50-Point Swing Against Targeted Drone Killings of U.S. Citizens

[derspiess]

On atotally unrelated note - I wonder how "drone" came to mean a robotic aircraft.

I always associated it with the male bee, and it isn't a complement when directed at a person (it usually means a sort of featureless parasite, I guess from the fact that male bees do no work other than procreate).

I guess it could be from the sound it made as well.

[Razgovory]

My guess is that it came from the verb "Drone".

to make a dull, continued, low, monotonous sound; hum; buzz.
2.
to speak in a monotonous tone.
3.
to proceed in a dull, monotonous manner (usually followed by on  ): The meeting droned on for hours.

From this was derived the sense of machine-like and mindless.

Old English dran, dræn "male honeybee," from Proto-Germanic *dran- (cf. Middle Dutch drane; Old High German treno; German Drohne, which is from Middle Low German drone), probably imitative; given a figurative sense of "idler, lazy worker" (male bees make no honey) 1520s.

Meaning "pilotless aircraft" is from 1946. Meaning "deep, continuous humming sound" is early 16c., apparently imitative (cf. threnody). The verb in the sound sense is early 16c. Related: Droned; droning.

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=drone&allowed_in_frame=0

[mongers]

On atotally unrelated note - I wonder how "drone" came to mean a robotic aircraft.

I always associated it with the male bee, and it isn't a complement when directed at a person (it usually means a sort of featureless parasite, I guess from the fact that male bees do no work other than procreate).

I guess it could be from the sound it made as well.

I don't know the answer, they used to be called RPVs during Vietnam and into the 70s.

Maybe it's a nickname that stems from that time, when actually large numbers were used. 

Also many were launched from aircraft, C130s and so forth, so perhaps the idea of the mother launch ship got associated with her carrying several drones, which then did her bidding ? 

[Neil]

Normally I would agree with you, but this is one of these cases where the public simply will not have enough data to make an informed decision.

In such case I favour letting the public elect the guy who will make an informed decision, rather than letting the public take the decision itself.

That's the kind of thinking that leads to dictatorships.  The leadership simply has to be responsible to the public.  If the leadership gets to decide what the public gets to know, those public elections are meaningless.

That kind of thinking leads to representative democracy and official secrets, which is a passable system, provided that a constitutional monarch is in the mix somehow.