Right. Trained and licensed just like the millions of car drivers around you, who area also in their cars, with license plates that can be identified. That explains why we have so many more drone injuries and deaths than we do car-related injuries and deaths. Well, actually, it doesn't. Manufacturers are selling hundreds of thousands of small multirotors every month, and the number of deaths is ... zero. As opposed to thousands killed by licensed, tagged, trained, on-board car drivers. Now that you're re-thinking this, I'm sure you're going to be looking for ways to ban cars from driving past your property ... because any one of those cars could hop the curb and smash right into your house. This MUST be banned.

And that changes your privacy rights how, exactly? The FAA has nothing whatsoever to do with that.

Regardless: are you comfortable that none of the millions of trained, state-certified car drivers all around you will hurt you? Why not?

Sure, other than the part where that's pure fantasy on your part, and it's nothing like that at all in real life. And if someone IS behaving that badly in a real and public way, there are already a jillion statutes in place to make them stop, or make them pay for being jerks to other people. And yet, untold thousands of these devices are being sold every month - how many ACTUAL cases of anything even approaching what you're describing actually occur? Especially compared to the typical street harassment you're describing, which is as old as time? Some perspective here, please.

Sure, other than the fact that shooting at any aircraft - manned or otherwise - is a federal felony.

Of course you also think that a person flying a Cessna at a 1000 feet should have to check with every landowner below his flight path, too, right? No?

Why? Be very, very specific.

So you're also in favor of banning park tourists from using bicycles, right? Because far more people are injured and even killed in bike/pedestrian collisions every year than by 3-pound plastic toy multirotors. And you're probably also in favor of banning the noisy, smelly, routinely lethal motor vehicles that people use to get to and from those public spaces, right? Because those things - unlike drones - actually are involved in thousands of deaths every year.

Yeah, those tourists getting smashed in the head by drones - that's been a real problem. Other than the fact that I'll bet you can't cite actual cases of such things happening that come even CLOSE to the number of people who are killed in motor vehicle accidents going to, moving within, and leaving public spaces.

You don't like the noise? How about you make arrangements to make sure that my trip to a public space is in no way interrupted by screaming kids, barking dogs, music being played from rolled-down car windows, and the like? Thanks.

That's awesome. I think it would also be great to never have to worry about you sneezing, or having a stroke, or being momentarily distracted, or having a mechanical failure as you drive your car to wherever you fly your non-crap drones. Because unlike the countless deaths we're seeing by drones (let's see... essentially none whatsoever despite untold hundreds of thousands, even millions in use), people are actually killed for real dead in car accidents every single day.

Cars ARE DANGEROUS when they are large enough to carry self righteous operators of non-crap drones. A pedestrian collision at even 5mph could be LETHAL.

See how this works? The Nanny State pendulum can swing in several directions.

You also have an expectation of not being bitten by a dog, hit by a car, run into by a person on a bicycle or using rollerblades. New Zealand should definitely make sure that nobody be allowed to drive a car to a public space, just in case. Or ride a bicycle - think of what might happen! And kids running around - total tripping hazards, so definitely no children allowed out of the house, anywhere.

There, feeling more rational now? No? Ah.

Excellent point.

If you hate Obama because of his policies or politics, I think that you have to concede that a year and a half of Obama is preferable to risking nine and a half years of Biden.

LK

by getting the low hanging fruit.

Anyone who is a serious threat wouldn't be talking about it online. He, she or they would be making preparations and keeping quiet.

LK

Fair point, and that sounds dicier. 'Round these parts (California), that employee might have a case for wrongful termination. But maybe not; snooping around corporate computer systems, even if the door is unlocked, just doesn't look good.

In the other case, though, now that I think about it, even if I had signed a contract that said my salary was confidential, surely that's only an agreement between me and the company? Would I really be violating such a clause if I disclosed my salary to another agent of the same company? It just doesn't seem like there's anything management can really do to prevent this sort of thing.

Seems like the only thing that keeps people from discussing this sort of thing more is the fear that someone's feeling are going to be hurt -- either theirs or yours -- if it turns out there's a big salary discrepancy.

Well if a sealed letter had someone else's name on it I'd agree that's a firing offense.

Me voluntarily telling you how much I make, on the other hand, is our business. Management can cough and sputter all it wants, but unless I signed a contract that stipulates my salary is confidential information, there's nothing they can do about it.

You obviously haven't been watching enough hard science documentaries on The Learning Channel, and don't understand the important role that our ancient pyramids have played in transmitting psycho-electrical immortality radiation towards the stars. Please try to keep up.

The study actually shows that the Americas and Australia each have inhabitants with DNA in common ... because both places were wandered to from elsewhere in Asia. It's not Aussie DNA in the Americans, it's the same Asian DNA in Australia and the Americas.