His videos show eye-level flights along public streets dodging cars. He shows himself flying directly over an active hospital heliport. He shows people having to duck low-level passes in public spaces.

He is the worst possible example of someone doing business in this area.

No. This was specifically because he was being reckless. His videos showing him flying at street level through traffic, buzzing the hospital heliport, etc.

The reason the FAA became aware of his asshattery is that he uses his jerky stunt flying to promote his business (he sells multirotor hardware, among other things). He's an attention whore, and puts together his videos with a deliberately provocative tone, and it caught up with him. The issue of commercial vs. hobby was incidental, and the administrative judge's ruling didn't speak to that directly anyway.

Regardless, this isn't even a "final" ruling. For now, he's had his fine dropped. Heavy, onerous regulations are coming for RC/FPV operators, and it will be ugly (licensing, air worthiness certificates, medical exams, etc).

Buzzing a crowd isn't OK either way. Regardless of the state of the FAA's pending new regs, plenty of local laws against reckless endangerment can be brought to bear, and this sort of ruling is going to pour gas on the fire of a thousand local jurisdictions throwing together a patchwork nightmare of laws against Evil Drones. This ruling is actually a bad thing.

I drove my SUV to the same Home Depot three times this week while fixing a plumbing problem. QED

Maybe someone ELSE should re-read the words and note the difference between "inter" and "intra."

Facebook doesn't make stupid posts, people make stupid posts.

Are kitchen knives a really dumb idea after you cut off your finger while making dinner?

Exactly. And so this (her actions) are her parent's responsibility. And so the fact that the information they agreed to keep private was out in public is the fault of the parents, and they are suffering exactly the consequences that they agreed to suffer for doing that exact thing.

The point in this case is that they're suggesting that we're seeing evidence not just of water, but of biological activity. You are able to see the difference, right? It's like discovering that bears not only shit in the woods, but that they also have toilet paper and elaborate sewage treatment facilities hidden in their caves. Or would be, if this evidence actually points to more-than-just-water conclusion.

Actually it is like that. Because nothing we've sent there can look inside a good-sized rock with that degree of non-destructive precision and delicacy.

Start you own company, and make a point of having absolutely no way to deal with the communications your employers perform on your behalf. Don't worry, you'll never, ever be involved in any sort of lawsuit that would bring out the fact that you don't cover yourself. What could go wrong? You'll be fine.

Don't be an idiot. This isn't about Facebook using his photos, it's about a third party using them. Nothing about allowing Facebook to exhibit your photos grants a license to some OTHER party for commercial use.

Well, really, that case is about his reckless operations in Virginia (flying past a hospital helipad, flying through traffic at street level, etc). And that's taken in the context of his frequent flaunting of anything resembling good manners when he does his stunts to try to drum up eyeballs for his videos and promote what he's selling.

I don't think that case will have much of anything to do with resolving the question of whether or not the FAA's smack-down on commercial operators is viable.

Here's the real issue: most insurance underwriters have clauses requiring their insured parties to operate in keeping with the GUIDELINES of that agency. Law or regulation doesn't matter. If the FAA guidelines are that recreational RC pilots staying under 400 ft, in line of sight, away from people and airports and the like are OK, but people conducting business using RC are, for now, NOT OK... then operating commercially anyway will put most insurance policy holders in violation of the fine print, and they'll be on the hook in the event of a mishap, injury, or damage. It's very hard for most photographers, videographers, event promoters and such to secure liability insurance to cover doing something that a federal agency says is not allowed. That expectation of compliance with those guidelines is something that the insured and insurer mutually agree to, and that really makes things difficult for someone who wants to fly a camera drone over very expensive commercial property or a crowd of people for money.

Yes, the matter of the FAA's plenary authority in this area, and the way they apply it (or don't) has to be clarified. But in the meantime, there are real, practical reasons why their position is an impediment to commercial RC use. Lawyers for very big commercial entities have been telling their clients to stay away from the tremendous possibilities in this area. Which sucks. But large, expensive legal teams, on retainer for companies that want to use RC commercially, have concluded that the FAA's position is - in practical terms - as good as law for now.

Shut up you pompous ass.

He's telling you exactly what he experienced in real life. Like him and the person he responded to, my wife and I also saw our coverage canned because of the ACA. To replace it, we must now pay roughly double the monthly premium, a hugely higher deductible, and have lost access to the doctor we've been using for 20 years. The best local hospitals are now off limits, too. But luckily, now that we're past child-bearing years, we've got free maternity care ... so, there's that.

Telling people who are reporting these facts to you that they're imagining things is absurd. Your agenda is showing.

Yes. Which is why their city council won't even entertain the idea, and it's just one guy there who's selling cheesy certificates online.