Agreed. We're *supposed* to be the Good Guys, pointing out the emperor's nakedness is patriotism, not treason. I would hope any jury could see that.

Is it really a lie if it results in a commercial product capable of removing a *lot* of monotony from truck driving? I hate highway driving - here in OK, it's 2 hours of *nothing* in every direction, I'm likely to fall asleep, and adding entertainment is adding distraction. IMO, it doesn't matter if someone has done it before, it matters if/when *I* can get one to improve *my* life. (Not that I am a truck driver...)

Auto accidents are the #5 most likely way you'll die ~w/1-in-100 odds. (http://www.livescience.com/3780-odds-dying.html) I don't understand the naysay - no one is looking to ban manual control (yet).

Maybe this could someday be a decent p2p application? Self-sign your cert, then throw your public-key into the wild. Instead of trusting just 1 CA, you can have others w/whom you've directly exchanged the key "endorse" you. More endorsements = more trust. It's not absolute, but at least it's some kind of measure that doesn't plunge from 100%->0% after a single security breach. Maybe if such a system handled dns, as well, it may be possible to reduce the ability to launch a MITM attack? (I'm just typing w/my butt, at this point - but maybe I'm getting the idea across.)

Some rather cheap chain-link fence, cheap climb sensors, and maybe some cameras could go a long way toward solving the pedestrian problem, if required.

On the other hand, recognizing an object in the road that *isn't* another car is all that's required. Especially if all of the cars can communicate w/each other.

Because a *human* driver will handle that situation perfectly! *eyeroll*

A fully automated highway will likely avoid you like a flock of birds. Police already on their way.

I don't know what you're carrying in your trunk ...but mine just has an emergency/repair kit.

Also, your insurance premiums are going to suck you dry. Have fun w/your guzzler.

Why? Amazon already has private land in a remote-area to test. They aren't doing this in Manhattan. The FAA is just being onerous.

That's the problem, most states interpret civil forfeiture as "your property is guilty of a crime", such as money laundering/drugs, and can be taken and treated as if it's not entitled to due process ...even without charging YOU with a crime. (Nevermind that the constitution *specifically* forbids this.) Additionally, a lot of officers are trained to ask if you're carrying cash... as if that's illegal.

Granting permission to search gives the opportunity to make-up some BS. Refusing/saying "I don't talk to police" pisses them off, as well - causing them to get their dogs/such. But still....

Just say no. They are not there to help you.

I don't think that would work in the USA. It breaks the one rule there is:

"Don't piss off someone (or group thereof) richer than yourself."

"Ignorance"? That's...a bit mean of you. Speaking as an RC pilot, none of the above items would apply to me in the same situation. Slap the word "commercial" on, and all of a sudden these rules apply. This isn't an airplane with passengers, it's R/C. Something the FAA has admitted they will not regulate.

With that in mind, take your self-righteous attitude elsewhere.

They are on rural land, clearly not within the airspace of an actual tower, and must stay below 400' and within visual range. ...What's the point of requiring a license and medical?

This is like the NHTSA telling you that (because you're a company) you can't drive your four-wheeler on private land (that has no roads). If you do, be sure that all drivers have a valid driver's license, a recent medical exam, don't 4-wheel at night, and don't you dare go on any actual roads! They would also like detailed logs of each time you drive, and when you get stuck.

I can't begin to understand this over-reach. I suppose the above comment will get R/C cars regulated. I mean they *could* go on regular roads and cause a wreck!

Which brings up another point. "Drone" is meant to be at least semi-autonomous, and certainly BVR (beyond visual range). These restrictions are simply commercial R/C flight, at best.

I'd also like to add that my feet have grown *considerably*, since birth.

ID's aren't free in Oklahoma. And, even inside a major city, it's *easily* understood that it can be impossible for a *fit* person to get an ID, without a car. Oh, and it requires TWO of the following:

  A certified birth certificate
  A current (not expired) United States passport
  A current (not expired) Oklahoma driver license originally issued by Department of Public Safety on or after November 1, 2007
OR
  A current (not expired) State of Oklahoma identification card originally issued by the Department of Public Safety on or after November 1, 2007

Because, the day after expiration, you're no longer who you say you are.

Oh, and that'll be $20. ...and it's only valid for 4 years - (Criminal, if you ask me.)

Smells more like a poll tax or potential technicality to bar voting to me.

Thiiiiis! Sadly, this is seems to be based almost purely upon on where you live. (e.g. If you live in Ferguson, cops are too busy handing out citations to actually solve investigate and crimes.)

OTOH, I don't think you'll see helicopters over affluent neighborhoods - ruining sleep. Maybe those in the "ghetto" can file a noise complaint?

This is, at best, a failure to understand what I said.

I mentioned parallel construction. Clearly you didn't understand:

http://www.reuters.com/article...

The NSA is free to pass that information to other, interested, parties. That includes State/local police/FBI/whomever. It invalidates every single point you just raised.