first, they'll lose money to become self-sufficient. *THAT's* a problem, and is the point I was trying to make above. For that matter, if you ever take a look outside our country, you'll find that even our poor have more than the middle class in much of the rest of the world. For example, while ministering with the homeless in Anchorage this summer, I saw one guy on what had to be $500-$1000 mountain bike. No joke, this homeless guy was riding a nicer mountain bike than the one *I* own. Or, how many poor people in sub-Saharan Africa have cable TV? How many poor people in Southeast Asia have cell phones? 'Nuff said.
Regarding my donations to charities...you couldn't be more wrong. I do, in fact, donate to charities, both in my church and elsewhere. I have taken the youth group at my church to serve meals for the homeless downtown (and look forward to doing so again). I have actually ministered -- in person, on the streets of Anchorage -- to homeless people, and again, encourage the youth group to do likewise. So watch the snap judgments, and next time, try a little harder to find out what someone is actually saying before posting a scathing reply to what you (erroneously) *think* they said.
Each individual aircraft doesn't have to have TCAS; the VFR airplanes only need Mode C transponders (which if you have an electrical system, you are already required to have) and only the drones need TCAS to avoid VFR aircraft. Okay, granted -- not all airplanes have Mode C. For example, my airplane doesn't. However, in this story, the drones are being used in Houston, TX, which lies under Class B airspace, and therefore, my airplane isn't welcome there anyway. Admittedly, there are other cities that might deploy these aircraft that don't lie under Class B airspace, like my home town of Anchorage (Class C, but there are some really large chunks cut out of the traditional Class C Inner Area to make way for Merrill Field, Lake Hood and Elmendorf AFB traffic). However, FAR 91.119 states that over a congested area -- and I think Anchorage would qualify -- no one may operate an aircraft at an altitude less than 1,000 feet above the nearest obstacle within a 2,000 foot radius of the aircraft, so there's a chunk of airspace between about 1,000 and 1,500 AGL where you and I won't be flying (except for the arrival and departure routes of airports) that would probably be fine for drones of this size, although they would probably need an FAA waiver to fly at these altitudes over congested areas. When and where that happens, I would recommend NOTAMs to advise pilots that drones are in those areas. Your argument that NOTAMs aren't read by your average VFR pilot is a really, really poor excuse. Considering that the FAA and NTSB haven't had much compassion even on pilots who launched after getting a comprehensive pre-flight briefing, but wandered into a "pop-up" TFR that became active while they were already en route, AND considering that FAR 91 also requires that pilots make themselves aware of ALL information pertaining to their planned route of flight, failing to check NOTAMs before take-off is no excuse for busting through a block of airspace that is reserved for use by drones. If these measures don't provide adequate separation between VFR pilots and drones, you can bet that the next step will be TFRs for areas where the drones are in use, and I completely agree with you that TFRs over every city that launches a drone is the last thing that civilian aviation needs. However, if we don't find a way to peacefully coexist with unmanned drones in the national airspace system, that's what we'll end up with <shudder>
TCAS...NOTAMs and TFRs...Class B airspace...
It could be worked out.
I don't know how that would work out in all 50 states (or in the U.S. territories), but here in Anchorage, we tried the radar speed camera things in school zones for a little while back in the '90s. AFAIK, every ticket that was challenged in court was thrown out because, while the camera could prove that a particular car was exceeding the speed limit in the school zones, they couldn't prove who was driving the car. Since it is the driver -- not the car -- that receives the ticket, the tickets were thrown out, and Anchorage eventually voted that only actual police officers could issue citations (IIRC, the speed cameras were operated by a private entity contracted by the Anchorage Muni).
It would seem to me that tickets issued by the drones would fail for the very same reason.
The country's children are obese, why, because our food industry has made economic choices, often without knowing long term effects on our bodies and the bodies of our children. It seems resonable to take collective action to say we need to come off that fat roller coaster if we want to outlive our children. Economic incentives is the way to go, tax breaks and taxes combined to make it in peoples and companies economic interest to not continue with unhealthy practices.
Gotta disagree with you there. You can blame the food industry all you want, but that doesn't excuse us, the parents, when we buy McDonald's for dinner five days a week because we can't be bothered to, you know, make healthy choices or cook a healthy meal for our families. It's we-the-parents' fault for plopping our kids down on the sofa with a Nintendo or cable TV instead of taking them to the park to play, because we are so self-centered that we can't take time to actually play and interact with our kids. If I'm too stupid or too lazy to look out for my child's best interests, then pointing fingers at the "food industry" is just rationalizing my own shortcomings as a parent. That doesn't help anything; in fact, it makes the problem worse because it allows me to delude myself into believing I'm a victim, rather than acknowledging the fact that I have the ability to change things so that my kid(s) grow up healthy.
