Is this requirement based on science or an irrational fear of computers?

You think you are free because you can say what you want but you are not free. You cannot trade with anyone, anywhere, anytime. For some reason freedom to trade was never considered a basic human right. From a functionalist perspective trade is to the modern state what speech was to the church. Both affect revenue.

How free are we if the state can take control of our electronic devices and we have no option to opt out? What does freedom mean if the state can tell manufactures what features phones must have? Can I build my own phone that doesn't have this feature? Can I sell it to you? Will they put me in jail if I do? Will they put _you_ in jail for being in possession of a non-government phone? When things like this happen in countries like China everyone jumps on the bandwagon and says how great America because we are free but when it happens in America for some reason it gets justified.

Those questions should be asked of asked of all health claims including the benefits of vitamin C, fish oil, anti oxidants, and crystal therapy. It's amazing the amount of crap people believe where the evidence is either insufficient or the research flawed.

Why can't they be like the UK and Scotland where they all sit down and discuss it over a nice cup of tea? Then if they want their independence they can have it. No big fuss.

I first heard about regulatory capture in an economics class where it was referred to a the Stockholm Syndrome for regulators. It's a well documented phenomenon: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R... It also doesn't help when regulators are guaranteed well paid future jobs within the industries they are currently supposed to be regulating.

Article I, section 8 of the Constitution clearly takes the power to regulate commerce out of the hands of the Executive and gives it to Congress. And if it's not interstate commerce then it's up to the states.

But it's only commercial delivery that is banned. You can deliver beer to ice fishermen by drone, no problem. But as soon as you are compensated for the effort it becomes illegal. How is this technology supposed to grow if you can't fund it?

http://jointhefastlane.com/

why so many problems, my friend? what's wrong with making a profit? somebody told me pyschology is a psuedo science. what do you think of that?

I wonder what implications being able to raise money for a common cause like this will have on the future of business. Will the top corporations of tomorrow be crowdfunded by people commonly wanting a particular good or service? What happens if you add virtual currency and 3D printers into the mix? Is this what Alan Watts was talking about when he referred to money as being an illusion? It's all in your head, man. Da future.

This is an affront to freedom my friend. Banning technology is bad for everyone. They are basically saying a P2P computer program cannot be run because wise people have determined it's bad. Reminds me of a Kafka novel.

The NSC cites McEvoy et al (2005); Redelmeier & Tibshirani (1997) as the source for the 1 in 4 stat. I don't see a ref Saurabh Bhargava and Vikram S. Pathania (2013) http://tech.slashdot.org/story.... Correlation does not mean causation, folks. Let's not forget that.

This sounds more like biblical rhetoric than science.

How come these creations never have any equations to explain what they're talking about? This is science --> http://physics.info/equations/