That is a good point, the anti-drone weapon needs a Go-pro/dash camera for liability purposes.
That is a good point, the anti-drone weapon needs a Go-pro/dash camera for liability purposes.
GA _is_ far more dangerous than road travel. According to this analysis, it is nearly 9 times so on a per-mile basis:
Yes, I agree my examples were absurd. I brainstorm the most absurd extremes when reading/writing specifications or code as a form of due-diligence to determine if a definition lacks specificity or not. I annoy a lot of people.
I'm honest in saying I don't understand what is included or excluded here. To split hairs, what is the definition of 'navigable airspace'?
Then again, I'm glad this guy wasn't jumping:
Correct. Look at how most bills are written at the Federal level by US congress. Usually the first few paragraphs will refer to this, even if it is asinine. There are a few other specifically enumerated powers that congress can act under. Budget, etc. But this is the big one for most new things.
2) Why cannot individuals defend their privacy on their own property? If gun operation is allowed on their property normally, why is firing their gun at an intruder any more "reckless" than clay target practice?
You don't own the airspace above your property, nor is it always easy to tell if something in the sky is over your property or not, not to mention the obvious danger in shooting a gun into the air.
Now there obviously has to be some more/better defined restrictions on what drones can do, but having people shooting drones out of the sky isn't a solution.
I think the point was that you can legally fire a gun into the air in certain places if the local town ordinance allows, obviously not in populated areas. In rural areas it is very common to just step outside your back door and have some clay target practice, or even taking down some actual birds.
Also, the definition of 'airspace' is the key. What myself and many others are arguing is that 'airspace' is not below tree-top level. Certainly not a few feet off the ground where you would probably be to look into a window at a useful angle and distance. Sure, if a drone is a few hundred feet away with a telephoto lens, then I can't really be sure if it is in 'airspace' or not.
If someone extends a very long selfie-stick over the property line such that it is 6 feet off the ground outside my bedroom window, is that 'airspace'? Can't I just grab the damn thing away from them? There is really no practical question that it is over my property.
3) Why are we talking about a 5 or 20 year JAIL sentence? Do they realize how much damage incarcerating people does to society and individual's lives? A felony and 5 year jail sentence can wreck entire lives. How is this appropriate for disrupting drone operation, especially over one's own property?
The 5 and 20 is the maximum, it would probably only ever be used if there were some major aggravating circumstances.
Second the FAA isn't passing new drone specific laws, they're saying they believe existing laws apply to drones, and those laws have 5 and 20 maximums respectively (though probably not for drones).
But that is the problem; it would be a felony regardless. It isn't so much the time, but the legal ramifications of having a felony vs. a violation or misdemeanor. Even if the sentence is suspended, a felony will revoke a variety of civil rights and basically make you unemployable. And this would make sense if your intent was to shoot down a manned aircraft. But somehow the definition changed and now a 250 gram POS plastic Christmas gag gift drone is covered by this authority.
Manned aircraft: sounds reasonable. Section (a)(2) right at the top refers to the navigation of US citizens in aircraft.
This law appears to have a date of 1994. RC type of 'aircraft' did exist, and this particular law makes no reference to such specifically. Where is the the definition of 'aircraft' to include nearly anything man-made that isn't tethered to the earth? How are we to assume the definition of 'airspace' includes below tree-top level, and all the way down to 1mm off the grass, which is what the FAA seems to be attempting.
Should I tell my 3 year old son to stop jumping out in the yard for fear his exuberance will lead to a requirement of registering with the FAA?
The birds too, those little suckers have been 'undocumented' for years...
Breaking news: Headline written by editor who only skimmed article and wanted to generate the most clicks possible. Some say this could be a case of click-bait, we let you decide, details at 11.
The AC has a point. After reading this link, the point is general aviation, specifically aircraft marked 'experimental.' This is typically home-built, antique, etc. aircraft not suitable for passengers etc. But they can still fall on bystanders, which is exactly what happened here.
The accident rate is actually shockingly high. This is not at all comparable to commercial airliner travel, which is what I assume you are insinuating.
Should be a no-brainer. It's only a matter of time before drone violence and/or property damage is a thing. So yes, it is more that just taking pictures of people through windows. If I suspect a drone may attempt to injure me or destroy my property, I have every right to destroy it assuming I do so within existing ordinances pertaining to discharge of weapons, etc. But keep in mind people do shoot at birds with firearms in areas where it is legal to do so and the FAA doesn't need to get involved.
Maybe an unlikely situation, just a thought experiment for now.
