Nice choice of Unicode; looks like a 2-character ASCII comic of you trying to smile but ending up with a blank face in the first frame (character) and throwing your hands up in frustration in the second.

Indeed, but let's be realistic, these craft can't reach that altitude. If the "pilot" isn't being a douche and hanging around your property or buzzing your head, don't be a douche and shoot down his drone. Let him pass over and expect to see him again on his return pass. Of course, if he's making laps around your property or repeatedly passing over, take whatever action is necessary to stop him, starting with trying to locate him and asking him to stop and escalating from there as necessary. But if that drone is being a nuisance by hovering over your property or getting dangerously close to you, by all means, take it out.

I wouldn't be happy because my phone wouldn't work near the jammers, but I'd be delighted in knowing how jammers actually work. I'd probably knock on their door, greet them with a smile, shake their hands, maybe even brink a cake, pan of brownies, plate of cookies, or fruit basket, and say something along the lines of "Way to amplify the problem you're trying to prevent, dumbasses."

Indeed, and that would also have been the reasonable response to the drone had it been within that range, as well. Failing that, a longer-range approach is necessary.

Wrong. You have no expectation of privacy from satellites in their planned orbits or aircraft flying their FAA-approved routes over your property, but you still have expectation of privacy from people and their toys that have no business being there.

Been there, done that. Even after proofreading several times, passing the text to my wife for proofreading and having her point out the missing word, and reading it again myself, I'll still "see" the word there until she literally points at where the missing word should be. Quite a number of times I've proofread a post before posting, only to read it a week later (after I've forgotten the exact wording I intended to use) and catch the missing word. The brain is funny like that.

I think you fell victim to a typo. I'm pretty sure he meant "Most Americans are not rednecks like this"; the second clause in that sentence simply states that most gun owners are, likewise, not rednecks. I had to read it a few times to parse it properly, as well, because of the typo but, once you've done that, the meaning becomes quite clear.

I'm just guessing, based on the part after the comma, that you meant "Most Americans are not rednecks like this"?

The photography laws you vaguely allude to have one simple requirement. You can shoot anything you can see from wherever you are authorized to be [1]. If you can't see what's going on on the other side of that 6ft fence and you are not authorized to be within the confines of that fence, then you cannot legally photograph anything within the confines of that fence; you are not your drone so, even if your drone can see within the confines of that fence, if you are not authorized to be there, you can not photograph there. A plane flying overhead does have authorization, their route was explicitly approved by the FAA, the governing body that controls the airspace above US soil. Your drone does not, unless you pre-arranged it with the property owner, in which case they wouldn't be shooting it down in the first place.

Follow?

[1]: On private property, the property owner can restrict photography.

Actually, such devices have been classified under existing wiretap laws in many jurisdictions, making their use a criminal offense. Furthermore, if you leave your crap on my property without my permission, it is mine to do with as I see fit. Fly through my property? Fine, I might get annoyed, but whatever, you're passing through. Hover there taking pictures and video of my and mine? You're *on* my property. Rather, you've left your device on my property. Maybe I have a thing for putting holes in crap people leave on my lawn, and that's my right as it was left there, as a nuisance to me, without my permission.

I believe I said:

Oh, yes, there it is. Well, if you can't corral the dog in some other fashion or shoo it off your property because, for example, it is taking an aggressive posture and is about to attack, in most places yes, you can. You do have a responsibility to exhaust any less harmful means you have at your disposal before doing so.

In the case of the drone, if it were hovering in one place and low enough to swat it down with a broom, and stayed in that position while you did so, then swatting it with a broom would be the proper course of action. If, however, it is flying too high, or darting from your attempts to swat it, well, your options for recourse are limited, aren't they? Should you just accept some perv snapping pedo-pics of your young daughters because the only recourse you have left is to shoot the damn thing down? No, you should shoot the damn thing down.

Likewise, if you can grab hold of the dog's collar, you can take control of the animal and walk it back to its owner, or corral it somewhere safe until the authorities arrive. If you can't do that, if the dog is posing no threat you can let it be and call animal control to deal with it or, if you know who the owner is, a more civil response would be to contact the owner and tell them they need to come get their dog *before* you call animal control. If all else fails *and* the animal is posing a threat, yes, shoot it.

While I agree with your sentiment, I think you might be being a bit extreme here. There shouldn't be anything wrong with simply flying over to get from point A to point B. Hovering, lingering, making repeated passes, and, especially, hanging around until acknowledged, then taking off? Yeah, time for your toy to get shot down.

A neighbor you can ask to respect your privacy, then escalate as necessary until they do (which, in most cases, means asking again a little more strongly, but sometimes means yelling, arguing, or calling the police; extremely rarely does it mean shooting them and, when it does, it usually and rightly means prison time for the shooter). A drone, not so much. Because you can't initiate civil discourse with a drone and escalate as necessary, it becomes acceptable to employ whatever measure is necessary to remove the unauthorized recording device from our property. If it is flying too high or darting around too much for you to swat it out of the sky, your only recourse is to shoot it down. With the added benefit that you know it won't be back.

Doing *nothing* is more difficult than sending a specially crafted MMS message? I suppose I can see that with the younger generations, as doing nothing would require them to put their damn phones down. You're also missing the point that the entire catalog of already existing x86 Windows malware will be available on an x86 Windows phone. Anything capable of attacking a current version of Windows on an x86-based PC will be able to attack Windows on an x86-base phone. That's millions of pieces of malware right there.

And let's not ignore the fact that the sheer number of Android devices that are and will remain vulnerable to this exploit falls squarely on the shoulders of the device manufacturers who don't release updates and the carriers who don't distribute them once released. This is not an issue on Nexus devices, nor is it an issue on "Google Edition" devices, for both classes of which Google directly releases updates. My Nexus 6 was patched against this weeks ago; the lack of updates is not an Android problem, it is a manufacturer and carrier problem, easily worked around by selecting a device for which Google does directly supply updates, and getting the better, faster, and cleaner "vanilla" Android experience as an added benefit.

Depending on language, "Hello World" may inherit bugs from the compiler used to produce its binary. Otherwise, it gets its bugs from the interpreter or VM.