They are getting 99% of the academic tail, too.

1% Elitism is EVERYWHERE.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/quora/2012/11/27/civil_war_who_would_come_out_on_top_if_the_united_states_all_declared_war.html

Who said anything about "revolution"? That just brings you trouble, and causes more harm to innocents.

Just don't lay any special claim by "citizenship" - that is a parlour trick to keep you in harness, to keep you a "house negro".

No longer inhabits the constitutional legal framework of its purpose or foundation.

It is an illegal institution, with no basis for either loyalty or obedience.

not really. The best thing that he can do is pull manufacturing from China. Seriously, at this time, Apple can build their own robotics plant here in America and bring it home.

If Slashdot had posted a story about "the Lone Gunmen" pilot episode, then they would have a scoop that anticipated the 9/11 attacks with a civilian airliner, by several months...

The last part is your opinion, but the actual rule doesn't put it that way. For example:

(4) the aircraft is operated in a manner that does not interfere with and gives way to any manned aircraft;

Making a 180 and flying above a manned helicopter is interference with that helicopter, and is certainly not giving way to them. Further, the definition of "model aircraft" requires that it be:

(2) flown within visual line of sight of the person operating the aircraft

Two miles away is not "visual line of sight" of something the size of a Phantom. If you think the pilot was maintaining "visual line of sight" as his craft was flying between buildings to get away from the cops, you're wrong.

Further, it would be interesting to find out if any of the neighborhoods he'd been flying this thing in were closer than 5 miles to any airport, or if he even considered that problem.

As long as those model aircraft meet the definition of model aircraft and operate in according with that law. Which is one way of saying that the AMA is not in total control of model aircraft, just a limited subset.

This was not a model aircraft. It was a toy. And one of the guidelines is it must remain in sight of the pilot, which this one didn't.

They aren't. I've already cited the UAS information from the FAA.

There is a big difference between testing and development using the existing production system and using limited areas and tight control. The latter is the correct way of testing and development, as any software engineer should be able to tell you.

That's going to be very hard for a 50 MPH Amazon delivery drone to do, and even the toys can wind up there without much trouble at all. Given that Amazon has a strong presence in Seattle, and downtown Seattle has Boeing field, that means the controlled airspace extends from the surface up. SeaTac has even more restricted airspace, which includes a surface up for a distance of 30 miles.

You do not want the chaos that would ensue if airspace was regulated at the state and local level.

I read TFA. It was a Phantom. Yes, it's a toy. BUT, the exemption applies only to toys that are flown with visual contact. I.e., a tiny thing like this, two miles away, isn't being flown under visual control. The camera that it carries points only one way, and if the police helicopter approached from the rear the operators would not have seen it. It is quite possible that they did a 180 and flew back over the police helicopter (as the transcript from ATC says). If they did that, while not under visual control, and could have been sucked down into the chopper blades, it was reckless. It wasn't the police fault that they turned and flew back over, it was theirs, and it was only because they didn't actually have their aircraft in sight the whole time.

Also, the statement by the chopper pilot that he didn't know what to charge them with is irrelevant. He's not the one who arrested them, and he may not know the exact crime that was committed. He doesn't have to.

Nah. Not HERE, in the land of the Free, with Rule of Law!

But?

We were right all the time. Unfettered by doctrine, dogma of allegiances, wary of our own cognitive bias, we saw what we saw.

Bitter vindication.

You misunderstood. It was the aliens looking for cheap human labor that could be exploited. I mean, you go all the way to Alma Crematoria to take a job and it turns out you're becoming an indentured servant, what are you gonna do? Are you going to be able to afford a ticket back to the Earth? You think you'll find another job there, without good language skills and a degree from an Alma Crematorium university? You may wind up picking cabbage ... or working at Walmart. By the time you get there they'll have stores.

So the FAA has no intent of developing regulations or considering their need, but they have created a UAS study program including six regional test sites. Interesting.