A little from Column A and a little from Column B.

I dunno. Winnipeg has a reputation for being a pretty nasty town. Often ranks #1 in the country for murders, car theft, and/or other property crimes.

What's the level of classification that's right above "species"?

I've got one of those all to myself.

So different from the novel.

Yes, I too am much more pro-life, thanks to Kermit.

You people have been warned about perpetuating the Great Kool-Aid Blood Libel.

Since you clearly refuse to listen, I have released the hounds.

Well, heck, aliens and robots definitely have no rights in this scenario!

More thoughts:

1. Any RC aircraft that is "controlled by your iPhone" is limited by the iPhone's wifi transceiver.  How far can you get from your personal wifi router before losing the connection?  That's the range of this thing.
2. The AR Parrot is made of cheap styrofoam, and has the lightest electric motors available.  A light breeze will render it virtually inoperable.
3. I have a $100 camera that records video in "720p".  The picture quality is terrible, because it's compressed to within an inch of its life.  And that's a relatively large camcorder, not the tiny "camera on a chip" that's installed on the AR Parrot.

As such, the AR Parrot is not a "drone".  It is a toy, and an overpriced toy at that.  For $300, I'd want something with better range that wont be ruined the first time I crash it into a tree.

The minimum requirements of a real "surveillance drone" are a powerful controller-transceiver, a powerful camera with a good zoom lens, and at least a gas-powered engine. As such, it would be LOUD and EXPENSIVE.

A cheap pair of binoculars would be more effective for a peeping tom.

Here's a neat video of someone playing with their AR "drone".

Are y'all really telling me the people who made this video are criminals?

C'mon!

Better lock this guy up too. He's clearly a spy.

Now the Texas legislature has passed a bill that would ban the private use of drones to take photos of individuals or property "with the intent to conduct surveillance."

How the heck do they differentiate intent?

So, an art photographer can use a drone?  A newspaper photographer can use a drone?  A sports photographer can use a drone?  

I assume it's up to the police officer's judgement to determine the intent of the photographer?

Yeah, that law won't be abused.  You better believe it'll be interpreted in such a way to make it illegal to photograph a police encounter, because that would be "surveillance".

Look, there are already peeping tom laws on the books.  There is no need to create new laws just because peeping toms have a new tool.  

Multiplying the number of laws for every possible offense is straight out of the progressives' playbook.

Unless they draw a line between "drones" and RC aircraft, I consider this a gross violation of hobbyists' rights.

According to the FAA's draft regulations, an RC aircraft must be under the direct control of the operator at all times (as opposed to be computer-controlled) and must be kept within line-of-sight of the operator.  

Otherwise, it's an autonomous drone and therefore must be licensed as such.

It's not like radio controlled aircraft are a new idea.

I'm struck by how people don't seem to take note of a technology until it becomes miniaturized and inexpensive enough to become more widespread.

I never noticed much hand-wringing about the number of cameras in the hands of citizens (a technology that is over 100 years old, and has been small enough to fit in your pocket since at least the 1960s), but the sky started falling the second that someone put a camera in a cell phone.

I've never heard any cries about radio-controlled aircraft until the past year, but they've been around for a very long time.  They're simply more popular now, because they're less expensive.

So, is the formula that a technology is ok as long as it isn't terribly popular, but once the "little guy" can gets one then civilization ends?

I don't buy it.

This video illustrates why camera-equipped radio-controlled aircraft are GOOD for democracy, rather than a sign of the apocalypse.

I'd much rather have a society where everybody owns a drone than one where only the government does.

Meter maids are overpaid, unionized government employees who are almost impossible to ever fire.

I'm surprised how many "libertarian-minded" folk endorse hiring more of them.

1. I dunno 'bout a changed mind, per se, but I've downloaded a way wider variety of ebooks than I would have without Ricochet.
2. Isn't that the same as question 1?
3. It has destroyed any semblance of productivity at the office.
4. It's provided a place for like-minded folk to sit around the virtual campfire and watch the coming apocalypse together.
5. My dinner parties incorporate a strict no-pants policy.

I believe SCOTUS has ruled that age-of-consent laws do not apply to aliens and robots.

On-screen sex?

I vote no, because it leaves little marks all over one's back.

(I wish I'd thought of that joke three pages ago.)