But, the thing is, the cops don't have a license to transmit on the frequencies uses. Yet another case of breaking the law to enforce the law.

Its a mute point. Your begging the question, "Y"?

The US Constitution was written to protect individual rights from a tyranny of the majority. The problem is judges who can't read plain English, and will rationalize to give the other branches whatever they want. The Supremes deserve contempt.

War is Peace
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength

But, the murderer is no longer a burden on society.

Growing crops for your own family to eat, which never leave the state, and for which no money exchanges, is interstate commerce.

Now, you were saying?

No, but he still is. As the copyright holder, he would need to make a reasonable effort to stop you, or he would still be participating in commerce. IOW, no, there's not a loophole where he can have a friend post the videos.

The guy should post the video on his own, non-commercial web site.

Once you start arguing that it's not the operator making money, you open a slippery slope where one person makes money on videos (making it commercial) which a friend made using a drone. Then, they reverse roles.

The simple fact is, money is being made from the video, which makes it commerce. Even if "the guy" didn't receive any payment, he is clearly participating in Interstate Commerce, which is subject to regulation.

"What about all the skydivers who do the same thing? What about passengers on commercial flights? They don't have a license; the airline or pilot does."

In both cases, the activity is licensed. The pilot is responsible for the behavior of passengers (hence the laws against interfering with flight crews and their strict enforcement), as are drop pilots:

14 CFR Part 105...Holds the pilot responsible for jumps that create a hazard to air traffic or persons, or property on the ground.

-FAA

I think you want to refer to the Commerce Clause. And, the action is not agains "speech" per se, but against the commercial use of drones. The FAA won't bother him about advertising revenue from non-drone videos, or about using drones as a hobby. It's when he combines the two that it becomes a commercial activity (and yes, earning advertising revenue via Youtube is Interstate Commerce).

So, what implementation of the NTP protocol do you use? Chrony?

The reference implementation, which is the subject of the article, is what's used by pretty much everyone. Name a significant OS/distribution which doesn't use ntpd.

Oh, and that includes OS X, contrary to your incorrect claim:

macmini-2:~ msauve$ ntpd --version
ntpd - NTP daemon program - Ver. 4.2.6

--OS X Yosemite

You are correct about one thing - it is a shitty implementation. It doesn't even follow RFC 5905, which it's supposed to be the reference for.

...and similarly, a headline of "Man Prints a Working 5-Speed Transmission For Toyota Engines" is qualified by the article it refers to, which makes clear that both the transmission and engines are scale models.

Pot, meet kettle.

Yep. And the unqualified claim that "it's not a 'working transmission'" is every bit as incorrect as the claim that "Man 3D Prints a Working 5-Speed Transmission For Toyota Engines."

In exactly what way is an assembly of parts including the speed-changing gears and the propeller shaft by which the power is transmitted from an engine to a live axle not a transmission?

You apparently think that thoughts and ideas can be owned. I disagree.