Don't like HIllary? Don't vote for her.

Don't like Trump? Don't vote for him.

Don't like either? See the above, but remember that abstentions aren't counted.

The FAA's stance on commercial operations long predates drones. I, as a non-commercial pilot, am prohibited from accepting compensation for flying people or cargo and the FAA has a very wide view of what constitutes "compensation". The theory is that if I am being paid, that might impact my decision-making process and change (for example) "it's too windy to fly today" to "I can probably land safely in this wind". To get a commercial pilot's license I would need to 1) accrue more flight hours 2) pass a harder written test and 3) pass a more strict practical (skills) test. More experience and training translates to better decision making and increased safety.

This rationale holds true for drone flights, with perhaps a decreased risk factor. A hobbyist might look at the weather and say "I don't want to fly in this wind, my expensive toy could end up in the neighbor's tree" when someone being paid could say "I have insurance". Multiply that by the number of expected drones in the next few years and it becomes a rather large problem.

Personally, I have no problem with the way the FAA is handling the situation. They're putting safety first, as they have always done and being professional by putting a lot of thought into their new regulations rather than hastily pushing a poorly-written, loophole-ridden set of regs that need revision every 2 months. Imagine the confusion among drone pilots whether the new maximum altitude was 300' or 400' this month, and imagine the nightmare of writing, rewriting, and deploying new regulation-compliance software for the drones if the rules kept changing.

From TFA:
>> Most of the restrictions discussed above are waivable if the applicant demonstrates that his or her operation can safely be conducted under the terms of a certificate of waiver. A big company like Amazon shouldn't have a problem getting this waiver.

Which one is my main computer?
I'm on my work computer 8+ hours/day; it runs Linux (Ubuntu) natively and Windows 7 in a VM.
My home PC runs Windows 7 and Ubuntu in a dual boot configuration, but I'm usually in Windows because games. Counting evening games/browsing and off-hours/moonlighting work, it's probably a close 2nd to my work computer in terms of hours of use.
My personal web server/NAS/SSH computer runs Ubuntu, behind a BSD firewall. I can get to this machine from anywhere I have internet access, including from my phone...
My phone runs Android. I have it by my side near 24/7, but I'm not using it all that time.

Sorry, I can't help. I'm a programmer but I don't know R, and I only know a very little about statistical analysis.

All I hear about nowadays is Trump / Clinton. I came to the comments hoping to see SOME discussion of the content of the article.

I'm a glider pilot too, and I think the FAA & DoI are being completely reasonable. The margin of error for these fire fighting aircraft is very small; they do their drops at 140kts and 300' (source). How much time do you think the pilots have to see and avoid something the size of a drone at those speeds? Even if they decided to hit it, it's still an unnecessary distraction from them doing their job.

I am in nearly the same boat as GP, but we also have a digital antenna so we get 2 of the 3 local stations. We never watched the sports channels so it was a huge advantage for us to NOT pay for it.

You probably made some good points, but without paragraphs I just didn't bother reading past the first sentence.

Sounds like a regular and ongoing thing to me.
Here's a tip: people on the internet don't know you, they only know what you post and most don't read very carefully. Speak plainly and stick to the point. Use paragraphs when appropriate.

If personal responsibility was no issue, I might be inclined to agree with you. As it is, you sound like you're trying to assign blame to someone else; in this case "it's not my fault that I am distracted in the car, the government shouldn't have MADE me look in my lap." I claim that the irresponsible drivers aren't being MADE to do anything, they either think they're not doing anything dangerous, they don't care, or they're just not thinking about the danger they're putting other people in. The fact is that we're simply not good at multitasking, and the comparison between texting while driving and drunk driving is well-earned.

Now I'm no expert, so I did a quick search. It looks like this was probably the earliest study into this issue, which supports your claim. There is more discussion about that study though, and a later study seems to contradict it.

First you offered anecdotes about how your own driving changed after the passing of this law, expressed anger at the size of the fine, and suggested applying existing laws about careless driving; all without any comment regarding the actual danger of distracted driving. Your entire first post comes off as an indignant rant about a law you disagree with.

Then you blithely admitted that you continue to drive in a dangerous (your word, not mine) manner. You claimed "Everyone is still doing this. Everyone."

Now you claim the problem is with irresponsible drivers and hint that you're not part of the problem, and you try to shift the burden of proof to me, when you've given no arguments of substance yourself.

I'm touchy on this issue because it's personal to me. I'm not upset at you for your "admission [you] have texted and drive before"; I'm upset because you switched to a "much more dangerous" activity and made no indication that you are give a damn about the people you are putting in very real danger. As long as motor vehicle accidents are one of the leading causes of death, some kind of effort must be made to improve the situation; people must be held accountable for their actions; ergo, punish those who needlessly endanger others. If you have some better solution please present it, the world will thank you.

OK, I'll post as something other than AC. You're wrong saying "Everyone is still doing this."

I've texted while driving before, but it was never a routine thing. I stopped completely after my cousin was killed by some asshat who didn't see the red light. It's been more than 5 years since I, or anyone in immediate family, texted while driving.

In a different incident, my dad's friend and colleague spent a full year in the hospital because another asshat ran a stop sign while texting.

Yet you continue to do what, by your own admission, is dangerous.

I have lots of choice words for you that I'll keep to myself, because they won't sink in. Let me say this instead: I sincerely hope you never have to get the call my cousin's parents got, or the visit from police with their heads lowered that his wife got. I also hope that you are never the person who drifts out of your lane, fails to see the red light, or the bicycle on the shoulder, or the pedestrian stepping out from behind cars.

There's a really great discussion of this over on Stack Exchange: http://aviation.stackexchange....

I have a feeling that Apple would be quite happy to re-hire these folks with a different title that grants no access to the appropriate source code.

I'm quite surprised that so many people chose the same option. In my adult life I've only met a handful of people who avoid caffeine in their daily routines, and IIRC, I'm the only computer programmer who does so.

Plain and simple, I don't like how I feel after consuming caffeine; the buzz is annoying, and I just don't feel right afterwards. Second to that is what I hear when talking to everyone else (ie: normal people), "I need coffee to wake up" or "I get such a headache when I skip my morning coffee." None of that sounds the least bit appealing to me.

Now, I'm not opposed to caffeine on occasion (eg: going on a long drive, need to pull an all-nighter). My problem is that every time I do it, I end up feeling bad during the times I'd normally have fallen asleep, and just as bad the whole next day. More power to you if you can drink ten cups per day, but no thanks.

A republic is simply a country with elected representatives in its government. There is no guarantee of individual rights in a given country simply because it is a "republic".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
http://www.merriam-webster.com...