No, but he still is. As the copyright holder, he would need to make a reasonable effort to stop you, or he would still be participating in commerce. IOW, no, there's not a loophole where he can have a friend post the videos.

The guy should post the video on his own, non-commercial web site.

Once you start arguing that it's not the operator making money, you open a slippery slope where one person makes money on videos (making it commercial) which a friend made using a drone. Then, they reverse roles.

The simple fact is, money is being made from the video, which makes it commerce. Even if "the guy" didn't receive any payment, he is clearly participating in Interstate Commerce, which is subject to regulation.

"What about all the skydivers who do the same thing? What about passengers on commercial flights? They don't have a license; the airline or pilot does."

In both cases, the activity is licensed. The pilot is responsible for the behavior of passengers (hence the laws against interfering with flight crews and their strict enforcement), as are drop pilots:

14 CFR Part 105...Holds the pilot responsible for jumps that create a hazard to air traffic or persons, or property on the ground.

-FAA

I think you want to refer to the Commerce Clause. And, the action is not agains "speech" per se, but against the commercial use of drones. The FAA won't bother him about advertising revenue from non-drone videos, or about using drones as a hobby. It's when he combines the two that it becomes a commercial activity (and yes, earning advertising revenue via Youtube is Interstate Commerce).

So, what implementation of the NTP protocol do you use? Chrony?

The reference implementation, which is the subject of the article, is what's used by pretty much everyone. Name a significant OS/distribution which doesn't use ntpd.

Oh, and that includes OS X, contrary to your incorrect claim:

macmini-2:~ msauve$ ntpd --version
ntpd - NTP daemon program - Ver. 4.2.6

--OS X Yosemite

You are correct about one thing - it is a shitty implementation. It doesn't even follow RFC 5905, which it's supposed to be the reference for.

...and similarly, a headline of "Man Prints a Working 5-Speed Transmission For Toyota Engines" is qualified by the article it refers to, which makes clear that both the transmission and engines are scale models.

Pot, meet kettle.

Yep. And the unqualified claim that "it's not a 'working transmission'" is every bit as incorrect as the claim that "Man 3D Prints a Working 5-Speed Transmission For Toyota Engines."

In exactly what way is an assembly of parts including the speed-changing gears and the propeller shaft by which the power is transmitted from an engine to a live axle not a transmission?

You apparently think that thoughts and ideas can be owned. I disagree.

You missed the point.

Culture is stolen because of extended terms on original works. Others should be free at this point to make new works featuring Mickey Mouse, which was originally created in the 1920's. Disney made use of original works with expired copyrights, but now wants to protect their own works by extending copyright forever. Relevant to the article, why shouldn't a Marvin Gaye song from 1977 be freely available for use as the basis of a new work?

I will add that copyright terms should be even shorter for software. Copyright is offered as a trade to encourage the creation of new works. The author gets exclusivity for a limited time, after which the the public is supposed to benefit from the work. But, that doesn't work for software - why is MS-DOS, software which has very limited current value to the public, still under copyright? By the time the copyright expires (if ever), it will be essentially worthless - it almost is now. Even with the original 14/14 year term, how much software from 28 years ago (1987) still has significant value? Lotus 1-2-3? Wordstar? Aldus Pagemaker? What are you even going to run it on? In order for the bargain to be fair, a single 14 year term for software would be more reasonable. And, a requirement that source code be filed and archived before registration was allowed, so the public could actually benefit.

Yep. The simple, and correct solution is to put copyright terms back to where they belong and as they originally were (in both the US and Britain under the Statute of Anne). 14 year term, renewable for one additional 14 year term, if the author was alive at the end of the first time.

That's more than sufficient "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts." If the ROI of a work is based on more than 28 years of copyright revenues, it won't be created at all or is being created for reasons independent of what copyright provides.

Disney, a constant proponent of extended copyrights, built its business by copying the works of others. Where would they be if the Brothers Grimm, Carlo Collodi (Pinocchio), Joel Chandler Harris (Uncle Remus/Song of the South), Robert Louis Stevenson (Treasure Island), etc. were still copyrighted. Extended copyright terms serve no public good, quite the opposite, they cause our culture to be stolen from us.

I'm going to clamp a bunch of Seebeck generators to my exhaust! Wait, better yet, I'm going to patent it!

So, as long as someone uses a server in Sealand as a VPN exit, they can do anything they want with impunity?

"because no one is tracking you. it's impossible to do it with the amount of people we have."

If it's impossible to track 300 million+ people, they therefore have no reason to collect the data.

One easy thing which can help with room echo, but not require modifications would be to buy or build stands on which you can drape cloth or hang curtains.

A directional microphone can help, if all the people are at one end of the table, so it can be positioned and pointed at the group. I wouldn't expect miracles, though. What's needed most is a system with good echo cancellation. Polycom's in my experience are pretty good. But, they make models for different size rooms. You might find a model with remote microphones to work better, as they can be distributed to be closer to the speakers.

You may wish to speak with a firm which has experience with conference room systems (either a telcom system provider or pro audio one).