It seems like your comment on stupid choices would suggest that if someone makes a wrong choice, they should starve, or be homeless, or suffer and die on their own, what do you care, its not your dollar. Well it is your dollar that picks up the mess and my dollar, that runs the emergency rooms and the soap kitchens and Medicaid and Social Security. You don't want to pay but you do, just more and at the end the process and after people have suffered needlessly. I guess its a heart thing, a we are all Americans and we pull together thing. The wild west shootem up died a long time ago, except maybe in Tuscon. I just hope civilization comes quickly to those parts of the country that have not experienced it yet.
Your argument doesn't follow your stated goals. It's a simple fact of life that you reap what you sow. If we take away the consequences of making bad decisions, what incentive do people have to make good decisions, particularly if the good decisions require more work/discipline/expense up front? If I follow you correctly, you say pay out now so that everyone has food, a house, and medical care, even if they didn't work for it. But if the government is going to provide those things, then why should I work my backside off to provide those things for my family AND to pay for someone else's family, too?
And therein lies the problem: for government to clean up the messes people make of their lives, someone has to be paying into the system. If enough people decide to ride the government's shirttails, then who is left to pay for all of the government programs? I don't mind helping someone out when they are genuinely struggling to get back on their feet -- I've been there myself, in fact, and I did eventually get back on my feet. But what I don't want is a huge, government-sponsored pyramid scheme that penalizes those who are making good choices (higher taxes to pay for big, socialist government programs), while providing a free ride to those who can take care of themselves, but just choose not to.
Seems to me that there is a really big difference between seeing massive leakage of heat from a house with IR thermography and being able to image people through walls due to their heat signature. I wouldn't call the first example a privacy violation, while I would certainly hope the second example would be. If the drones have cameras that are sensitive enough to image people through the walls or roof of a house, that's a problem. If not...meh.
Yes. FAR 91.119 defines the minimum altitudes at which aircraft can legally operate. The reg is broken into three parts for fixed-wing aircraft (presumably including drones, although that isn't explicitly stated in this particular reg): 1) anywhere: an altitude allowing, if a power unit fails, an emergency landing without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface; 2) over congested areas: ...an altitude of 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a horizontal radius of 2,000 feet of the aircraft; 3) over other than congested areas: an altitude of 500 feet above the surface, except over open water or sparsely populated areas and over open water or sparsely populated areas, the aircraft may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle or structure.
So no, flying at 2 feet above your house is not legal, although I don't know if it would qualify as "trespassing". The FAA also has a rule about careless and reckless operation, which I would expect to cover this as well.
And an exponential increase in risk to everyone in the air. The simple fact is, these aircraft can not comply with FAA regulations and therefore transfer 50% of the "see and avoid" burden to every other pilot in the air. Its simply not fair. Especially when you consider the hugely increased burden of attempting to visually detect such a small aircraft in what is likely to be busy airspace.
I think you overstate the problem, a bit. If the drones don't comply with FAA regulations, then they are illegal in the airspace. Somehow, I doubt that's the case. As to the "see and avoid" argument, can you say "TCAS"? It works -- I once ended up in freezing mist which partially obscured my windshield in a Cessna 172. A Beech 1900 departing the airport to which I was returning had me on TCAS before they ever took off; I never saw the Beech (and while a 1900 isn't nearly the same size as even a 737, it's still not a small airplane). I don't know how well TCAS would work detecting aircraft that did not have a working Mode C transponder, but I rather suspect that wouldn't be an issue in Houston, since the city is under Class B airspace with a 30 mile Mode C veil. Also, AOPA Pilot recently had an article about drones in use in...Montana, I think?...that stated that Customs and Border Patrol had airspace restrictions in the area where drones were in use. So, even if TCAS and Class B airspace alone didn't provide sufficient protection against collision, there may be a Notice to Airmen in effect over Houston for certain altitudes and flight paths above the city when drones are in use. Consequently, I really doubt the drones pose much hazard for aircraft in flight. Like it or not -- and I'll be honest, I'm not entirely jazzed by it -- pilotless or remotely piloted aircraft are only going to get more common inside national airspace.
