What's "recreational" in this context?

The M18A1Claymore mine weighs under 4lbs and fires roughly seven hundred steel pellets like a shotgun. The proposed Amazon Prime Air drones could carry a bit over 5 lbs, so could easily mount a Claymore.

Apparently there is a company doing booming business selling drone detection systems to movie stars and other famous people. Gives them enough warning to cover up or go inside.

So anyone with money can get drone detection already. Drone destruction might be another story...though I wouldn't be surprised if that comes eventually too.

Nowhere did I call for banning drones, I just pointed out that they're a real issue, not some invented thing.

Personally I think the solution for drones would be a sensor net combined with some kind of EM weapon (laser/maser/EMP/etc.) to shoot down the drone before it gets to the intended target.

What does make sense is a radar/acoustic/lidar "fence", with some sort of point-defence laser/maser/EMP/etc system to disable drones that enter restricted airspace around sensitive areas.

On of the issues will be minimizing collateral damage--debris raining down on people, backscatter from the radiation pulse, missed shots hitting innocent people/equipment, etc.

Uber's pricing varies with demand, cabs don't. So if it's a busy time then you'll either pay more for immediate service with Uber, or else wait longer for a normal cab. It's up to the consumer.

Hypothetically speaking, if I'm desperate to get somewhere, and I'm willing to pay *whatever it takes*, why is it a good idea to limit the surge pricing?

If raising the price from 1.0 to 1.5 raises the number of drivers considerably, what about raising it from 3.0 to 4.5? In both cases the price increases by the same multiplier.

Or what about having an auction system where each person that wants a ride indicates how much they're willing to pay for it? Would you want to cap that as well?

Unless you're shooting steeply upwards, a miss might blind someone. Heck, if it's bright enough even the backscatter from hitting the drone might cause eye damage.

I thought of point defence laser too, but it's got problems. You'd have to be awfully careful about where it was pointing when it fired, otherwise you'd run the risk of blinding civilians in any buildings within line-of-sight.

Realistically you'd probably be better off with a number of lasers mounted around the perimeter so that they shooting more-or-less upwards. Less chance of collateral damage that way.

Mount a claymore to the underside of a drone, fly it in at high speed doing evasive maneuvers, trigger it over the biggest group of people that it sees.

Could be fully autonomous, and it'd be really hard to shoot down when you're worried about where the bullets end up when they fall back down to earth. I suspect a mostly-plastic drone would be hard to see on radar.

It wouldn't take a huge drone to bring in a big enough bomb to do major damage. Heck, you could probably put a rifle on some of the bigger ones.

It'd be really hard to shoot down a mostly-plastic drone coming in at high speed doing evasive maneuvers.

In the english language itself, "or" doesn't necessarily imply "xor". Usually some other mechanism is used to imply exclusivity, either from situational awareness or from context in the surrounding text.

For example, I worked for a decade in the linux kernel and low-level userspace. Assembly definitely needed. I tracked down and fixed a bug in the glibc locking code, and you'd better believe assembly was required for that one. During that time I dealt with assembly for ARM, MIPS, powerpc, and x86, with both 32 and 64-bit flavours of most of those. But even there most of the time you're working in C, with as little as possible in assembly.

If you're working in the kernel or in really high-performance code then assembly can be useful. If you're working with experimental languages/compilers where the compilers might be flaky, then assembly can be useful. If you're working in Java/PHP/Python/Ruby/C# etc. then assembly is probably not all that useful.

From what I understand, torture can make most people talk, but can't make them tell the truth. So if you're looking for easily-verified information it might be effective. If you're looking for information that is hard to verify, then it might not work as well.

And even if torture does make people talk, there may be other less brutal (and possibly more effective) ways of getting the same information.

"Hi-res" only makes sense when recording/mixing audio. For a final product that is intended just for listening it makes no sense at all.

*That particular" machine would charge less because they wanted to promote that beverage.

However, Coke was also looking at machines that would charge more when it was hot out. See http://www.nytimes.com/1999/10... for one example.