"Sadly there is no reasonable path to doing this legally." There is, and that's to get "everyone" to do it. I recall the recent HN-linked article [1], which ca

"Sadly there is no reasonable path to doing this legally." There is, and that's to get "everyone" to do it. I recall the recent HN-linked article [1], which called for a large number of people to demand a trial, rather than take a plea deal, because that would collapse the system. Or, if everyone carried a gun, openly, and without a permit, the government couldn't stop the practice because it wouldn't have the resources to disarm an entire, determined population. The same is true for these tiny flying machines. The main problem, though, is the expense, as it would be a lot easier for any given person to acquire a gun than to acquire one of these, but the principle is the same. That leads to the observation that the expense is there because of lack of innovation in the field, and said lack exists due to laws restricting the use of anything which could be built. The answer is to simply ignore the laws, while pursuing the best technical answers, such as, for example, applying the recently-developed techniques of self-assembly, from the creators of the Harvard Monolithic Bee [2], in an effort to drive down costs and democratize the process of construction and ownership of tiny copters, so that, in fact, pretty much everyone who wanted to could possess one. [1] http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3690481 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3690481 [2] http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3606394 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3606394