Flying RC toys are just the trigger topic of the week to get people's ire up.
And contrary to Slashdot's opinion, lots of employers in IT are not bottom-feeding scum and they actually want to help people to relocate to the US without fear of being forced to move in case of visa expiration.
This still doesn't explain why the companies aren't searching for people to hire within the US. I guess it is cheaper to hire someone from overseas than someone with the same qualification from Billings, MT.
The only new restriction that the FAA is proposing is removing FPV flying from the domain of "model aircraft", which limits the pilots ability to perform these unsafe activities.
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.
A female passenger on a MBTA trolley who is wearing a skirt, dress, or the like covering these parts of her body is not a person who is 'partially nude,' no matter what is or is not underneath the skirt by way of underwear or other clothing," wrote Justice Margot Botsford of the state Supreme Judicial Court.
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.
Real Users find the one combination of bizarre input values that shuts down the system for days.