I don't think that would work in the USA. It breaks the one rule there is:

"Don't piss off someone (or group thereof) richer than yourself."

"Ignorance"? That's...a bit mean of you. Speaking as an RC pilot, none of the above items would apply to me in the same situation. Slap the word "commercial" on, and all of a sudden these rules apply. This isn't an airplane with passengers, it's R/C. Something the FAA has admitted they will not regulate.

With that in mind, take your self-righteous attitude elsewhere.

They are on rural land, clearly not within the airspace of an actual tower, and must stay below 400' and within visual range. ...What's the point of requiring a license and medical?

This is like the NHTSA telling you that (because you're a company) you can't drive your four-wheeler on private land (that has no roads). If you do, be sure that all drivers have a valid driver's license, a recent medical exam, don't 4-wheel at night, and don't you dare go on any actual roads! They would also like detailed logs of each time you drive, and when you get stuck.

I can't begin to understand this over-reach. I suppose the above comment will get R/C cars regulated. I mean they *could* go on regular roads and cause a wreck!

Which brings up another point. "Drone" is meant to be at least semi-autonomous, and certainly BVR (beyond visual range). These restrictions are simply commercial R/C flight, at best.

I'd also like to add that my feet have grown *considerably*, since birth.

ID's aren't free in Oklahoma. And, even inside a major city, it's *easily* understood that it can be impossible for a *fit* person to get an ID, without a car. Oh, and it requires TWO of the following:

  A certified birth certificate
  A current (not expired) United States passport
  A current (not expired) Oklahoma driver license originally issued by Department of Public Safety on or after November 1, 2007
OR
  A current (not expired) State of Oklahoma identification card originally issued by the Department of Public Safety on or after November 1, 2007

Because, the day after expiration, you're no longer who you say you are.

Oh, and that'll be $20. ...and it's only valid for 4 years - (Criminal, if you ask me.)

Smells more like a poll tax or potential technicality to bar voting to me.

Thiiiiis! Sadly, this is seems to be based almost purely upon on where you live. (e.g. If you live in Ferguson, cops are too busy handing out citations to actually solve investigate and crimes.)

OTOH, I don't think you'll see helicopters over affluent neighborhoods - ruining sleep. Maybe those in the "ghetto" can file a noise complaint?

This is, at best, a failure to understand what I said.

I mentioned parallel construction. Clearly you didn't understand:

http://www.reuters.com/article...

The NSA is free to pass that information to other, interested, parties. That includes State/local police/FBI/whomever. It invalidates every single point you just raised.

This.

I *used* to lookup off-the-wall things. But consider this:

What if someone close to me, or not, died, and I was the last person who read information online about the manner in which they died? If someone commits suicide, and I recently looked it up. That could be "evidence" of a murder! Should I become a suspect, based on that alone?

What if, while in the course of designing a videogame, I looked up information about how weapons work? Everything from handguns to atom-bombs - for accuracy's sake? Do I deserve to be on a watchlist because I could be planning something?

Remember, parallel-construction is a thing. But don't click that link, or the NSAFBI routine might flag you.

This is likely going to get worse before it's better.

I am glad I donated, and hope they fight the good fight.

Those "reasonable steps" are being used to fix a problem with no-known documented instances or impact.

What is known, and has been admitted, is that those steps tend to reduce the ability and convenience to vote for the young, and for minorities - thus resulting in voter fraud itself. Combine that with rampant redistricting and you've arrived at the new 1963.

Here's the real deal: Having a birth certificate, driver's license, or SSN isn't a requirement to be an American. But it (along with a fee and a day of your time, every few years) is to get an ID or driver's license in these same states.

Virginia, for example, is at the front of the line in rolling-out an ID requirement to vote. That's a $10 fee every 5 years. "Reasonable", yes. But not *necessary*. And certainly *not* required by the constitution. What if the fee crept up? What if you could only get one between the hours of 11AM and 1PM? ...not counting lunchtime? How far does it have to go before this smells like a poll-tax?

You're just parroting a problem that you've been told by Fox News is rampant. It doesn't exist. If you want to find voter fraud - look no further than at just about every state governor and legislature - it's where the problem has always been, always will be. Political power's #1 priority is, and always was, maintaining and strengthening that power

So... what's your view on the Voting Rights Act being recently gutted and the overnight movement towards voter suppression in several republican states?

Separately, I don't think either party is (inherently) racist. I think they simply pander to different socio-economic demographics. However, in certain sections of the country, I do think that republicans hang a big, loud "you're not welcome here" sign for anyone they don't see as a potential constituent.

If that was the case VMware would (or should) have apologized, and removed the offending code to get into compliance. The fact that things are this far along signals at least some degree of maliciousness towards the terms of the GPL.

Hopefully, the penalty doesn't come out to be a meaningless fine. Instead, it should be a meaningless fine and forced compliance to the GPL - not through removal of the offending code (they have passed on that), but through open-sourcing of the entire product via GPLv2, effective immediately.

Simply this. To elaborate further. Self-driving cars should be the legal equivalent to sitting in the back of a taxi. Even from an insurance/liability standpoint, owning one means you're responsible/liable for fuel & maintenance - and that's about it. It should be down to the manufacturer to ensure safe, autonomous operation. (Otherwise, things such as self-valet and timed pick-ups won't happen)