But isn't the guy cheating on his wife asshole #1?

Actually a plane like the Telemaster would be better than a jet. Paint it grey so it blends in and if possible use an electric motor.
It would fly too low and too slow to be shot down. I do not think that they would use SAMs to attack a model aircraft at 100ft over a city since you would probably kill more people from the sam blast than the plane.
At this point I will stop since I do not want to give anyone ideas but I would not use such an aircraft to attack the WH.

I was talking about the terrorists in japan that made Sarin and used it in two attacks.

I am not afraid of it. Mustard gas was developed during WWI. Nerve gas during WWII.
Sarin has been made by terrorists and used http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T...

I am not afraid of a chemical weapon drone attack because the payload is so low. But why say something that has happened can never happen? Frankly I wonder just how long it will be before some other wack job pulls of a chemical weapons attack. I doubt that it will be any worse than some of the regular bombs in death toll and again I am not going to live in terror waiting for it but to say it is too hard to happen is just wrong.

http://www.hobbyexpress.com/12...

Can carry several pounds of payload. Of course it would probably be pretty noticeable
As too shooting it down? That may cause more damage than the plane would.

I really wish people would stop using drones for most of these. They are simply RC Aircraft that have been around since the 1940s. Nothing really new or scary.

Making Chemical weapons requires that knowledge and skills of a 1916 Chemist.
Now if you want to make a Nerve agent you are up to about 1943.

Exactly.
And this part is just flamebait.
"What's most interesting is that Google has no trouble tossing grenades at the feet of Microsoft and Apple courtesy of its Project Zero program, but doesn't seem to have the resources to fix a vulnerability that affects a substantial portion of the Android user base."
Does Google release bugs for Windows XP and Me under Project Zero?
Really the issue are the manufactures and the carriers.

You do realize that TurboPascal was insanely popular on both the PC and CP/M?
The reasons where simple.
1. Cheap
2. Turbo Editor Toolbox.
3. Turbo Database Toolbox.
4. Turbo Telcom Toolbox
5. Turbo Graphics Toolbox

I sold like hotcakes well in the the start of the Windows era and Borland even had an Object Windows Library OWL before MFC took over that market.

I bet you went to school in the EU.

"I'm still not saying ban it, but there are social consequences we need to consider."
Those are past. You can do the same thing with a cell phone so the fact that Glass makes you aware of the potential is a good thing.

"I know I wouldn't feel comfortable having a connected conversation about my feelings with a potentially global audience." Then have it in private. That is the thing people need to learn public is public and private is private. When you at a restaurant you are in a public space. Same is true at club or bar.
Those conversations should take place in private. That has been true for around 200 years or more and is nothing new.

There is a specialty vehicle clause that covers super low production cars. That is why you can go to a shop and buy a 32 Duce coup Hot Rod that used no parts from a 32 Ford Duce coup and probably has a small block chevy in it. No crash testing and no emissions testing... That is why they use a small bock chevy or some other classic engine. They make the emissions date of the car be the date of the engine so for a SBC they can put something like 1962. Same thing goes for kit cars and so on.
But the truth be known a modern engine with emissions will make more power, be more driveable, and get better milage than and old style SBC.
In the case of this car it is electric so emissions are not an issue.

"You've never seen a viral video of an ordinary person doing something really stupid? I can think of many."
And not one was recorded with Google Glass.

"Someone wearing Google Glass (and constantly recording) catches you saying or doing something that sounds incredibly funny/offensive/strange, they post it online, it goes viral, and suddenly your life is different."
1. You can not constantly be recording with Google Glass the battery will last only about an hour.
2. Incredibly funny? Not a problem. Offensive? I try to never be offensive in public or private. Strange? Yea I do that all the time. I have discussions about physics and other strange topics.

"Sure it's unlikely but the threat is there. I'm not going to be nearly as comfortable having a conversation in a restaurant when I know people are recording because there's an extra filter all my words have to pass through."
So I should not be allowed to use a piece of tech that I find useful because their is a very unlikely chance that someone will do something in public that someone records and posts to the internet?
Really? You want to take away that right from me just to provide you with no real protection from an unlikely event since the same thing can happen with smart phone.
And here is the best part...
"I'm not going to be nearly as comfortable having a conversation in a restaurant when I know people are recording because there's an extra filter all my words have to pass through.""
Good, you should have that extra filter on in public because you are in public. You should try to not be offensive in your speech and behavior. That is called manners. You never know when you are acting a fool in public when someone you know might see you or frankly anyone might take out a cellphone and record you.

And you are just not thinking. You think Google Glass is the problem?
Every store, restaurant, and mall has the right to install security cameras. The UK has them on every street.
So do you think you have a right to tell me that I can have wear Google Glass because I might be recording you? Not that I am but that I might be?
Frankly I want a pair for driving and riding my motorcycle so I can have a hud with my speed and RPMs available with out taking my eyes off the road. Having the option to record a nice ride would be a good option. So exactly why do you have any reason to be upset if I decide to wear them into a restaurant where I am eating lunch?
They are causing you no harm and are really not offensive in anyway.
So your fear of Google Glass is unfounded and frankly violates others rights to use a tech tool that causes no harm to you unless they abuse it. But then I can take a video of you with my phone and you would never really know it so are you going to ban people from using their smart phones in public as well?

This is not about recording anyone at dinner. What this whole thread is about is people not wanting other people to wear Google Glass because they are afraid of being recorded.
You are right not to fear me because frankly I am polite, kind, and have never threatened anyone in my life.
What I will not put up with is this dumb hate on Glass trend that seems so popular. It is a piece of tech like any other. It can be abused or not abused but just because someone can abuse does not mean people have the right to prevent me from using it based on a fear of being abused.

Really? Why do you think that everybody wearing google glass is spying on you?
Why is it immoral are wrong for me to wear Glass if I am not recording you?
Guess what.... there is nothing wrong. You are just afraid that someone might be spying on you but frankly there are a ton of really hidden cameras that cost a fraction of Glass and record at the same resolution.
http://www.brickhousesecurity....
You don't see the two things as being remotely comparable but you want to ban something that might be abused...
And frankly the abuse would be less harmful on average and less common than TOR or Bittorrent.