I wish I could give you a +ve vote (none available to me at the moment). I've had this kind of runaround on Slashdot too (see here and here). The education level of the Slashdot crowd must be higher than average. If so, the quality of fiscal and economic education in the schools must be correspondingly abysmal.

Just as a side note: at the time of my Slashdot discussion (see links), gold was around $1350/Toz. It is now, 13 months later, around $1700/Toz. The gold isn't that much more "valuable". The $US is that much less valuable (along with other currencies).

It is akin to worrying about general aviation (all those "uncontrolled" airplanes in the sky - in the hands of terrorists, etc.) while ignoring the proverbial elephant in the room - Ryder trucks. Only more so.

Further, as has been demonstrated repeatedly, a car bomb is a horrifyingly effective terrorist weapon (cheap, fast, inconspicuous, readily available, large payload). As an example, the use of just one such device ended up with US forces leaving Beirut.

Thus far, no model airplanes have been used in any terrorist attack (long distance or otherwise). If we are to worry about model airplane terrorist attacks, then we are no longer able to prioritize and are fearful to the point of collapse.

In form, yes. But I have seen repeatedly model aircraft designers using techniques & technology that only sometime later appeared (publicly, at least) on military UAVs. Also, only relatively recently have military UAVs become so small - falling into the realm of model aircraft. And now that the difference is blurring, at what point will a model airplane be considered an ITAR "munition"?

... these UAVs are becoming more and more like amateur model aircraft. In this current climate (fear, terror, control), I believe the model aircraft crowd are therefore likely to be increasingly regulated. It has happened already to the high power rocketry crowd (they pushed back - with some limited success).

An anecdote: a few years ago, a group flew a model airplane across the Atlantic (link). I found this quite interesting and told a few friends. One reacted with horror, postulating that terrorists would be able to use such a thing to deliver all sorts of nasty. No counterargument convinced him of the absurdity of his fear.

Assuming you don't mean in person, a quick youtube search revealed this (among others):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iqzbnSymE2w

I was comparing the attention space opera related articles receive with that garnered by real space related articles. The latter typically receive far fewer comments.

Aren't Yuri Gagarin and Neil Armstrong more inspiring? To bring it even closer to this crowd, how about John Carmack? He's working his way up from first principles - developing real hardware. It surprises me that the technical people ostensibly filling this discussion site are apparently more interested in wildly inaccurate space opera.

Good thing you posted as an AC. If the initial response to my post is any measure, your "blasphemy" would result in crucifixion. :-)

Interesting. It appears to be akin to a religious issue for you (assuming you are really that upset with me).

Why is it every time there's an article posted in connection with some soap opera in space, so many /. denizens are all over it with 100's of posts. Yet whenever there's an article on the real thing (space probes, man in space, deep space observation, etc.), either there are only a few tens of posts (many frivolous), and/or there's actual opposition (waste of money, rich bastards in space, etc.).

Fun and entertaining as he is (and indeed, happy birthday to the man), Shatner is an actor. Neil Armstrong, Wernher von Braun, Burt Rutan, Carl Sagan are/were the real deal - scientists, engineers, astronauts.

Of course, I might be jumping the gun. Perhaps this article will garner few posts.

Why is my karma going up in smoke? :-)