If the pilotless plane/multicopter cannot go faster than the sustained wind, it cannot tolerate it, as the plane won't be able to come back to its starting point -- it'll drift downwind no matter what it does, and you'll never see it again (unless you go looking for it.)

Still ... while 40 mph isn't much for a R/C plane, it sounds fast for a multicopter. But after looking it up, I guess it's not that exceptional after all. Still, if you're going full throttle just to hover in the wind, you're probably going to greatly reduce your loiter time -- I wouldn't expect 50 minutes of flight time in that situation.

So someone gets paid and they broadcast political information from all sides of the political spectrum, but you don't have political advertising?

Sounds like a distinction without much difference. You just have the political advertising that the government or the media has decided to allow. I agree, that will certainly result in less political advertising.

You say all sides of the political spectrum, but does anyone get to decide whose side is shown how much in a particular context? Someone other than the person who wants to get their views out? It sounds like what you have is a set of elites who get to filter political information for the "proles". I wonder whose interests they serve...

Britain is a good example, then.

Does the BBC not seem to have a political opinion on anything? Never criticized for any sort of bias? How come people who work at the BBC get to give out their political opinion in Britain, but other people can't broadcast theirs?

How come Rupert Murdoch gets to put out all the print political opinions he wants in Britain? Isn't that political advertising?

It sounds to me more like you're looking at Britain and because you're ok with whose opinions get to be expressed, you're ok with blocking everyone else.

In theory, you could ban all "political advertisements". In reality, you need an enforcement mechanism, which comes with regulators, prosecutors, etc... You also get a government board or committee to setup rules defining what is allowed and what isn't under your law banning "political advertisements".

Pretty soon, that board is run by either big media companies or else entrenched political consultants, because hey, they're the ones that really care enough to really study the laws and the regulations and gosh darn it, they have all sorts of relevant experience that makes them perfect for the job, right? So the board starts defining terms like "political" and "advertisement". Is a movie about events in Benghazi political? Is it an advertisement? Perhaps that depends on who is making the movie, some right-wing group, of course it's political. Hollywood? Of course not, they're not political, right? Maybe it depends on if Hilary or Obama are mentioned by name in the movie or not? Or perhaps we can just exclude stuff like that when it's shown say, within 60 days of an election where people mentioned in the move are involved?

Not sure if you're movie is going to fall afoul of the regulations? Better to just make sure your movie gets pre-clearance from the regulators who report to the board. That way you can be sure you aren't wasting your money on that Benghazi movie the government will order you to not release, or fine you or throw you in prison for showing.

Of course, like with all other laws, there's prosecutorial discretion. I mean, we have to allow for the prosecutor to have some common sense in only going after the actual bad guys, right? Maybe if the prosecuting attorney happens to be appointed by someone who is politically friendly to you, you get a little more leeway in what kind of movies and advertisements you can put out there? Perhaps everyone knows that if old Joe wasn't the prosecutor, you couldn't put that union "Let's all work together!" ad out there because someone else might call it political, but since Joe doesn't prosecute that sort of thing, you're ok.

I mean, it's not as if your elected and bureaucratic representatives have any incentives around caring which politicians get elected, right? No incentive to ensure the system can be gamed for their benefit?

Hopefully you can begin to see why banning "political advertisements" is in effect, the same as giving whoever is in power a filter to tilt media and advertising in their direction. That's what campaign finance "reform" has always been about in Congress in this country. Gaining an advantage over your political foes, tilting the playing field and ensuring you keep power.

Fortunately, we (all forms) have a right to free speech and the current supreme court is interested in preserving it more than they're interested in letting those in power in the government restrict it.

...he's Canadian.

And stop being so cynical. Sometimes stuff can be cool without being "viral marketing".

Rather than an encryption gateway, having your email client handle encryption avoids the problem of man-in-the-middle attacks between the gateway and the client.

I don't have much reason to encrypt, but Thunderbird has my certificate installed and does my digital signing. This is not unusual for a modern email client.

It turns out that having a universal unique idenitifier is really handy. There are reasons you WANT to be able to be affirmatively and uniquely identified as "you", but you want that capability under your own control. Even with PKI (a system that could be trusted, anyway), someone has to hold a central database. Guess who that would likely be? And if it shouldn't be "the government", then who?

...just do the same thing we do with cryptographic tools that are considered munitions, which is ensure they aren't exported, and make efforts to provide/limit them to US persons instead of making it freely downloadable for anyone.

It's not the DOD. It's the State Department Office of Defense Trade Controls Compliance, and it's about EXPORT.

Yes, it is about "controlling firearm dissemination"...for EXPORT. That's why the State Department Office of Defense Trade Controls Compliance is involved. If you've already made up your mind that the true motive relates somehow to American citizens in a country with as many privately owned firearms as people, no amount of logic or reason will change your mind.

No, then it would have a classification marker struck from it. This document was never classified, but it was also never released publicly.

The point isn't that DOD thinks the files are going to disappear, and it doesn't matter anyway since the purpose isn't to "disarm Americans" or "keep the files out of the hands of Americans" or some other utter garbage.

There are treaties and various arms control export restrictions (ITAR) at stake, and US-based corporations or entities cannot provide arms in violation of these constructs. If this sort of thing is on the Pirate Bay or elsewhere, DOD trade control doesn't care.