- Hot
- New
- Categories...
- Producer's Lounge
- Producer's Vault
- The Gulch: Live! (New)
- Ask the Gulch!
- Going Galt
- Books
- Business
- Classifieds
- Culture
- Economics
- Education
- Entertainment
- Government
- History
- Humor
- Legislation
- Movies
- News
- Philosophy
- Pics
- Politics
- Science
- Technology
- Video
- The Gulch: Best of
- The Gulch: Bugs
- The Gulch: Feature Requests
- The Gulch: Featured Producers
- The Gulch: General
- The Gulch: Introductions
- The Gulch: Local
- The Gulch: Promotions
- Marketplace
- Members
- Store
- More...
I sure haven't heard of one yet. But it seems that anything new, the bureaucracy does a mad search to find a reason to regulate, license, and get fees. I just don't know how I've managed to remain alive all the years I have without gov't taking full control of my life.
Just like gun registration, you only affect the law abiding citizens...not the ones causing the problem.
Finally, what is the government going to do with their $5 registration fee? I bet it won't have much to do with drone regulation.
I bet that $5 will stay $5 for just about as long as it takes to put riders in various and sundry congressional votes on assorted omnibus riders to boost the graft, er, looting, er, "necessary reimbursement" for all these things these evil drone owners are costing the dotgov......
And once the feds do it... Betcha the states will rapidly (and greedily) follow suit...
After that i was always amazed at the number of people who applauded a partcularly good landing. Rolled my eyes one time and commented. "You realize you are applauding a computer?"
They have been Luddites for longer than you might have supposed.
www.ktvu.com/news/2-investigates/2384...
“We think it’s a drone,” Franklin said. “I’m very concerned about it. It’s could’ve been a catastrophic event.”
After 50 years, our investigative reporters are now making people aware that they exist, so obviously there are more sightings. Since all news is owned and controlled by large corporations; my guess is that someone wants them regulated because they are afraid of them, justified or not. People are often afraid of what they don't understand and who understands Geeks and Engineers, but other Geeks and Engineers. FYI: the British released a Intelligence Report last week citing that Technical people, Engineers, and certain Hobby activities are the "Greatest Terror Threat We Face Today".
Aren't drones included as arms under the 2nd amendment?
As an observation tool does that spill over to camera angles so flying not overhead but using the camera as a SLA or Side Looking Airborne system enter the picture in both the 2nd amendment and as a potential civil privacy issue?
Just to add some flavor to the mix of questions.
I can just see Obeyme saying 'fundamentally the Court hasn't visited that area yet. "
It seems that there have been many more instances of laser strikes than of drone avoidances.
Sorry, Mr. & Mrs Jones, we're fining your 13 year old Johnny $250,000 and putting him in the care and custody of the State for the criminal act of not controlling his drone for 3 years, flying it into little Susie Smith (whose dad is a DHS agent) and doing her grievous harm. That's OK, he'll LIKE living in an Obamayouth Kamp, they'll mold him into the ideal subject! Oh, his fine? We'lll just postpone it - we may need to hold it over his head... someday...
And while we're at it? How dare you raise such a criminal? You both must be terrorists. We're putting you on a federal watch list, and revoking your rights. Um Hmmm...
Due to ongoing terrorist activity and that of international spies, I can understand why military bases can dislike civilian drones flying around.
Messing with Area 51 may be fun, though getting caught droning the place definitely would not.
Prior approval is the watchword of federal regulations. They did it with medical devices in 1976, long before that with transportation of all types. long before that even with our food, and lately with our medical care.
Getting time to make enough resources to be able to "shrug" without living in a cold, dark tent.
Its very depressing
beryllium-domed mid-range and high-frequency drivers.
they aren't produced any more. . wonder why? -- j
p.s. these antiques do sound super!
.
http://www.industrycortex.com/compani...
speaker domes! . gorgeous, too! -- j
.
I wonder how dangerous drones are to aircraft?
The word 'drone' covers everything from the 2 oz drone charging on my USB port to military drones weighing in excess of a ton.
.55 pounds is pretty light. I'm sure hitting birds is more dangerous. Are they freaking out over nothing or is there a real danger -- and at what weight?
According to the CNN article "The plane's CFM56-5B/P turbofan engines were certified in 1996 as being able to withstand bird ingestion of 4 pounds."
http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/02/12/huds...
Flesh and hollow bone is going to be easier for the engine to survive than metal pieces of a drone.
Not only is this philosophically inconsistent with a free country it is inconsistent with sound science. On top of this all, the money wasted on the big bureaucracy could be spent much better on technical solutions and on proper understanding of the property rights involved
Drones can present a hazard, that is my only point.
As to the FAA, all they can do is put out useless rules and regs. Useless because they are not able to enforce them effectively even if it wasn't against property rights.
The problem with the drones lies with the operators of course. The FAA can't regulate and supply them sense or intelligence.
Technical solution would be jamming the controls frequencies to keep them out.
What technological solution keeps drones out of the flight path of airplanes that are landing and taking off -- or swooping low to drop fire retardant?
Admittedly this is still a theoretical problem, but we have had times in So. Cal. when airborne firefighting was brought to a halt because of the presence of drones.
Of course, government registration is a useless form of revenue enhancement.
Common sense could prevail most of the time. Our legal system could prevail the rest of the time when some idiot flies his drone into the engine of a commercial jet. 99% of the time people dont want to let the drones get out of sight anyway as they are expensive and prone to never coming back...
Of course that may be one of the reasons for registration so that they can figure out who did it. If you do something dreadful you might just be willing to let it go.
Southwest airlines jumps through an amazing number of governmental hoops to get to fly over your house. Once again, I don't think that D.B. was advocating that. Actually, come to think of it, I don't know how he would manage Southwest Airlines airspace usage.
Nevertheless, my point was not that I own a wedge of the universe pointed to by my property but that people who own drones generally get bored flying them over their own property at any height and start flying them over someone else's.
So, setting aside the simplistic Austrians, what is an appropriate objectivist solution to the fact that drones can endanger aircraft?
Here is a hint does crop duster leave his own property when he flies around?
In fact, you didn't advocate a paradigm at all, simply said that government registration was how to "kill inventions".
Apparently I'm incapable of mind reading as well since I don't know what you propose as the approach that should be taken.
You seem incapable of thinking in conceptual terms.
It's how a society should manage things like flying drones outside of your own property that's an interesting question. And I will state that I don't really have a solution and would love to see some ideas instead of insults.
While you've repeatedly called me simplistic and incapable of understanding, you've not actually suggested how the danger should be handled other than by saying registration will "kill invention". Perhaps that's your way of saying you don't have a solution either.