they're going to be like having snowmobiles and dirt bikes overhead
Take an hour and hang out with some people operating this sort of equipment. And then post again when you realize how very wrong you are.
Because drones flying over your house are an invasion of privacy
Actually no, no they're not. You might have an argument if the machine is being operated literally feet above your house, or below your treetops. But traversing the airspace above your house isn't any more invasion of your property than is driving by it with a car. Do you feel that your privacy is being invaded when a traffic reporting Cessna flies over? No? Why not? Be specific.
Why do Americans want to shoot anything/everything ?
No, the question is why does everyone else feel the need to keep that meme alive? Is it to make themselves feel better about having given away their own ability to defend themselves? There are plenty of places around the world where people go and spend an hour on the trap and skeet ranges. It's like bowling or golf. Why do all of the Germans, Swedes, French, Italians, Japanese, British, Russian, Brazilian, Spanish, Chinese, Australian, Latvian, and everyone else who do that want to shoot everything? Or is that maybe not really a reasonable characterization, as it turns out?
Nothing explains the most difficult part of the operation, public acceptance of something potentially noisy and dangerous
You mean, like a 5-ton brown diesel panel truck rolling into your driveway? That sort of noisy, dangerous thing?
Really? How do you use an airport in a no-fly zone?
Don't be an idiot. You know perfectly well what the GP is referring to. The FAA says no UAS activity within 5 miles of an airport. To the extent that one can make advance arrangements - including special permission, a filed flight plan, etc - per flight, you might be able to get away with that. That completely rules out on-demand delivery services like those being discussed. In every practical sense, that makes the five miles surrounding airports UAS delivery NFZ's. The entire DC metro area and many other spots are also completely, permanently off limits.
No, there were no WMDs in Iraq
Ok, so the WMDs in Iraq, used by Saddam to kill thousands of people in Iraq - those didn't exist? This sort of nonsense is supposed to make you sound credible? Who do you think your audience is - people just like you, but even dumber, who won't wonder if you paid any attention whatsoever to stacks of dead people killed with Iraq's chemical weapons? Man, it must be really annoying to be you, with reality being such a constant irritant like that.
Sadly, EULAs and the like tell them they can do this. Courts have upheld it. Which means taking them at their word is pretty much useless.
What? If the user who wants to participate in online discussions on a private company's web site agrees to a EULA that states that the owner of the web site reserves the right to change the conditions of using the site, then that's exactly what you signed up for. The only "sadly" involved is users sadly not reading what they agree to. Most people in the gimme-dat-free-stuff mindset don't think things through anyway.
Real names policies exist because companies say "what value can I get from selling the fact that SuitWrinkler53 commented on the website?" and deciding that they can't sell that information.
Or, if you're a publisher, those policies exist in order to spare the publishers huge ongoing legal expenses in dealing with inquiries and even subpoenas related to digging out real names or other information about trolling, libelous, or otherwise criminal users.
And then you realize they don't know much about the underlying technology, and are probably using something like WordPress.
No, then we realize that you're talking out of your ass and haven't bothered to so much as view the source on one of their pages in order to see that you're wrong. And that the paper - like so many who can't afford to go about it in any other way - are using a third party SaaS solution. Which means a single code base for many clients, which means no, customizing it for one customer isn't always desirable or even do-able.
They just have to remind you it's technically private property, and that the license says they can change the terms if they wish.
Oh, so you DO get it. What are you bitching about, then?
The reason why Saddam was under that disposal and inspection regime was *because* of those things
You mean, the things that didn't exist? What are you saying exactly? You're trying to have it both ways.
What Saddam did in the past and was under restrictions for is itself not a valid pretext for invasion.
Sure it is, because he refused to comply with the requirements that arose from everything that went before. And you're STILL pretending that his forces never ceased to target those protecting the no-fly zone, wasn't robbing from UN food and relief funds to buy more weapons, and so on.
Where was the evidence of WMDs? None.
I know, I know, you're trying to wish away the deaths of thousands of people killed with exactly those non-existent WMDs that you simultaneously say were the basis for the inspection regime. I suspect you're don't actually listen to yourself, in order to avoid realizing how silly you sound.
Almost 15 years past we have not found any evidence of hidden/buried caches
Right, just the places where they USED to be, and which were blocked from inspection while he was still in power.
There was never any strong evidence for WMDs regardless of what rumors may have been out there
You're actively pretending that Saddam didn't USE his chemical weapons to kill thousands of people. And you're completely mischaracterizing the UN inspection team's early observations of large caches of VX that could NOT be later accounted for (remember the huge, completely phony "documentation" dump provided by Saddam's people to the UN, followed by active blocking of UN inspectors whenever they asked for unplanned inspections of the very places they thought they might find such things?). Yes, I remember Hans Blix, but you're choosing not to remember how things actually played out on the ground as his inspectors were turned away time and time again.
Seriously, the CIA is responsible for the creation of Al Qaeda as a threat to America, you're welcome for 9/11.
So let's see
the drone killing campaign which spawns ten terrorists for every one it kills
I see. So you're a bigger fan of going in on the ground with huge column of armor and troops and the supporting logistics so that we can, instead of using deliberate air strikes, get into a non-stop series of random street fights while trying to kill the same terrorists, but instead rack up huge collateral damage while also telegraphing every move on the ground and chasing the targets out of range for months on end. That is an EXCELLENT alternative. And of course that strategy wouldn't do anything to inspire new jihaddi recruits, no not at all.
stupid illegal invasion of Iraq
Oh, here we go. I didn't realize you were just trolling. Sorry. Since you're revising history and just making stuff up, I guess we'll call it a day.
The problem is that the screen itself is a large, beautiful, and relatively expensive piece compared to everything that puts content on it. The price point makes it impractical to upgrade and replace on the same cycle as an XBox, Playstation, Roku, Apple TV, etc. Personally, I replace the screen every 7-10 years, and the connected devices every 3-5 years. Until the screens drop sufficiently in price to be replaceable in sync with the content devices, it makes exactly zero sense to cram more stuff into them. Especially when you consider the security issues.
Imagine if RC cars were a relatively new thing.. and people started attaching cameras to them and driving them on the freeway around emergency responders.
There are already laws in place to punish anyone doing such a thing. Just like there already are for flying model airplanes in the way of real aircraft.
Pound for pound, the amoeba is the most vicious animal on earth.