The FAA's published interpretations show the multiple areas they are saying they can now regulate. They want to preclude the use of vision-enhancing devices, such as binoculars, night vision goggles, powered vision magnifying devices, and goggles designed to provide a “first-person view” from the model. They do acknowledge that standard eyeglasses are OK. Note that they are NOT prohibiting remote cameras, only the goggles which fit over the face.

Also, they are giving their interpretation that anything involving money removes the operator from the "hobby and recreational" exemption that congress granted. A pilot that gives a demonstration of advanced aerobatics and receives a payment is now not flying for hobby or recreational purposes. This is equivalent to saying a fly fisherman that demonstrates casting techniques and receives a payment is no longer a recreational fisher and now must be a commercial fisherman.

They also say if you take any pictures or video while flying, they have the right to decide what you do with the pictures or video can also change you from a hobbyist. Take a picture of you own [hobby only] garden to see where it needs watering, OK. Take a picture of your neighbor's garden and show him where it needs watering, commercial use. Take a picture of any commercial enterprise and post it online, commercial use.

Many of these changes are being published now because in March a federal judge ruled that the FAA has never published its restrictions of commercial use of hobby aircraft. [See FAA vs Pirker]. The FAA had previously issued "policy guidelines", but that was not enough to fine Pirker the $10,000 they wanted for commercial use of a hobby aircraft. http://motherboard.vice.com/re...

~~

Not true. You have to actually read the FAA's updated "interpretation" to find the multiple areas they are saying they can prohibit. They want to preclude the use of vision-enhancing devices, such as binoculars, night vision goggles, powered vision magnifying devices, and goggles designed to provide a “first-person view” from the model. They do acknowledge that standard eyeglasses are OK. Note that they are NOT prohibiting remote cameras, only the goggles which fit over the face.

Also, they are giving their interpretation that anything involving money removes the operator from the "hobby and recreational" exemption that congress granted. A pilot that gives a demonstration of advanced aerobatics and receives a payment is now not flying for hobby or recreational purposes. This is equivalent to saying a fly fisherman that demonstrates casting techniques and receives a payment is no longer a recreational fisher and now must be a commercial fisherman.

They also say if you take any pictures or video while flying, they have the right to decide what you do with the pictures or video can also change you from a hobbyist. Take a picture of you own [hobby only] garden to see where it needs watering, OK. Take a picture of your neighbor's garden and show him where it needs watering, commercial use. Take a picture of any commercial enterprise and post it online, commercial use.

~~

My wireless keyboard has a audio mute button and a rocker switch for volume control. Most laptops have dedicated function key-pairs for mute and volume control.

Even the video footage of the bike demo had me reaching for my keyboard volume button.

~~

I wish people would stop using the word "Drone" unless it is a truly autonomous vehicle. What this was is a Remote Controlled quadcopter operated by a fan that wanted to watch their practice session.

Arial photography is used in many situations. A traffic helicopter, a blimp at sporting events, small planes, balloons, and even kites have been used to capture pictures and video from the air. (Kite photography circa 1889 http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/~jeff... )

If the fan had been in a tall office building next to the practice field instead, would this have been news?

I agree that the use of toy helicopters to carry cameras is a new concern for some people, but stop using the word "drone" just to sensationalize it.

~~

The Simpsons did it.

Actually, many companies have RF blocking screens, wallboards, etc. but the price has been high. However, here is a link to a French company that offered RF blocking wallpaper two years ago. http://www.linformaticien.com/... (use Google translate if needed)

~~

Ok, I want one!!

Obviously, you are not a farmer. Modern farming equipment and chemical fertilizers are helpful in multiplying the quantity of crops that can be grown, but are not necessary to grow enough to feed your own family.

How much food do you need to grow? For your own family, you can till and prepare enough soil with a pick and shovel. If you plan on sharing your harvest with multiple families, you probably need a horse or ox to pull a larger plow. Depending on the crop you select, you can probably plant enough seed or starter plants by hand. Harvesting is another time when you will need to some help to get all the crops in. If you grow grains, you will have to cut, stack, dry, thresh, and store the grain. This can be done by hand, or with hand tools (a flail to thresh grains) without needing powered equipment.

As a mental exercise, pick a 20' x 20' section of your lawn and imagine what you would need to do to turn it into farmable land. Dig up all the grass or till it under, test the soil for acidity and add lime or sulfur to balance the Ph, fertilize with animal manure, plant something (example wheat), irrigate it, harvest it with a scythe or sickle, thresh the grain, then store it. No modern equipment is indispensable, but it still takes a LOT of hard work.

~~

It was fun playing. I was able to add a few blank lines then drag the commands from the "Available Spells" area to make the coding faster.

~~

No, the fact she is wearing a skirt means she not nude or partially nude. The fact she might or might not be wearing panties is not relevant.

The previous law was written to stop people taking surreptitious photos of nude or partially nude people in settings where they reasonably expect privacy. It was never written to prevent someone shoving a camera up or down their clothing to take pictures. The state attorney's office is currently drafting new laws to make that action illegal, but currently it is not because nobody thought a specific law against it was needed. Obviously, now there is.

~~

Many of those go on my system first:

Firefox with Adblock Plus
Thunderbird
7zip
Paint.NET
WinMerge
Paint Shop Pro

~~

Have you tried WinMerge instead of Beyond Compare? Many of the same features and it's Freeware.

~~

No it isn't. The SS was named for the Schutzstaffel which in German roughly translates into Protection Squadron or defense corps. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...

The fact that Secret Service (in English) has the same alliterative letters, SS, is purely coincidental.

~~

What concerns me more is the statement in the majority ruling:

So we are now losing more of our constitutionally protected rights because getting a warrant "imposes burdens" on the police and magistrates? Their wish to search now trumps our right to protection from unreasonable searches? I think the SCOTUS got this ruling very wrong.

~~

If that were so, why would it take the Supreme Court to rule on this?

~~

This has been an option since 2003. The TSA was put into place after 9/11 but airports were supposed to be allowed to return to private screening after two years. New legislation passed last year supposedly makes it easier to replace TSA agents with private contractors although few airports have done so.

Currently sixteen airports use private contractors instead of TSA agents. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03...

~~