People can and do live simple happy lives without technology. In many parts of the United States the Amish practice non-technology religiously.

However as long as people are free to make choices (and presented with adequate information) most people will choose the faster, more accurate, and more efficient method every time. Trying to limit innovation in order to continue to prop-up work that could be accomplished without manual labor is unlikely to succeed in the long run -- as the person or group who successfully innovates and uses automation will surpass those who don't.

Personally, I think the next wave of tech in the Western world must be towards independent production: 3D-printing is just getting started -- not even close to the magic of Star-Trek replicators -- but this is how the masses could gain some measure of independence. Ability to produce anything you need (given the raw materials or, where possible, ability to improvise in lieu of certain materials). If this technology is fostered: the necessity of a "regular job" might be reduced.

Certain kinds of calculators have been banned from test taking for a long time. If the tech supplants mental requirements: its not allowed.

School is for teaching brains not for checking circuits designed by someone else.

Ask something less obvious next time!

I agree. Iridium bet everything on this strategy and lost. Their biggest reason: the unexpected proliferation and success of land-based transmission towers.

The only thing different here is this is Google: and recently Google seems to be in deep with the US government. Maybe they want to spread the US topology further without having to be bothered about political barriers.

The flavor of this sentence has a slight taste of contradiction. At least this isn't deception by omission, like that last one:

Nothing to see here folks! Move along!

The FAA is helping protect people like you: people who went to the trouble to get your license and have now been relegated by auto-pilot tech.

If technology is a threat to a bureaucracy, the bureaucracy will ban the tech whenever and where-ever it can.

No, the FAA already ruined it for everyone by redefining the rules against congressional legislation. They've also ruined it for business by not having any sort of a plan to allow them to be used commercially.

IMO people like you who think good behavior will let you have nice things when your government is suppose to work for you are the problem.

I'm positing the farmer owns his own airspace: and if he wants to contract someone to fly his field with 20-pound drone or a paper airplane I believe he has the right to do so without anyone's permission.

And if the drone flies off course and crashes into the neighbors house/barn/cattle: the contractor is as liable as anyone trespassing and destroying property with a vehicle.

You may want to up that privacy fence. FAA rule 103 allows ultra-lights (unlicensed light-frame aircraft/no pilots license needed) to fly up to 1200 feet (and lower) right over your property and look right in your window no questions asked, no permission needed.

But contracted semi-autonomous/para-drones can't take pictures of a land owners own property with the land owners permission -- without first having an FAA permit, according to the FAA's spiel. And you can't get one! Permits are only granted to law enforcement and big foreign oil concerns flying the backside of Alaska.

Actually, constructing a building is constructing "an obstacle" (as long as said constructions whole intent is not to impair air traffic aka "spite towers"). Air traffic must now avoid the new obstacle by 500 ft.

I believe there is a concept called "enjoyment of the land". The FAA has to pay land-owners for navigation right-of-way if flights (usually near airports) routinely go below 500 feet. Obviously not a legal coat hook, but sure seems like an indication the land owner owns that space.

Heck, now that I think about it I want the FAA to compensate me for limiting the use of my own airspace by threatening to fine me!

Which is why most companies won't sign-off on it (and I'm not inspecting pipelines with mine). Though farmers (even incorporated ones) probably have a better chance of this playing out in court in their favor than any other venture.

Still haven't heard if the FAA's appeal was ever in court.

FAA Fine Dismissed

Yes, I noticed that. Maybe as a reminder that the rest of the world is moving on with this whilst the US government manages to (at least verbally) stifle innovation.

And as one of the thousands of people who own a UAS in "the land of the free" who can't use it for anything but recreation, I never miss an opportunity to disparage FAA policy and pseudo-policy regarding drone use.