Your "belief" does not, however, trump the reality that an increased number of people carrying weapons for self defense purposes creates a safer society.

Citation needed.

Look at it like this: The only effective counter to a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. There are more good people than bad people. Bad people will always have access to guns because they do not follow laws or restrictions.Therefor, having more of the general public armed means more good guys with guns than bad guys with guns. Q.E..D.

Strat

How about a club for the first legal owner of a black slave in the American Colonies, like black colonist Anthony Johnson, who owned the first legally recognized slave in the American Colonies, black man John Casor?

If you were intellectually honest, you would admit that Washington and many of the other Founders abhorred slavery as evidenced by numerous letters and documents and were doing all they could to bring about it's eventual end while simultaneously trying to convince these same slave-states to join the emerging U.S.

Discrimination against people is wrong. There is no "good" discrimination. There is no "Affirmative Action", only retribution based on hatred carried on, like an endless vendetta. It only keeps the cycle of racial/ethnic/class resentment and hatred alive like domestic violence passes on from generation to generation.

Strat

because muh soggy knees.

I used to be a social justice warrior, but then I took an arrow to muh soggy knee...

Wasn't Soggy Knee where a Native American swim team was killed or something?

Strat

Only true if taxes are the only source of initial capital outlay and income for SpaceX.

Taxes would be paid to SpaceX as agreed-to remuneration according to a contract offered by the government and won through competition by SpaceX. Seeing as SpaceX is a private concern created with private capital which competes for contracts against other competitors not only on contracts with the US space program but also others, your statement fails on that basis.

Strat

It's quite possible that even barring any laws or regulations restricting/forbidding such a move, the cost of renting a taxi might well be a net savings over footing all the costs of ownership & operation as an individual due to things like group rates for liability insurance and fleet maintenance contract cost savings over costs for individual trips to the local auto mechanic's garage, etc.

Strat

I don't know enough of the facts & details of the particular situation you describe, but just from your description, that's not too bad. Especially if the driver rents the cabs and pays no maintenance, insurance, tags, etc etc.

Sadly though, that's not typical in many urban/suburban areas with denser populations (where taxis are needed most) in the US. Most often, you see some sort of local taxi commission that's usually corrupt "regulating" a small number of taxi operations, sometimes just one.

NY's system is one of the most infamous, with Chicago's corrupt system at their heels with Washington D.C. in there too, vying for "Most Corrupt & Broken US Taxi System". Many others are equally bad, heck, I haven't even mentioned anything west of the Mississippi, and there are no lack of bad & corrupt taxi systems!

What's happening here regarding the new online independent private taxi services is really not much different in principle to what has and is happening to the old business models for media/news/entertainment monetization, sales, and distribution.

This time, there are a lot of locally-powerful corrupt politicians, bureaucrats, and unions in major cities around the world that stand to personally lose out if the old taxi systems go extinct, never mind the corrupt taxi company owners' anger and resistance.

The politicians and bureaucrats, as is typical with government (and the larger it is, the more "inertial resistance" to change there is), will have to be brought kicking & screaming into the modern age. This is particularly true if that change means those in government lose money, power, and/or control.

Strat

1. They could not charge as much as they used to. as a regulated taxi.

2. The taxi company would fire them if they found out they also drove for Uber/Lyft.

3. Having been forced to charge less, they'd have to work longer and compete for customers.

4. Being that Uber/Lyft have ways for customers to send feedback to report bad drivers/performance/cleanliness and hold drivers responsible, the former taxi drivers would have to actually put in effort to make the ride safe, comfortable, pleasant, punctual, and convenient.

So they'd rather protest than compete.

Strat

Moderated "Flamebait".

Classic Slashdot.

I've only read TFS not TFA, but how do we know that this wasn't a government drone and/or operated by or at the government's direction? Either as part of some unrelated police or intelligence/surveillance operation, or even possibly as a "false-flag" operation to provide the government public opinion leverage for heavily restricting/licensing and/or banning regular citizens from owning/operating drones.

Another point, TFS quotes an altitude of 700 feet for the aircraft. That would mean that a drone would not need to be operated at a very high (or technically 'illegal') altitude to be "near" the extremely low-flying aircraft.

There are a lot of unsupported assumptions being made all around.

Strat

If you have all the other states along with federal executive/judicial/legislative branches that are not so corrupted to the degree they are currently, the problem would self-correct. The Rule of Law instead of the Rule of Men would prevail.

It's like a computer network; A system built from independent machines with a varied 'ecosystem' of software, hardware, and security systems is a much harder 'nut' to crack than a single machine that operates a network of 'dumb' terminals.

In a very real way, those who wrote the US Constitution were network design geniuses. It makes little difference whether one is discussing a computer network or a government. Whether it's a network for data or for government power, many of the basic principles governing their operation, behavior, and security remain identical.

They were the ones introducing the new & disruptive concepts of their age, like all rights and powers originating from and by the People, and that government exists at the People's pleasure to protect and defend those rights equally, and has only those powers loaned to it by the People, and those powers may be altered or abolished by the People as described in the Constitution as they see fit.

Go and read the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers and the associated letters exchanged between the authors of the US Constitution if you want to understand these concepts. Of course if you're already fixed in your beliefs, then you may as well save time & bandwidth.

Strat

So, remove the over-reaching power.

The republic was never designed for a federal government with so much power. That was one of the basic tenets of it's design, to not allow the central government too much power.

Break it up like Ma Bell of old. Do away with the unnecessary/harmful/unconstitutional parts, and allow the states more control.

Note; I am not advocating doing away with a central government. Just reducing it's size, scope, power, and cost to more closely resemble what the founding documents say it should look like.

Nobody is going to pay off an official who hasn't enough power to accomplish the goal(s) of the pay off. It's also hard to politically influence a federal agency/department/bureau that does not exist.

Strat

No, those are Progressives who are in both camps (Left-Right, Republican-Democrat).

Progessives are the problem. As their name suggests, they want government to "progress" past the limits of the Constitution. Progressives are the ones who push for the "living" Constitution that allows "creative" re-interpretations of the limits on government scope & power which enable government abuses and corruption.

Stop electing Progressives in either major Party and things will get better. Keep electing the same Progressives in the major Parties, and things will continue to get worse.

Strat

But...but...where will we get future cops and politicians from, if there are no more government-indoctrinated violent and aggressive brain-damaged.individuals being turned out by schools?

Strat

Yes, they are a force multiplier for people against both public and private sector corruption, criminality, violence, and tyranny.

That's why unelected bureaucrats creating regulations with the force and criminal penalties of a Federal felony are an unconstitutional abomination and a clear assault on individual freedom and civil rights, plus accomplishing further destruction of the separation of powers between the Executive and Legislative branches of the US government.

Strat

The biggest dangers that drones present from the perspective of those in government are that drones in civilian hands are a force-equalizer and also hamper the ability of those in government to operate without being observed.

Any other reasons for government regulation of drones are secondary to those primary motivations and also serve as a smokescreen to cover for those primary motivations.

Strat