Get your fucking military out of half the world's countries.
it's a continuation of the rot and decay that started in 25 years ago with the collapse of the USSR
No, that rot and decay started 93 years ago with the formation of the USSR.
Wrong, in a fire-fight civilians don't have to stick around - they have a chance to get away without getting killed. Not so with drones.
So what you're saying is that you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, and you're just continuing to make shit up. Well, at least you're consistent.
But it would be good for you to look some people in the eye and tell them that the thousands of their innocent, non-combatant fellow villagers and countrymen who've died during ground fights between various parties are only dead because they never heard your wise words about they should have just left. I'm sure now they're thinking, "Doh! We had no idea that we could have just left, and instead we were killed in the thousands by ISIS, by the Syrian government, by Iranian special forces, by sectarian IEDs, by Taliban fighters who don't care who's in the crossfire
Instead they're thinking things like, "Well, it's nice that fight is over, because that caravan of Taliban killers just got hit in an airstrike before they even made it into our town, and none of us had to die."
Yeah, I can see how you'd prefer the fake scenario you're preaching instead of reality. People who live around fighting insurgents
Drones are the weapon of cowards without morals.
Just like rifles, right? You much prefer hand-to-hand combat with clubs and knives? Then it's brave and moral? Or is it possible that the tool has nothing to do with the philosophical underpinnings of why it's a good idea to stop a row of ISIS or Taliban trucks from rolling into the next village they're going to decapitate?
It's pretty meaningless has nothing much to do with the original post.
Sure it does. The original post spouts a bunch of BS about cops shooting people on "regular basis" and "countless times," and I'm pointing out that your vague, hand-wavy, no-context, no-citations, no-hard-numbers BS is, in fact, BS. You don't like being asked to be specific, so you're trying to pretend that being called out on it is meaningless. But it's not. You said something, and it's wrong, and you're being told it's wrong. Sorry you don't like that, so much that you're willing to try to continually change the subject, but it's what YOU BS'ed about that's being responded to. And of course you haven't offered a single scrap of more salient detail to counter that (which you can't, of course), and THAT IS THE POINT. You're just making stuff up for rhetorical reasons, and got caught. Now you can continue to try to blame the person who called you on it, or you can actually say something that's based in reality.
And FWIW, just because the FAA's pending rules are treating even cheap little quads as you-gotta-be-licensed aircraft for commercial use does NOT mean that quad operators are liking the idea. Most will say quite the opposite. At least at that scale, where it's ridiculous.
You could refute that trivially by clearly stating what problem it actually solves. Yet you chose not to do that.
No where in your argument do you explain why it is ok to kill innocent men women and children with remote controlled drones.
Why should I argue against a bogus strawman from you? You can't complain that I'm defending a position that I don't hold, though I can see why you'd try to spin in that way, in order to avoid the substance of the matter. The classic strawman maneuver, used to distract from weak positions.
Cowardly, by the way, is spending your day blowing up women in children in vegetable markets or school buses because they are insufficiently Islamic, and then retreating to your hideout in a village, surrounding yourself with other women and children so that if someone finds you and uses force to stop you from continuing your campaign of preplanned, systematic murder of innocents, that with any luck (for PR purposes) some of the innocent people in which you've embedded yourself will also be hurt of killed. That's being a coward.
Your fabrication of a phony moral distinction between killing a mass murderer in an airstrike and killing them by sending in a battalion of troops in armored vehicles for a protracted bloody firefight (guaranteed to impact more innocent people) is especially craven. What you're afraid to say is what you actually mean. You think that, for example, people trying to set up schools and aid for innocent women and children in areas like rural Afghanistan should in fact be open to uncontested slaughter by your preferred protagonists, Taliban murderers.
Don't try to embellish, the guy was flying a quadrocopter not a Cessna. It is a toy and not an aircraft. So that law does not apply.
That's not what the FAA says. In fact, if that neighbor had been flying his toy quad for $15 to check someone's gutters for debris, the FAA says that he needs an actual pilots license, same as he'd need to fly a Cessna. And with respect to laws against shooting at a Cessna? The FAA has more than once pointed out that they apply just well to anything else someone puts up in the air - weather balloons, RC planes, you name it.
If the copyright on "Steamboat Willie" expired, anyone could copy the work or create derivative works from it featuring a similar character, but they could not call the character in derivative works Mickey Mouse, nor use Mickey Mouse's image in such works.
No, when the Steamboat Willy copyright expires, there is no longer a copyright which prohibits people from making or distributing additional copies of the work, from publicly performing or displaying the work, or from preparing new derivative works based on it (such as a new Mickey Mouse short in which he commands a homemade submarine powered by barnyard animals or something). Of course, attributes of the Mickey Mouse character which originated in later, still copyrighted material would not be available; thus you're using the original 1928 black and white Mickey, or forking a new version of the character off from there. Can't give him a dog named Pluto, nor even the distinctive Mickey Mouse voice, as those both appeared in later films.
They would, however, be able to still freely copy the original work even though it featured said character that is still under trademark because the copy of the work is not considered a new work, it is considered a *COPY*
I don't know why that would matter from a trademark perspective. Trademark is concerned with goods bearing a mark all originating from the same source, so as to protect consumer expectations regarding consistent levels of quality. Even the goods of two different sellers are indistinguishable, that alone doesn't mean that one is free to use the trademark of the other.
The trademark issue here is whether the MICKEY MOUSE trademark even survives, at least with regard to goods such as motion pictures. This is because the MICKEY MOUSE trademark is inescapably connected to the Mickey Mouse character, and now the character is free for all to use, meaning that his presence in a work no longer indicates that it comes from a single source. That -- the freedom to use the character, and the loss of the single source expectation of consumers -- is what kills the trademark. And we know that the copyright lapsing will control what happens to the trademark based on precedents like Dastar (where the Supreme Court said that trademark is not allowed to operate like a perpetual form of copyright), and SHREDDED WHEAT (where the Supreme Court said that where a patent expires, anyone is free to use the invention and to use the previously trademarked, descriptive name of the invention).
the work uses the trademark with permission
First, there would largely no longer be a trademark. Second, that would be clear naked licensing, which would likely invalidate the mark anyway.