Statistically speaking, that isn't much. You just don't have enough samples to make that comparison. If you could accept a mere 80% confidence interval, that is still a range of 0.2 to 3.79 fatal incidents over the 135 missions. (1/675 missions and 1/36 missions, respectively.) So 1/70 and 1/100 falls easily in the range. A higher confidence interval 95% or 99% would be an even wider range.
The only way you could say that 1/100 is significantly different than 1/70 is to fly more missions and see how many have fatal accidents. Then the confidence interval will be narrower. If you flew 10x as many missions (1350), and you still observed 1/70 as the actual fatal incident rate, then you could get the 1/100 to fall out of the 80% confidence interval.
Economics is simply the study of distribution of resources. Everything else 'capitalism', 'socialism', 'libertarianism' etc. are just elements that every nation will have to some degree. The study of a 'free market' assumes many idealized things like you mention in terms of equal footing. i.e. both parties have the same knowledge of the market. Unfortunately, monopolies, government price-setting, and unequal information are barriers to realizing a free market.
So you suggest democratized capitalism. But what aspect empowers the individual? I assume you are talking about giving voting shares in all corporations to everyone. Logistical issues aside, how does this prevent the majority from abusing the individual? How immediate and direct is the influence of one individual person? What gives them more equal footing in day-to-day business dealings? Will they have access to better information, be able to overpower monopolies, or stop government intervention?
These things should already be possible when we democratically elect our leaders. But history has clearly shown that social justice is a long-duration fight even in a democracy.
I'm all for avoiding needless complexity, but here are the tangible benefits:
1) Energy savings. You could ensure lights are not left on by housekeeping etc. when rooms are not occupied. Maybe a small benefit, but easy to automate.
2) You can turn on lights when someone checks in to make the room more welcoming.
3) Customers can turn off all the lights in the room from the bed. Maybe a bit of laziness, but helpful for someone not familiar with the layout of various light switches in the room.
4) Safety: in a fire alarm, you can turn on all lights instantly to help people get out.
5) Wiring plan: lower cost to build and maintain a room without hard-wired switches.
Yes, not only do you have to pay for your own education, but it is obsolete within a decade or so. And you have to be good at guessing which education will be needed next.
And by the way, machines can be retooled much faster. Once we have 'adaptive knowledge machines' that can be retooled to do creative work, we are all screwed. Our work will have no value. You simply will not be able to keep pace with that machine no matter how hard you try. It is like watching the legend of John Henry vs. the stream drill.
Yes, this exactly. Automation is a good thing to eliminate toil, and generally improve the world. But it will make a large number of people functionally disabled. There is just no point to doing manual labor that a machine does for a fraction of the cost. I.e. how much ditch digging is done by hand anymore? You just can't work enough hours in the day at $0.10 an hour to pay taxes, rent, etc.
The historic idea of the job market restructuring is at risk this time around. This will not be like years past where new jobs open up in sufficient numbers. There is no promise that the non-automated portion of the economy will be sufficient to employ enough people. New business may emerge, but guess what - automated. Human labor as a form of capital may no longer be a dominant or limiting factor of the equation. Other forms of capital will be the dominant factors: energy, minerals, etc. Owning and controlling resources is the only thing that will continue to produce wealth in the current social-economic model we have. But then again, how can finished products be distributed when people have nothing to offer in exchange? The economy overall is throttled, even for the rich.
A subsistence lifestyle that opts out of this economy isn't possible in developed nations. We generally call these people 'homeless', or 'destitute.' You can't just build your own shelter, makes clothes, and hunt in the woods for many reasons. The land is 100% owned or reserved off limits, so someone will have the legal right to kick you out. You can't realistically have any sizable number of people hunting and/or gathering the materials you need because of habitat destruction, etc. The remaining forests are really just patches and stands of trees, etc. Building codes prevent 'traditional'/crude shelter. What happens when you need some basic first aid, etc. Do we really intend to inflict stone-age suffering on large portions of the population that don't fit in?
Hypothetically just some wild numbers: You work 2 years, demand and receive a 20% raise. They cut the highest-paid in the next round of layoffs. You are unemployed for 1 year holding out for that salary level again. Employers won't hire you because you only last 2 years at a job, and haven't worked for 1 year. Your savings run out and you settle for a job working at 80% of your original salary.
Different regions have different values for the numbers above. Maybe on the west coast this can work in your favor. East coast is a little more conservative. Depends on the industry as well if longevity matters to the job role.
"In order to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the universe." -- Carl Sagan, Cosmos