It sounded to me like what they were testing was successful (did the legs deploy, did the engines restart, did the vehicle slow down, etc), but that it wasn't a full test with the goal of being able to reuse the rocket as it was a water landing. And due to rough seas, the rocket was destroyed once it was in the water.

Of course then they'll run into copyright issues, so probably best just to sell the units.

What copyright issues? I don't even think you can copyright a specific shape or model. Patent or trademark possibly, but not copyright.

Where do you understand that from? AFAIK cable companies don't insert ads into the local networks (ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox, etc). They do insert ads into "cable channels" but those ad slots are specifically designed for the cable companies to sell ad space for. There may be a default commercial that plays for the national feed, but it can be overlaid with a local ad if the slot sells.

Networks don't want Aereo as it will rock the boat and introduce competition in markets that have long been dominated by oligopolies. In most areas, you have one cable company that services the area, and if you're lucky, the local telco might also offer television service. You also have Dish and DirecTV.

Most networks opt to charge the cable/telco/satellite company a fee instead of forcing them to be carried as a must-carry station. If a more convenient or alternate source of locals were available, it could result in lower revenues from fees. So stations have a reason to want to keep availability scarce. Networks obviously have a vested interest in keeping the stations happy, so they fight the fight. Cable companies also join in as they may also own the local tv station. Or the TV network. Or are the content producers. Or all the above.

It's all about maximizing revenue while stifling competition that may take a portion of their pie.

So a simplified summary of the issue is:

Aereo: We're not a cable company, we don't have to pay royalties.
Networks: Yes you are, you have to pay us
Aereo: No we aren't. Sue us.
Networks: Ok
Lower Courts:You're like a cable company.
Aereo: Are you sure?
SCOTUS: Yes.
Aereo: Crap. We'll be a cable company and pay the royalties then.
Networks: You're not a cable company
Aereo: C'mon man!

No drone, or "remotely piloted aircraft" in DoD newspeak, should be flown over a populated area.

So would flying them over a large body of mostly unoccupied water be ok? Like perhaps a river that's 2/3 of a mile wide?

Carding

It's basically verifying the validity of stolen or generated card numbers.

Why do I think this program will end up with a tiny, tiny fraction of that?

Why would you not think that $100b will be just a tiny fraction of the real final cost? What was the last completed military development project that came in at a tiny fraction of the original budgeted cost?

Based on the average airline's financials, they are doing well enough putting themselves out of business.

A) There is this little thing called "The Internet" that people use to send each other information. Why the hell would someone go to the risk of keeping a thumb drive that can be identified as in their possession and have their fingerprints, when they can just send an encrypted file?

Why the hell would anyone save something to the cloud that can be electronically eavesdropped when it can be saved to a flash drive locally and available whenever/wherever you may be? It applies just as much to illegal images, your legal banking/tax records, or anything else in between.

Why do you presume that it's two dudes? Perhaps it's Julie Andrews Charlotte Arnold...which would be an odd relationship to say the least.

It's a midterm election year so expect more lobbying a little later this year. Plus I'm sure there will be rather sizable increase just after it's approved. Lobbyists aren't dumb. Why spend $X to get something approved when you can spend another $X afterwords as a reward.

For the same reason I usually hate LEO with a passion. They don't write the laws, nor make laws convoluted. That's the job of the legislative branch (local, state, or federal). They just are power trippy and decide to interpret and enforce the law however they see fit ultimately letting a court decide your fate...after a long, expensive, drawn out process that is suppose to be innocent-until-proven-guilty but often is more the opposite.

They could have easily complied with the law by sending out a non-advertisement security-related email saying that if they wished to remain on the mailing list they would need to explicitly "opt-in" to the list again, (re)confirming their desire to receive the emails. At that time they could either specify that the newly reconfirmed opt-in list might receive security AND/OR advertisements, or make the list security only without plugging any of their products/services.

What it boils down to is this. If you send an un-solicited email to someone you have not done business with in the last 2 years, and they have not opted in before and, and they believe your email to be spam, boom, you are culpable.

Easy solution: don't email people that you don't have reasonable proof that they explicitly opted in sometime in the previous 2 years. I can't think of too many situations where a 2+ year old lead would be valuable from a marketing standpoint without a more recent business relationship.