NOTE: The Daily Mail article I'm submitting has the best pictures of the debris that I've been able to find.
Link to Original Source
Helicopters are allowed to fly below 500 ft, per the following:
91.119 Minimum safe altitudes: General.
Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate an aircraft below the following altitudes:
a. Anywhere. An altitude allowing, if a power unit fails, an emergency landing without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface.
b. Over congested areas. Over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement, or over any open air assembly of persons, an altitude of 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a horizontal radius of 2,000 feet of the aircraft.
c. Over other than congested areas. An altitude of 500 feet above the surface, except over open water or sparsely populated areas. In those cases, the aircraft may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure.
d. Helicopters. Helicopters may be operated at less than the minimums prescribed in paragraph B or C of this section if the operation is conducted without hazard to persons or property on the surface.
Merideth's neighbors saw it too. "It was just hovering above our house and it stayed for a few moments and then she finally waved and it took off," said neighbor Kim VanMeter. VanMeter has a 16-year-old daughter who lays out at their pool. She says a drone hovering with a camera is creepy and weird. "I just think you should have privacy in your own backyard," she said.
Olga Lexell, a freelance writer in LA, is allegedly the first person to publish this joke to Twitter.
In LA and NYC, most "freelance writers" are really waiters and waitresses. Maybe the "joke" is funny because its writer works at a juice bar?
I'd been waiting for this and following New Horizons so obviously it's great to see, but what slightly tainted the coverage for me was all the freaking USA flag-wavin'. Do you guys really always have to do that?
We American Scientists do things like that because the number of politicians and voters who are for nationaldickwaving is much larger than the number of politicians and voters who are for science. We don't like the national dickwaving, but sometimes we just have to take one for the team.
Obama called it "American leadership".
If Obama had not said something along those lines, the American news media's coverage would have been dominated by Republican Presidential candidates attacking Obama's lack of patriotism.
At one point a NASA guy said it was "all about America" in a room full of US flags. Funny, I thought it was all about Pluto.
By uttering those three simple words, the NASA guy did his part to ensure that the US Congress would continue to fund NASA. Thank you, NASA guy, for taking one for the team.
Can't it just be a victory for human ingenuity and curiosity?
I wish it could be that, but the US Congress rarely provides funds for the victories of human ingenuity and curiosity.
Will taxpayers really get $6M of value out of the fleet?
One of the articles claims that the drones are intended to eventually replace helicopters. If the drones do actually replace helicopters, then I can see taxpayers getting $6M value from the fleet.
Back in 2012, two Atlanta police officers were killed when their police helicopter crashed; they had been flying very low while looking for a lost child. The subsequent NTSB investigation determined that the crash was caused by “the pilot’s failure to maintain sufficient altitude during maneuvering flight, which resulted in his failure to see and avoid a power pole and wires.”
I suspect that one accident will end up costing more than Macon's drone fleet. Several lawsuits have been filed.
I have never heard of anyone who thought Jar Jar Binks reminded them of black characterisations. Nor has that ever occurred to me.
The racist nature of the Jar Jar character was a big story back in 1999, when the movie came out. Here's an opinion piece from the late Baltimore Sun columnist Gregory Kane, that was published back then: Seeing racism in Jar Jar is seeing phantom menace, June 5, 1999
What news agency is willing to be the first to fork over the money just to have the means to recoup the funds pulled out from under them? I think this idea is brilliant if you want to curb the FOIA requests you receive.
The real danger to news agencies is that The Daily Show, National Public Radio's On the Media program and other media critics will be able to see all the documents that the reporters were given, but did not report on.... so, IMHO, this new FOIA policy will really help to expose the biases of many mainstream news agencies.
I can probably afford some advice from a lawyer, and may very well go that route,
but I sincerely doubt I could afford defend myself against an actual lawsuit.
That's all the more reason to consult an attorney now!