I'm certain the OpenBSD guys have literally never cared a single bit. Their goal is to make a secure, clean, and open codebase that people can use and build upon. Anything beyond it simply existence is a bonus.

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.

The odd thing is that it is actually even likely that it's going to be more secure.

Once I have to turn for a communist country to get freedom I guess it's time to start drinking heavily.

Dear US: If you want to spy on yourself, more power to you. But we're not as dumb as you are.

signed, China.

Yes, but we want asteroids, not meteorites. Or worse, an impactor that doesn't just break up and lie there.

Is it me or is the mere fact that they automated the takedown notices speaking volumes of how frivolous the whole matter has become? Take them all down and let God sort them out, or how is that supposed to be?

Am I the only one who thinks it's about time for some (serious) fines for frivolous takedown notices? It's not like they don't cost the media providers anything.

You could simply shoot whoever comes closer than the "stop and don't come closer or be shot" signs.

KISS, not everything needs a technical solution.

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.

It got there using a buffer overflow in one of your outdated (read: 2 days since patch) software and also got executed that way. The downloader wrote it into your %appdata%\roaming folder (where it has write access without you needing elevated privileges) and got started likewise.

Why files in %appdata%\roaming can be run at all? Ask MS. I don't see a good reason why files located there should be executable. Actually, there are very few areas in user-writeable areas where execution of files makes sense, and not allowing it would increase security of Windows by leaps and bounds.

Sadly, you need at least Win7 Professional to make it so. Well, it is technically possible to get Win7 Home Premium to perform it, but the hassle is maybe not far away from having to reinstall the system and restore a backup if the malware strikes...

It already starts at you having to get that weapon platform to the point where you can fire it. You have to build the weapon platform, you have to build the targeting computer, and then you have to move that all to where you want to employ it. And all that to (hopefully) hit a person who may or may not be still there when you get there and who may or may not be an actual target for you.

In turn, your enemy just needs to send a suicide jockey to your well known base and blow up the checkpoint at the entrance. Even if you kill the first 9 guys it doesn't matter as long as the 10th makes it.

Well, it just MIGHT work to give people a reason not to hate the US and instead turn towards the shit that you don't want to go down. It worked like a charm after WW2, didn't it?

The cheapest way to retain the order that you want somewhere is to give the people there a reason to want it, too. That works great if you can show them the benefit of your way of life. Of course, that first of all requires that your way of life must have some benefit for them, though...

This time only the bad guy died, but even him did not deserve capital punishment for a car jack ...

Nature -- specifically evolution -- disagrees. You don't get a vote.

So Tesla's anti-theft system is 100% lethal?

No, but evolution's anti-massive-stupidity system is pretty lethal. Less so nowadays, but... still.

"Hey, think I'll drive triple digits in a randomly active urban environment in a vehicle I'm not familiar with, while (justifiably) paranoid!"

No, I'm not part of the military industrial complex.

I intend to win my wars. Not just get rich off them.