We have another genius...
02-12-2015, 06:34 AM
#3
I'm witness to the ignorance first hand. On another board I'm involved in a thread discussing a newly released camera platform quad and there are many posters coming in saying things like "This is my first quad", I'm new to the hobby" etc, etc..and several of us point out that this machine is too big and too much for a newcomer and to start out with something much smaller and learn how to fly that first without the aid of GPS, smart modes, etc... The bulk of posters in that thread make it clear they only want to hear discussion about the quads features, performance, etc.. and don't want to read posts telling folks it may be too much for them, they are too inexperienced, or to learn how to fly safely, etc... before getting a machine like this. I don't get it ! I enjoy flying these "smart" multi-rotors, and FPV craft and want to educate others on how to do it safely before the guberment drops the hammer on all of us. Seems many just don't care or can't see the big picture.
Last edited by flyinwalenda; 02-12-2015 at 06:36 AM.
02-12-2015, 07:19 AM
#4
You can't educate those that don't listen.
Last night on Fox, some knucklehead know nothing talking head actually said.. "the government will have to register them", these people speak but they know nothing, how can you require registration on something you can build in your shop,,, idiots
Just like texting and driving laws,, these stupid laws, that are for sure coming, are only for lawyers to be able to sue someone after something bad happens
Last night on Fox, some knucklehead know nothing talking head actually said.. "the government will have to register them", these people speak but they know nothing, how can you require registration on something you can build in your shop,,, idiots
Just like texting and driving laws,, these stupid laws, that are for sure coming, are only for lawyers to be able to sue someone after something bad happens
02-12-2015, 12:50 PM
#6
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
You can't educate those that don't listen.
Last night on Fox, some knucklehead know nothing talking head actually said.. "the government will have to register them", these people speak but they know nothing, how can you require registration on something you can build in your shop,,, idiots
Just like texting and driving laws,, these stupid laws, that are for sure coming, are only for lawyers to be able to sue someone after something bad happens
Last night on Fox, some knucklehead know nothing talking head actually said.. "the government will have to register them", these people speak but they know nothing, how can you require registration on something you can build in your shop,,, idiots
Just like texting and driving laws,, these stupid laws, that are for sure coming, are only for lawyers to be able to sue someone after something bad happens
02-14-2015, 07:34 AM
#8
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
02-14-2015, 10:41 AM
#9
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: The Sunshine state, when it's not raining!
Posts: 8,131
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
Actually, if you think about it, yes it is stupid. It is stupid that our representatives waste so much time to pass a law that hold no bearing in regards to stopping people from doing the incredibly dangerous activity. Smart legislation would have been as simple as mandating automakers installing a device that disables the cell phone while in drive. Many vehicles now come with a phone feature, disable the cell and leave the onboard operational. There are many ways to regulate safety without punishing the law abiding while leaving others free to act. Same goes for these quads and such, it would be much easier to regulate the products ability than the individuals act.
02-14-2015, 10:48 AM
#10
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: The Sunshine state, when it's not raining!
Posts: 8,131
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
But the real issue is "How much money can the government generate while appearing to maintain safety"? I once read an article on speed related deaths, how to prevent, and how much can be generated in the act thereof. A programming engineer said it would be far more cost effective to add sensors to the roadway system and require every vehicle to have the controls for those sensors of which would restrict a vehicle from accelerating beyond the speed limit of that given road. But it failed consideration because of the loss of revenue generated by citations. Simply put, it is not the safety of the individual politicians are interested in but rather the generation of revenue.
Last edited by acerc; 02-14-2015 at 10:52 AM.
02-14-2015, 11:11 AM
#11
Out in California, the Geniuses in Sacramento passed a law, still on the books, anyone under 18 must wear a helmet while riding a bicycle,, Police tried to enforce that law for one day,,, They all I'm sure felt great about themselves and thought they were making a difference when they passed it,, Idiots
So Yes, Laws that are unenforceable are stupid
02-14-2015, 11:48 AM
#12
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: The Sunshine state, when it's not raining!
