Take away the security and you don't even need "smart" or "poised".

No one is saying that there should not be any security.

Keep security static and you don't need smart people - just enough attempts from dullards until they chance upon a workaround, the way penicillin eventually adapts to an antibiotic.

You might want to review that. And the "dullards" still need a basic level of competence. And that basic level of competence is what is extremely rare.

But not non-existent, as history has shown.

And it will never be "non-existent". Ever. As long as airplanes are still used. So putting "non-existent" as a criteria means that you will always fail.

And you will never know if the money being spent is not being wasted because there incidents are so rare already.

So your point about "reducing risk" is meaningless.

Think in terms of Venn diagrams: start with "people who want to blow up an airplane".

I'd change that to "people anywhere in the world who want to blow up a plane in the USofA". Which is a large number of people.

But then:

Now add "operatives smart and poised enough to carry out the attack but willing to kill themselves in the process".

Another slight change. "Operatives smart and poised enough to carry out the attack in the USofA but willing to ...". This is a very, very, very small number.

You don't need any of the other qualifiers because with just those two criteria you've reduced the number to almost non-existence.

So the problem would be to find someone who fit the "smart and poised" category. Once that person is found, you can teach him/her whatever is needed from a technical standpoint.

It's not insanity - it's all about reducing risk.

I disagree. The risk is already almost non-existent. Causing more difficulties for non-threat people will not reduce the risk any further.

Except they've tried three more times since then, and had either technical problems or had their attempt thwarted at the last moment. It doesn't matter if they also turn their attention to having western-looking jihaddis freshly back from the ISIS Olympics attacking a London shopping mall TOO, they haven't given up on using portable bombs in airplanes to try to knock more out of the sky. Why? Because it plays well for the intended audience, which is NOT the west. It's all about being able to claim, "See? We can still do more such martyrdom operations any time we want, that's how capable we are."

You're right. Our entire culture should only be able to be thoughtful about the safety of any one given situation at a time. People who want to fly RC aircraft should shut up and not worry, at all, about how some idiot is generating bad press and given the uninformed silly people media-hyped things to worry about ... they shouldn't even ADDRESS that issue as long as there is even one angry person anywhere roaming the streets ready to kill over an imagined slight. As a nation, we cannot possibly afford to deal with more than one topic at a time. Speaking of which, how do you have time to scold be when there are people with knives near taxis in your area?

So you're basically saying but someone could change the drone in the summary to something bigger and OMG DANGEROUS! Yeah good argument.
The other half of your argument is self defeating. Fires? Yeah because something that may catch fire is really going to kill you. Let me say that again, LiPo batteries do not spontaneously explode. Go get one and throw it really hard into the ground. Yes it may heat up, yes it may eventually catch fire, but if you get burnt as a result it will be because you got some really recessive genes which Darwin postulates may sort themselves out anyway.

In other news someone in my city stabbed someone else because they wanted a cab ride and they felt the cab stopped for the wrong person. Your little old lady has nothing on that, other than a case of the bat-shit insane. So let me commit the True Irish fallacy and say "No true sane person gives a shit". And that can be found by a quick Google search that shows the FAA hasn't done anything about individuals flying yet, only *attempted* to do something about a few commercial cases. So please, share with me your source on the steady stream of phoned-in tips, and the subpoenas and the cease & desist letters. No, Amazon and the guy who filmed the Tornado don't count.

By the way I like how you just pointed to the danger of drones, did you address the rest of what I was talking about? Think about it. With all those damn terrorists about we should ban fireworks and public gatherings. They are far more dangerous than drones.

I think you've missed the point.

I think I nailed the point. YOU claim that YOU cannot find people to hire for a position that YOU cannot identify or even characterize. Is it programming? Is it networking?

There is no glut of competent workers.

Any yet YOU cannot characterize the position that YOU claim YOU have open except:

I'm not even looking for particular skills or experience. Just people who are genuinely into technology.

So you will train people who are not currently qualified ... but there isn't anyone who is qualified.

Not all businesses allow you to post jobs to Slashdot, although I suppose I could lobby to change that internally.

If you're running the ad on Dice or someplace then post a LINK to that posting.

You are quick to claim that you cannot find qualified people (even though you'd train someone who was not qualified) but rather reticent to post any information about the opening you claim to have.

That's suspicious.

You're statement about narrowing my search is also part of the problem with this industry. A good engineer can work on almost anything.

No. A good automotive engineer CANNOT design a bridge as well as a good civil engineer. And neither of those are electrical engineers.

And someone looking for a programmer would NOT have any problem stating that AND what language(s).

I've been trying to hire developers for multiple high-compensation positions in NYC.

So post it here.

Truly smart/capable/motivated people are not looking for jobs. They are already employed.

Yes. Usually. So you have to offer them something MORE than they have at their current job to make them willing to take a risk on a new job.

I'm not even looking for particular skills or experience. Just people who are genuinely into technology.

Yeah. You might want to re-evaluate your criteria.

