are you sure about that? Common Currency means Walmart can show up and sap all the wealth out of local economies, forcing everyone to get with the program and take on debt for college degrees for finance jobs to ride the highly-vertically-integrated financial american economy.
This is the country where those in charge are so terrified of any change they had TV commercials promoting $1 coins - and then gave up on them. They are also afraid of big changes to US notes (why not make them from plastic like Australia does?) in order to fight counterfeiting. In this, as in all other technology, the USA will be well behind the rest of the world.
You must be trolling, because we have all the great tech companies. Google, Apple, Facebook, Microsoft and many other Fortune 500's.
Compared to, Lol, Great Britain, same companies they had 50 years ago dominate the market.
And making analogies involving racism is a good way to get people to talk about real problems like this.
No. Making such analogies offends people who have been subjected to actual racism. They tend to stop listening to whatever else you say.
Like when someone takes whatever gripe they have, even when it's legitimate and likens the opposition to Nazis. At that people they lose people who might have been willing to side with them. That's also what a fake racism analogy does.
We don't have pennies in Europe. Just eurocents.
Maybe not, but then life isn't fair.
I bet a lot of people said the same thing about racism in employment.
I am beyond disgusted with people trying to equate everything to the racism that was a part of Western society's fabric until relatively recently.
Your failure to further your education has nothing in common with people who were never considered for jobs because of their race. You could have chosen to get a degree, they couldn't have chosen to be white.
You may think that you're being an insightful, open minded, progressive but you're being an insensitive douche with no perspective.
Let me just say that, if you offer a trip to space as the companion event to drinking this water, I will drink and I will go.
What you need, son, is a homeopathic cure for your gullibility.
Evolution doesn't deal with life or death
You lack a realistic understanding of evolution, I'm afraid. Time for some remedial study.
I doubt there are any safe uses for a drone. Do we really want a remotely controlled small aircraft flying around our homes and communities?
You're right. You're definitely on to something there. And while we're making sure that a professional real estate photographer with his reputation on the line is not to be trusted with a three and a half pound quadcopter, we should be even MORE restrictive of the OTHER dangerous stuff that's moving around our homes and communities. Like, pre-occupied 19 year olds driving cars. Like large dogs on cheap leashes. Like idiots on mountain bikes hopping curbs and cutting through read lights. Definitely start with the Evil Drones, but please don't stop there! There are so many dangers! Oh, definitely don't forget steak knives and riding lawnmowers.
How do you know that all those real estate agents are using the drones safely?
Never mind the tiny number of people shooting a few real estate stills from treetop level. How do you know that the many, many thousands of people who are flying around for fun are being safe? But the FAA (so far) is honoring congress's mandate that hobbyists be left alone, even though they just said that hobbyists flying FPV style are no longer allowed. Regardless, the hobby drone market has hundreds of thousands of customers. There might be a few hundred people shooting real estate. Can you explain why you think it's a good thing to hurt them, but not to care about all sorts of reckless hobby newbies (just search on YouTube)? Please be specific.
How do you know that the real estate agent really knows how to fly one of the drones
How do you know that your neighor, who just had a ready-to-fly quad dropped off by UPS and who's in the air 30 minutes later, is safe? Really. How do you know? And why do you think that people who are doing it professionally, with their businesses and reputations on the line, are more dangerous than a 12 year old kid next door who's on his third quad having crashed the first two in spectacular fashion? How do you know? Please be specific. Because the FAA thinkks the 12 year old kid is fine, but the person who takes great care to avoid endangering their real estate business liability coverage while shooting the occasional photo should be stopped. An odd thing for you to support.
The FAA is concerned with you accidentally flying it into a restricted area like way up there (evidently 1000 feet) or near an airport or the White House.
It is not concerned with whether some idiot crashes it into someone's window or head. That's the concern of local police and states.
From the post:
"This is a troubling development in an ongoing saga over the FAA's rules which punish the safe commercial use of drones."
Nope. It's a completely appropriate action according to the FAA's mandate and charter. It's their exact *job*.
Whether it's an appropriate restriction is to be debated.
Hmmm. You're right! Let's begin the debate.
This is a troubling development in an ongoing saga over the FAA's rules which punish the safe commercial use of drones.
It will induce drone makers to start donating to Congress (cynical, but difficult to actually disprove that's the reason for the regulation, not the ostensible surface reasons) and in short order, people here on Slashdot will be talking about the corrupting influence of drone makers on Congress.
But one could describe yours as being backwards just as easily as mine. It's simply a matter of perspective.
If by that you mean that clearly written words in the English language have no actual meaning, then sure, I guess. If you mean that the Constitution, and the countless supporting documents and correspondence written to, between and about its authors and the large groups of representatives that agreed on its purpose and amendments to it were just setting us with something that had no actual meaning, then sure. But that's BS, and you know it.
No, I never said "every" anything. I said drones. Period.
The Constitution makes no such distinctions between one tool and the next. But of course the people who wrote it were very clear that there were some tools that some people would - given a period of power in the congress - try to deny to the public, and so they added amendment that explicitly reminded the government that it cannot act in those areas. The Constitution is built around the concept that the government's powers over what you may or may not do it inherently limited to the things that are enumerated therein, and generally prohibited otherwise, with the states having all such other authority. This isn't a matter of "perspective," and it isn't true for certain tools, and false for other tools. If you think that "drones" (but not, say, chain saws) should be singled out for capricious bans by the federal government despite laws recently passed by the congress explicitly to the contrary, then you're completely missing the point.
Personally I'd say they were flying model aircraft not drones.
Semantic games like that show how completely unserious you are.
A matter decided upon, legislatively. at the municipal, county, and (rarely) state level. Not by capricious extra-legal, counter-constitutional fiat from a political appointee of the White House, as in the case at hand.