b) While drones might allow for lower collateral damage (because the drone won't be afraid of death), a drone also will not object to illegal or immoral orders.
Neither do most humans. soldiers are generally drilled by most countries to obey orders and respect the chain of command, it goes against everything they are taught to make moral judgements of orders.
I mean, can I sue a site for forcing me to use an easy password, which then gets hacked?
Can they sue you if you expose your account details? something like 1 in 3 machines have some sort of malware on them (yet if you ask people nearly everyone will say there machine is clean, 1 in 3 of them are wrong), I can't really blame any site for being unwilling to let any additional software apart from your browser interact with credential fields on their site if the site holds anything of value.
It's hothardware, what do you expect. plenty of quality hardware sites out there to get decent reviews if your interested. As it is hothardware you can guarantee that they are at least a month behind the more reputable sites.
Taxi drivers are upset that they finally have competition and for once they have to compete in a fair market place. If I need to get from point A to point B and my choices are a Taxi, or Uber, I'll always pick Uber because it's a better car, a better car ride, driven by someone who is actually qualified to drive me and someone who cares about more then earning a dollar. Taxi drivers are unsafe, unstable, wreckless, road navigators that ignore safety and rules all to make a dollar, It's time they learn that the public shouldn't have to put up with it.
I don't like the taxi industry, but the whole point is that Uber AREN'T competing in a fair marketplace, they are intentionally avoiding competing fairly by claiming they don't have to pay the same fees or abide by the same regulations as Taxi's and hence are able to undercut them.
I've long believed the GPL has a major flaw that excludes it from wide adoption: there are too few ways to monetize GPL code. Now I'm sure some people are thinking "good, that's what the GPL is about", but they'd be wrong. The GPL is about freedom, and it's flaws force those interested in being paid for their work to often reinvent GPL code to monetize the software; closing it up entirely. This problem is especially prelevant in industries like computer games, and hardware drivers; coincidentally two of the areas GPL code has constantly lagged behind. To fix this I would propose a provision, or perhaps a sub license that would allow a person or organisation to keep secret their source modifications for a period of time. Perhaps something like 1 or 2 years. This would give incentive to enterprise to build their products upon current GPL code as they could save money by not "reinventing the wheel", while also ensuring that their modifications would have a monetization period.
Your provision doesn't actually solve the problem. some of those drivers lag not just because a company doesn't want to reveal secrets but because they have 3rd party licensed implementations within their codebase that they simply are not legally permitted to reveal without breaking other licenses or contracts.