What would be fair would be everyone accessing that tower fairly sharing its capacity without regard to what a user did last week. Your notion of fairness is like someone standing in line at McDonalds being asked to move to the back of the line because they already bought a dozen hamburgers last week and McDonalds is really busy right now. Please, drop the notion of "fair" and "heavy user". This has nothing to do with that and everything to do with Verizon actively attempting to punish people who are NOT heavy users but simply at the top end of the scale, which always exists, in order for Verizon to continue to advertise a product, 4G LTE, that they can't adequately provide the bandwidth they advertise (mega bits/sec when on average they only want to deliver single digit kbps). We don't let car manufacturers advertise MPG based on coasting downhill with a wind at your back but we allow bandwidth providers to advertise instantaneous bandwidth that they only permit you to download at that rate for less than an hour a month.

Verizon and other providers like to pretend that such users are somehow abusing the system or otherwise getting more than their "fair share". Is that really the case? What is 4.7Gbytes of data monthly? It's about 100 kbytes a minute or about 1600 bytes per sec continuously. That's much slower than age old modem technology was capable of, not at all an excessive amount of data. Compare that rate with the data rates Verizon advertises for its 4G LTE plans, in excess of 2Mbyte/sec. So on an average basis they deliver less than 1/1000th of their advertised bandwidth on a continuous basis and Verizon wants to throttle. Or, to put it another way, they advertise speeds of 2Mbytes/sec but if you actually use that speed you'll be capped after 39 minutes. Being able to use up your entire monthly cap in 39 minutes is absurd, even if Verizon is clearly noting the cap in its contracts and advertising. Imagine what would happen if operators had to advertise allowed usage per sec instead of instantaneous data rates. Verizon gets to advertise blazing fast 4G LTE service under Plan A that gives you 16 kbps. Now that would be truth in advertising and give providers an incentive to both raise caps and increase capacity.

Love the blanket statement that "no current UAVs are safe enough to fly in populated areas", things like this must absolutely terrify you: http://www.poweruptoys.com/ BTW, stay off the streets, where real danger exists.

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.