No, the problem is drones are far, far too useful to operate only in 'designated areas'.

For example, in the not too distant future, instead of that helicopter ambulance flying to help someone out in the middle of nowhere, it could be a drone wired to a VR headset. But that won't be allowed, because 'designated area'.

The current aviation regulation regime is simply unable to deal with the future. Either you ban the future, or you have to change the regulations.

As touched on in a comment above, he didn't deploy them, he unlocked them. As I understand it, he unlocked them too early, so the deployment mechanism was unable to prevent them from deploying under the stress of supersonic flight at relatively low altitude.

You want to unlock them early, because, if you can't unlock them, you can still cut the engine and glide back. You don't want to unlock them too early, because this happens.

It was. You mischaracterize the post in question.

Cryptography is a special case, as governments did their best to prevent innovation there until the late 90s/early 2000s. And the RSA patent was another of the reasons for the slow spread of cryptography prior to the end of the last Crypto War, as no-one wanted to be tied to a patented algorithm; some even suggested it was patented for precisely that reason, though I doubt that was the case.

I figure Slashdot can't be worth more than about $100,000 USD. Valuing SourceForge is a bit more complicated. A lot of traffic, but major damage to the brand lately.

Something like. Kickstarter, or a purchase by a successful community member or three, isn't out of the question.

Not with that amount of cash you can't..

Oh yes there would be a very public trial. Why do you need a closed trial when all the classified evidence has already been published by the accused and is in public domain? Just whip out the contract he signed when he was indoctrinated with his clearance and dig out the public records of the documents he claims to have released to the press. All you have to prove is HE released the classified information...

Why do people think he's not going to get an open trial? OR a fair one? The outcome may be obvious, but that doesn't make the trial unfair....

Exactly this..

Snowden was about advancing HIS image and person and not so much about exposing something that was wrong. Where I believe he thought he had legal grounds, he was self deluded and stupid.

Now he's just a pawn being used to poke the eye of the country he says he loved by a two bit despot.... Way to go dude, you sure messed that one up.

There goes my karma....

Secret doesn't imply a kangaroo court... However, I don't think he'd get a secret trial.

There is no reason for a secret trial. All the "secret" evidence is already in the public domain. Why go to all the trouble of setting up a closed trial now? Just try him on what is already public.

Your choice, but I suggest you pay attention to the primaries at least and go out of your way to vote in them. The main problem for both parties is the lack of interest in selecting the proper candidates, and the tendency to elect the "best looking" and best funded over the best candidate.

After that, may I suggest you pay attention to the principles behind the positions of each of the candidates and pick the one that most matches what you actually agree with. Not the sound bites on TV, their actual positions and records...

Of course this may take too much effort, in which case, just forget the whole thing and stop complaining about those who are elected in races you didn't vote in.

Unless Snowden was IN the military or in military custody outside the USA, he does not face a military trial. Once his feet hit US soil, he will have a criminal trial just like anybody else.

The Trial may closed for national security reasons, but until a judge says that's what will happen nobody knows if the trial would be public or not. However, I don't think the government would care either way. They might want to keep some of the evidence out of the public domain, but what point is there to trying to force a secret trial now? They have him dead to rights in the public domain on this already..

This. This needs to be made illegal. Patent licensing fees should be returned (minus reasonable administrative fees) if the patent is overturned. Force the burden of proving the patent is indeed valid back upon the patent holder. Don't force the purported violator to prove the patent is invalid.

If the USPTO could control the patents it gives out so the rate they're overturned upon challenge is low, then it makes sense to force violators to prove the patent is invalid. But because they're seemingly willing to give out patents for anything and the rate they're overturned, it makes more sense to shift the burden onto the patent applicant to take reasonable steps to make sure his patent is ironclad and will not be overturned. If the patent applicant's confidence in his own patent is so low he isn't sure it won't be overturned upon a detailed review, then that's a pretty good indication the idea isn't really worthy of a patent in the first place.

This also has the effect of making pure IP companies a high-risk business. If all you do is license patents and one of your main patents gets overturned, it could bankrupt you. But if you're actually using the patent to make stuff, then you'll have an alternate revenue stream which will allow you to survive having to pay back the licensing fees.

There is a drawback in that companies may be more willing to license specious patents, in hopes that someone else will go through the expense of fighting it. If someone else fights it and wins, you get your money back, so why should you fight it? On the patent's holder's side, this creates a multi-year potential liability in the accounting books even if you have a valid patent. A sunset period of a few years after which you can't recover licensing fees (or a graduated return period, so after say 3 years you have to pay back 50%, after 5 years 25%, after 7 years you can keep it all) would address both problems.

If the crime fits....

I have a feeling that he could plea bargain a deal that returned him to the states and preserved his life if for nothing else but to avoid the public trial.

Of course, being banished to Russia, is fine too.. I don't think this administration cares one way or the other.

John who?

Oh him... What would you charge him with? Loosing money or not wearing his seat belt?

Didn't Microsoft lay off thousands of QA folks a year or so back?