Link to Original Source
The FAA had made the current policies to prevent idiots who think they know everything (i.e. people like you) who have more money than brains from getting a UAV and hurting people by dropping it on someones head, though their roof or flying it into another aircraft. [...] As someone who flies UAVs for fun and profit (yes, I fly them illegally) I am in 100% agreement with the FAA at this point. I've been flying RC for almost 30 years and universally, the people who scream the loudest about the FAA regulation and policies are the idiots who get people hurt.
This little rant reminds me very much of the foaming at the mouth that occurred when cheap GMRS radios first came on the market: a hobby that had previously been limited to a small, insular group of uber-geeky hobbyists suddenly became accessible to anybody with a few bucks to spend, and they couldn't fucking stand it. Times change. It takes very little skill to fly a modern quadcopter (and, I might add, so so safely). There will always be dumbasses in the world. But the genie is not going back in the bottle.
What is being complained about is the double standards. Women have a hell of a lot of leeway in what they can dress with - men basically start with the full 3-piece suit and remove items based on how formal it is but you're not going to find the plethora of variation that you do with female dress.
Um. Whatever it might be, that's not "harassment".
What is undoubtedly harassment if you decide to decide to throw "some shit" at a coworker because you have decided that her tits are distracting you.
I'd imagine if I wore a v-neck that went half way to my naval to show off my manly chest hair and a codpiece at the next code review meeting it would certainly be considered sexual harassment.
What you're complaining about is the "harassment" that your female coworkers dress in a way that makes you want them so much you can't control yourself, not that what they're wearing would make them want to gouge their eyeballs out with a ball point pen. When you appreciate the difference between the two, you get to be a human being.
Let's say, for example, you're walking around with a $100,000 in a briefcase that says "MONEY".
Let's say, for example, that your boss sends you out walking around with a $100,000 in a briefcase that says "MONEY", or you get fired. Then your boss steals it from you, and then claims that you asked him to do it. Except the briefcase is you.
I'm gonna start suing for sexual harassment every time someone says I'm a nerd or I'm too shy or whatever too.
You would also be prettier if you smiled.
Do we really need explicit prohibitions against sexual harassment and sexual assaults for field work? What about murder or violent assaults? Do we need to explicitly prohibit those as well? Or are those implicitly permitted because they're not mentioned somewhere in a field manual?
The difference is that sexual assault, unlike, for example, murder, routinely goes unpunished or is even rationalized as normal behavior. If young women were regularly being murdered by their supervisors without consequence, then perhaps more attention ought to be brought to bear on that, too, eh?
I feel harassed by the dress, cosmetics and perfume that some women in my office wear.
You poor thing. How do you stand the injustice?
Sadly, I don't think some women "get it" sometimes and they misunderstand why what clothes they choose are not getting the kind of attention they really want. Now, I'm NOT saying that a woman being assaulted or harassed is at fault
Yes you are.
Car heaven is where the mechanics are German, the drivers are Italian, and the leather is maintained by a British butler.
In heaven, the lovers are Italian, the cooks are French, the Germans make the cars, the Swiss are the Bankers, and the British are the police.
In hell, the Swiss are the lovers, the Italians make the cars, the French are the bankers, the British are the cooks, and the Germans are the police.
Meanwhile, the FCC's deadline for comments about net neutrality has arrived, and the agency's servers buckled after recording over 670,000 of them.
That's because they didn't pay extra for the bandwidth. What did they expect?
Radical socialist nations got that way under the leadership of and influence of famously rich and exploitative people who united people under the promise of equality and utopia and are somehow suprised when their government takes away their freedom and points guns at them all the time. How many nations ended up like this?
Sweden, for example?
So we got rid of human slavery but are forced to endure
Very true. Having to be licensed to fly a commercial drone over residential areas is slavery, plain and simple.