Posts: 8,131
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
Laws such as that are for one thing and one thing only, to give police another means of stopping and questioning without otherwise having just cause. I did a few ride along's and it was sickening at the number of "idiot laws" they would use to (in my opinion) harass people they felt had something iffy going on. 99% of the laws on books are for two reason, one being the generation of funds, and the other is the ability to control (harass). Don't get me wrong I am all for the rule of law but when the rule of law becomes over cumbersome or oppressive it becomes malicious in nature. This "malicious in nature" is why we see so many problems in society today, we have been protected to the point of becoming ignorant and incapable of rational thought.
02-15-2015, 06:55 AM
#16
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: rhinelander, WI
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Back in the 1980's I lived St. Cloud township a suburb of St.Cloud, Mn. My 12 year old daughter got her first new full sized bike, went ride it
to a school friends house. Guess what?, about 1/2 hour after she left home, she calls me crying; she has been arrested, her bike impounded
and I was to come the police station to get her. On arriving at the police station I was not welcome; Her bike didn't have a city license, I informed
them we didn't live in the city and our township didn't require a license. Then to top things off the person arrested her wasn't a real cop.
He was a high school boy who had a junior lawman position with the city. Any way all got straightened out, but what a waste of time and money.
to a school friends house. Guess what?, about 1/2 hour after she left home, she calls me crying; she has been arrested, her bike impounded
and I was to come the police station to get her. On arriving at the police station I was not welcome; Her bike didn't have a city license, I informed
them we didn't live in the city and our township didn't require a license. Then to top things off the person arrested her wasn't a real cop.
He was a high school boy who had a junior lawman position with the city. Any way all got straightened out, but what a waste of time and money.
02-15-2015, 07:17 AM
#17
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Auburn, AL
Posts: 410
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ScaleOnly something to consider, it is possible, and many skilled people do, build a variety of firearms and accessories such as sound suppressors in their home shops. If the weapon is a full auto or a supressor or one of several other items then yes, it must be registered. Whether I agree with this or not is not the issue but it shows that the government can and will require registration of an item anyone can build in their shop if it decides to do so.
Rick H.
Rick H.
02-15-2015, 08:27 AM
#18
ScaleOnly something to consider, it is possible, and many skilled people do, build a variety of firearms and accessories such as sound suppressors in their home shops. If the weapon is a full auto or a supressor or one of several other items then yes, it must be registered. Whether I agree with this or not is not the issue but it shows that the government can and will require registration of an item anyone can build in their shop if it decides to do so.
Rick H.
Rick H.
02-15-2015, 09:15 AM
#21
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: The Sunshine state, when it's not raining!
Posts: 8,131
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
My point is, if your going to make such laws then make them laws period, no loop holes.
I have dealt and been friends with many city, county, and state officers and they all love those type of laws. Most even feel they should be more, including frivolous laws so they can enter your home easier.
Last edited by acerc; 02-15-2015 at 09:19 AM.
02-15-2015, 09:57 AM
#24
Actually, if you think about it, yes it is stupid. It is stupid that our representatives waste so much time to pass a law that hold no bearing in regards to stopping people from doing the incredibly dangerous activity. Smart legislation would have been as simple as mandating automakers installing a device that disables the cell phone while in drive. Many vehicles now come with a phone feature, disable the cell and leave the onboard operational. There are many ways to regulate safety without punishing the law abiding while leaving others free to act. Same goes for these quads and such, it would be much easier to regulate the products ability than the individuals act.
I was rear-ended by a woman on a cell phone in 1997. I couldn't even get my attorney to go after her cell phone records, much less the provider for allowing cell phone use while moving. So I went on an all out effort to educate myself on cell phones. Being an electronics engineer with RF technology and computer hardware and software technology in my background it was not at all that difficult. Cell phone technology and car technology were considerably different then. But one basic thing was true then and is still true today - CELL PHONES MUST SWITCH REPEATER TOWERS AS THEY MOVE. And that can be STOPPED at the tower itself requireing no change to the car and no change to the phone. It involves no equipment upgrade at all. And it could have been done 20 years ago with a software download to the towers.
Why don't you ask your congressman why it hasn't been done?
02-15-2015, 10:10 AM
#25
Junior Member
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Cape coral, fl
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Because it would stop passengers and people riding buses and trains from using cell phones too? Plus would stop use of hands free phones and cell-based GPS in cars.
