glabifrons

I'm also surprised to see the Proteus and X29 in the list. The Proteus was quite a ground-breaker and doesn't look too strange if you've seen a few gliders. I remember seeing the X29 on the front cover of (I think) Popular Science back in the day, and thought it was a beautiful design. Highly efficient, highly maneuverable, and I think this was the one with a vertical canard (under the pilot, not visible in most pictures) that allowed it to corner flat (for improved visibility during dogfights).

I think the Edgley Optica looks like something from Lexx, the Bartini Beriev VVA-14 belongs in a video game and the Handley-Page Victor belongs in Agents of Shield!

Reference:

They're describing SWAP [0]. Cool they Kasperksy now has binaries to reverse-engineer.

What's impressive is the number of OSes and filesystems that are supported. Keep in mind the documentation publicized is from 2008, so they likely support ZFS, ext4 & btrfs as well now.

Does it have to resemble an existing aircraft to be considered a "model aircraft"? This could easily be open to interpretation of law enforcement. If so, my brother had some "small unmanned aircraft systems" back in the '70s (powered by 049 engines). They were most definitely "experimental designs" as some of them looked nothing like any (manned) aircraft ever produced. This proposal looks dangerously close to something that could make experimenting with new aircraft designs an illegal activity, including those designed for humor. Examples include flying lawnmowers, doghouses and witches. [0] How would they classify my Dragonflies? [1] They certainly don't resemble any manned flying contraption ever made, they barely resemble an actual dragonfly. Would these fall under the "more flexible framework for “micro” UAS under 4.4 pounds"? If so, that's utterly absurd. If your answer is "it's a toy", I agree, but then so are all of the quads and aircraft I've already mentioned. It needs to have a very distinct line distinguishing a "model aircraft" from a "small unmanned aircraft".

It doesn't even say "powered aircraft", so a large hand-launched remote controlled glider could be illegal (yes, I know this is reaching a bit, just trying to prove a point).

It's unclear to me if this will make illegal all of the automated fliers that have been built (such as those suggested on old episodes of Hak5, programmed to fly to a nearby building's roof, park for a period of time, then fly back, etc.). I suspect it will, since it makes repeated references to the "operator" and "line of sight", etc. I saw interviews with people (at DEFCON?) who had created some very impressive auto-navigating (beyond autopilots) craft as well. All of the machines produced with cameras and video feeds for remote operation would suddenly be illegal to fly in the manner for which they were designed. Among those would be a wonderfully implemented one with a full cockpit view. [2]

"A small UAS may not fly over people" This is really vague... "directly over" or just "kinda over" (what range)? Technically, if they're over 7 feet up, they're "over people" so already in violation. This will make flying remote control airplanes illegal in parks too... where will all the hobbyists be able to go? You can't launch and land in a cornfield.