There, shortened up Bennett's Blathering

Should make for some great YouTube videos. Maybe with a flat speaker under it with someone yelling for help.

Much less an expensive one that requires recharging frequently and doesn't do anything my phone doesn't already do and in fact requires my phone to do much of anything at all.

I took drone footage of my house for fun. If I decide to use it two years from now to sell my house that doesn't convert the legal-at-the-time drone usage to something illegal.

It isn't the chipset, it is the power coming into the computer. To really open up the sound you need one of these $4500 babies: http://www.lessloss.com/firewa...

So your issue with onboard audio is that you can't imagine how electronics can be designed to handle audio frequencies and signal levels in a PC environment? The simple answer is it is simple to do so. It's so many orders of magnitude easier than pulling a high frequency, extremely low amplitude cell phone signal out of the air where it is mixed up with a bazillion other RF signals. Yet your phone works.

What audio-whatever's need is a rigorous scientific test of their own ears. Those are the graphs I'd like to see next to each reviewer's glowing article about the increased fullness of sound they heard when they switched to oxygen free silver speaker cables. We build high quality audio equipment for humans with hearing that is similar to a cheap $2 set of headphones.

The conclusion of that article, just in case how good a card SOUNDS actually matters more than how well it reproduces noise at well beyond the range of the human ear. Sound Blaster X-Fi - The built-in band limiting at 24KHz and rising noise floor above that make the card useless for wide-frequency testing. However, it had the best distortion performance and very low spurious signals on both inputs and outputs. This should probably be the best sounding card of the bunch.

Congress explicitly exempted small radio controlled model aircraft that follow certain guidelines from what you are quoting.

I read the article, the police claimed the drone approached them, the pilots of the drone say their video shows it was not the case at all. That coupled with the wildly inaccurate claims of the helicopter pilot lead to the simple conclusion that he wasn't speaking the truth. While it is nice of you to spout a bunch of pilot stuff, the simple fact is that even the FAA says if you follow some simple rules all that other stuff simply doesn't apply to model aircraft operators. Your quad copter pilot flying at 300' doesn't have to comply with or know the difference between class E and class G airspace.

I disagree, an object that you believe to be much further away than it really is becomes very difficult to measure the altitude of. As proof, he estimated it climbed 2000' in 2 secs. Since it clearly did not, he either got the time wildly wrong or he very inaccurately measured it's altitude. I think it is clear he wasn't accurate in his altitude estimates and, as I said previously, nothing the pilot claimed should be given any credence.

The pilot were suffering from an optical illusion. They believed it was a must larger aircraft much further away and incorrectly estimated its speed, distance and altitude. In short, nothing they claim they saw should be given any credence. But as most people figure out with time, cops routinely exaggerate.

People have been killed by automobiles on more than several occasions. There are about 100 childhood drownings in buckets, bathtubs, toilets and water features around homes every year. The most recent, of the quite rare, incidents in the US of remote controlled model plane deaths were helicopters that have quite long, very fast rotating, dangerous blades. The drone in this article isn't going to chop off your head or your arms or probably anything else.

Firefighters no more "risk their lives on every call" than does my plumber. To start with, a relatively low percentage of calls involve a fire. Of those only a relatively few put a few of the firefighters at the scene in any degree of danger. Hats off to my plumber, at least he knows he's just doing a job and getting paid well for it without any need to pretend he's doing something noble.

There is a nice video out there of a quadcopter that loses control and flips. But because it uses a stabilized camera mount the picture is still perfectly oriented with the horizon all the way to the ground, while the quadcopter is all over the place. That you don't understand something doesn't make it a fake. No reason to even get into the silliness of assuming that there is some massive shock wave that would have flipped the copter over.