I think you misunderstand what the Constitution says. Your Constitutional rights place limits upon what the Federal Government can do to you, not what a private entity (i.e., your employer) can do. Therefore saying that your employer cannot prohibit certain activities (for example, bringing a gun onto their private property) because it is "unconstitutional" is incorrect. AFAIK, you won't be arrested for possessing a firearm on their property, but they have the right to tell you to remove yourself or your property from their premises while you are in violation of their policies. If you refuse, they can have you arrested for trespassing.
Disclaimer: IANAL, YMMV, etc., but this is how I understand the law. A critique of my analysis by someone who is a legal professional is welcome.
Frankly I'm surprised they haven't done it yet. I guess no PAC has decided to push the issue.
It takes a lot of people in Congress to agree on something to pass an Amendment. It's kind of hard to get that many people in Congress to agree on anything. Therefore, why go to the work amending the Constitution if you can get away with just ignoring instead? That's a lot less effort. But I think you are right on the money (no pun intended) about the PAC.
But rest assured, I won't go quietly. I'll post something sarcastic on Slashdot on the way out.
You, sir, are my new hero.
And yeah, the 'birther' debate IS over his nationality. Which is American. Born in the USA. A natural citizen. Like his mother. End of discussion.
You do realize that there is a difference between a U.S. citizen, a natural-born citizen and "born in the USA", right? Couple of examples: my brother is a natural-born citizen, but was born in Japan. You might be able to make the argument that, since he was born in a military hospital, on a U.S. Air Force base in Japan, it was American territory, but I'm not certain that is correct (it may be, but I'm not certain). However, both of my parents were U.S. citizens, therefore, my brother IS a natural-born U.S. citizen regardless. Case 2: Arnold Schwarzenneger, IIRC, was born in Austria to Austrian parents. He is a "naturalized" U.S. citizen, but not a "natural-born" U.S. citizen. Case 3: No specific examples, but anyone who was born in the U.S.*, regardless of the nationality of their parents, is a natural born U.S. citizen. These distinctions are important to the "birther" issue because the Constitution of the United States requires that the President be a natural born citizen, not a naturalized citizen. For example, regardless of his political prospects, Arnold Schwarzenneger could NEVER be the president of the United States unless Congress decided to pass an Amendment changing the nationality requirements of the President. Therefore, no, the debate is not over Obama's nationality -- it's over whether or not he is a natural born citizen.
*Yes, there is some debate about whether the children of illegal immigrants are actually natural born citizens, due to some of the language in the U.S. code that defines "natural born". That fine point is 1) still being debated and 2) not relevant to this discussion, so I chose not to go there.
I googled that a little while ago, and found estimates between 1:8000000 and 1:24000000. So yes, I'd say that the probability that any given U.S. resident, in the United States, would be killed by a terrorist is somewhat less than one in a billion...but are still pretty much insignificant.
1) He's off by a factor of 50, which while not great, is still orders of magnitude better than the 1:1 odds of being spied upon that he quotes. Even if both stats are off by a factor of 50, the point still stands; or
2) He's engaging in the ancient and time-honored art of hyperbole, in which case his point STILL stands.
Dang it...I clicked submit too fast. That was supposed to be
No, I'd rather be a compliant little sheeple. </sarc>
In other words, your own personal opinion.
Well, yes. That is, after all, exactly what I said.
You, and I, are no more valuable than any other clever critter. We are just more clever than the others.
Which is just your own opinion. In my opinion, yes -- I, my wife, my daughter, my friends, etc., have a greater value (to me) than other critters on this earth. If you want to put yourself on a level playing field with a cockroach or a slime mold (or even a chimpanzee or dolphin), then knock yourself out. I humbly disagree, but you are certainly entitled to your own opinion.
This is not about what is best for the Earth, or nature, or other species. It is about what is best for humans, and a limited number of humans at that.
Well, yes. Since I don't think we have yet devised the destructive potential of a Dark Star-type planet buster bomb, and since the ecosystem even around Chernobyl has shown to be remarkable persistent, I rather doubt that human beings have the capability to "destroy" the earth yet. We may make a bit of a mess of it, but life tends to be remarkably resilient. So, yes, this whole debate is about whether or not we can affect the earth's climate to an extent that we no longer can survive here. That's not exactly news, so I don't really understand what point you are trying to make here.
Meh. Considering that I tend to be particularly attached to the human race -- and especially attached to a few of it's six or seven billion members -- then I'd tend to agree with those who say that anything likely to kill off all, or even a sizable portion, of the human race is a Pretty Bad Thing. YMMV.
Well, I suppose this only applies to my opinions and perhaps to a small circle of friends around me, but, well, that fact that I am one of the humans makes humans a lot more important, IMHO.