Good article, but there's one specific area where pilots are needed. That's when the s*** hits the fan. In November 2010, a Qantas A380 had one of its engines explode, which blew a hole in the wing and caused other serious structural damage. The aircraft was saved by its pilots (that's according to the Australian Transportation Safety Board, who are not given to hyperbole). Until computers can adapt to unforeseen circumstances, it will be necessary to have humans in that cockpit. After that, who knows?

It is simple to stop UAVs. Outlaw ICE Engines, GPS, Computers, propellers, electricity, jet engines and common sense. Voila! Problem solved.

The next step in passenger is rather obvious. A secure fallback control (sort of a dead man's switch) in case an airliner's crew becomes incapacitated. OTOH the possibilities for abuse of this technology practically write themself, making layers upon layers of security measures even more necessary.

Normally I'm an avid supporter of technology and innovation. The main problem with this concept is the human element. If unmanned aircraft usage becomes commonplace I think (based on decades of observation) that corporate and government bean counters will start trimming costs and insisting on a level of profitability that will open windows for security breaches in command and control systems. The idea of ground-based telemetry & uplink infrastructure scattered widely also invites intrusion attempts since they will likely be as well protected as current utility power sub-stations and telecom infrastructure, which is to say not at all. Then imagine large aircraft as targets of a hacking takeover. Large unmanned refueling aircraft? Ummm....Sounds like both a disaster-in-the-making and at the same time, a great business opportunity for the makers of Close-in Weapons Systems when major strategic, utility and population centers start requiring land-based CIWS installations - just in case...

On the other hand, if no humans are on board, the plane and its payload can just be written off. All you need to care about is to direct the impact away from populated areas. Those guys are very pragmatic about things, it's a huge market...
On a side note, when flying with a certain French airline, I'd rather have a machine controlling the plane than one of their pilots. But that's just my personal view. ;-)

And you thought a few fanatics with box cutters could do some damage. Wait until it only takes a few key strokes to exponentially take it to the next level! Just saying...

I see cargo deliveries as the most likely first application.
When I see video of convoys in Afghanistan creeping forward at 5 mph and stopping frequently to defuse the IEDs, I wonder if an automated delivery with a smart guided parachute drop to an IR ground beacon might not be a safer, and possibly cheaper alternative.

In 89 a DC-10 lost all hydraulic pressure when its number 2 engine came apart in flight. The assumption at the time was that under those circumstances the crash would kill everyone on board. The pilots doing something that had never been seriously suggest before managed to get the plane low slow and traveling almost parallel with the ground before crashing on the runway where they were trying to land. To everyone's amazement there were a large number of survivors. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_Flight_232
A Colorado ANG A-7 suffer a major control failure and the pilot was advised to eject. The pilot a man with a wife and child(ren) saw the houses under him and chose to stay with the plane and try to find some uninhabited real estate to crash the plane into. After discovering what his limited control responses would do managed to fly back to Buckley AFB and successfully landed catching the emergency arresting wire.
I don't think drones could do something similar to either.

All this "Hero avoids crashing into a school/ houses etc" is a red herring. ANYONE in charge of a defunct plane would ALWAYS aim for a soft landing if one is available. It is common sense to avoid crashing into a rather solid brick building, no matter how many occupants are in or how many wives and children the pilot has. Think about it. ;-)

And then we have the multitude of crashes that has come from human error and/or panics.