At least narrow it down to whether you're looking for a programmer or a CCIE. Is this about writing drivers? Or programming EPROM chips? Or iPhone games? Or encryption? SatNav?

God made humans rational beings.

Telling people who collect stamps they're idiots could be a hobby.

The flight controller is ALWAYS flying the thing. And if you were paying attention (which you weren't), you'd note that I was talking about how the flight controller might handle the presence of debris gumming up a motor and overheating an ESC. It happens all the time - insects, dust, leaves, etc. As I also pointed out, this stuff will seem mysterious to smug people who obviously have no experience with this stuff in the real world.

About half again that much by the time you install gimbal, camera, and VTX for downlink. Regardless, shall we do a test where 1300g hits you in the head at 30+mph? No? Huh.

Many people retrofit with CF props. Regardless, the stock props are plenty capable of taking out an eye, or laying open the meat on your face.

Though you can use the same Google you're talking about to see lovely video of hot, instant fires caused by multirotors hitting the pavement from a long fall/dive and having their onboard LiPo rupture internally. They are very energetic. Just what we need - video of Lithium-fueled fire on someone's July 4 picnic blanket, right where their kid had been sitting in a crowd.

Which explains why the FAA gets a steady stream of phoned-in tips from the public, which they use to issue subpoenas and cease & desist letters threatening fines. Or you could read up on the case of the 17 year old out having a nice time flying FPV in a wide-open public area, up until some lady started to quite literally beat him up for doing so. She gave a shit, enough to commit assault over it. Tip of the iceberg.

Actually the reason for that is not as nefarious as you think, and its the same reason for outsourcing construction, operation, commissioning, maintenance and many of the other activities various companies outsource.

The idea is simple. The companies make their money by getting shit out of the ground and selling it. Their value lies in the exploration rights and their proven reserves. Everything else is technical details. Most upstream oil companies are staffed with geophysicists, geologists, and anyone capable of holding a divining rod, as well as a few project managers to hold the whole thing together. They then borrow shitloads from the bank and sink even more shitloads into 3rd parties who will build, maintain and run the equipment. Then they can reap massive profits without having to actually have the expertise to do anything. Ever wonder why BP's oil spill involved a platform owned by someone other than BP, run by someone other than BP, drilling a hole which was cemented by someone other than BP, yet the profits of the operation (were it to have been successful) would have gone to none other than BP?

The entire industry is like that. Wastewater isn't complicated but there are plenty of specialist contractors who are willing to do it for you, so why waste the time and resources to doing it yourself, when you can focus on other things while also partially shifting liability.

Where can I find such a democracy?

Ahhh you must be one of those, "He mentioned guns so he must thing it should all be illegal, I better rebuff" types.

No, couldn't be further from the truth, you misunderstood what I was trying to say. I was saying that compared to getting killed by falling drones the above list is far more dangerous to the general health of people, and THEY ARE ALL LEGAL.

So everyone needs to take a deep breath, get some perspective and realise that getting killed by a flying drone is about likely as a terrorist attack. You should worry more about driving to a ski slope than dying on it.

I do. It's the I don't fly planes because they may crash, and there are possibly terrorists in my basement right now crowd are afraid they may end up on a TV show called "Truly bizarre ways unlucky people die".

They are probably posting the negative comments from their phones while driving down the highway, speeding of course because the government sets those speed limits to collect fines and safety has nothing to do with it.

More importantly we could all get killed by terrorists! Won't someone think of the children!!!!!

You have one of the most extreme cases of alarmism I've seen. I think we need to address your points individually in turn:

1. Flight controller may get confused and attempt to fly the thing. Or more realistically what happens when you lose a prop is the thing flips and splats straight down. Try it one day, or just jump on youtube and watch what happens when a quad suffers complete motor failure. They definitely don't come down at a nice angle, but simply fall out of the sky tumbling as they go.

2. The Phantom 2 is 1kg, this doesn't change anything but I thought I'd point it out since it'll significantly reduce the damage.

3. The Phantom 2 does not have carbon fibre blades. This is quite significant because plastic doesn't hurt when you get hit by it (spoken from experience).

4. It's night time, I think we'll be able to see the bright thing with 6 red and 6 green bright LEDs tumbling towards us, especially since we'll be looking right in its general direction.

5. LiPos aren't bombs. They burn well but they won't kill you, even if they catch fire while they are in your pocket, or on your lap (Google this if you want examples).

6. The public couldn't give a shit. They don't care about you, the drone or the FAA. What they will say is "awesome video" and hit share on Facebook. You know, kind of like everyone doing it right now. (Seriously like 6 people posted this on their wall in the past few days).

Now I wonder how many people die on the way to fireworks in car accidents, or die looking at fireworks while driving, or die getting hit by fireworks (this actually happened at one show I was at, my friend got a lovely payout and a great scar to tell war stories about). But more importantly shouldn't we be focusing on the terrorists? I mean all those people just standing there, in the dark, very little security, lots of people with backpacks. Think about it.