And all of this is completely irrelevant to the point I originally made, which is that the regulations you cite don't make a damned bit of difference if Congress didn't give regulatory agencies the authority to make them. That was the whole issue here. It wasn't about what the regulations say. It was about whether FAA (and others, if applicable) have any authority to make them at all about anything other than person-carrying vehicles in the navigable airways. (That was the way the judge put it, more or less.)

Just for the sake of OTHER PEOPLE who may read this, I will clarify my comment above:

I have certainly claimed that some people who call themselves climate scientists have been telling bullshit lies. (Like the "97%" fabrication by Cook, et al.)

There have been a few other times when, in my opinion, other climate scientists were telling bullshit lies. As opposed to mistakes. Everybody makes mistakes. You know the difference, and so do I.

I have no idea -- zero -- whether any of those people are "colleagues" of the guy who calls himself Khayman80. It's pretty hard to either affirm or deny something you just plain don't know.

I have also accused Khayman80 of telling lies, like the lie that I myself am a "pathological liar". (He has substituted other names at various times, but he has definitely aimed that one at me, Jane Q. Public, more than once.) He made the claim many times, yet he wasn't able to show even one instance in which I actually told a lie. Which means he has no reason to either say or believe that I am a "pathological liar", or even a liar at all. So his statements are false, and he knows them to be.

As Falls Wichita, So Falls Wichita Falls

Sigh.

For about the sixth time, in only about two weeks, I am prompted to remind people of this:

Just recently -- only a couple of months ago -- a Federal judge ruled that the FAA has no authority over small low-altitude drones or models, regardless of whether they are being used commercially.

The ruling has been stayed pending appeal, but the judge ruled on the basis that it was never Congress' intent to give FAA authority to do this, and his argument was very strong.

In the meantime, the FAA has seemed to be intent on regulating everything in sight, before the appeals court slaps them down... which it is extremely likely that it will do, since it is pretty clear that it wasn't, in fact, Congress' intent to give the FAA such authority.

In that way, they have been acting just like the EPA, apparently trying to usurp every possible authority they can before the 2014 elections. I have no other explanation for their sudden, intense attempts to pass further regulations.

So NOW, after weeks of insults, ad-hominem and attempted character assassination, you want to try to present an actual scientific argument? Under a heading like that?

What the hell is wrong with you?

It seems pretty clear that something is.

As you well know, I have many times denied both of those.

And I have no reason to continue denying them on demand. Shove it up your ass.

I did not use the words efficiency or efficiency. You might want to work on your reading ability. It's not able, and you're not reading.

Have I read every paper associated with the Assessment Report? No. But then neither have you.

Have I read the summaries? Yes.

What, you think the summaries are dishonest? Yes or no?

Sure, if your only goal is efficiency. But if it is, you're boring.

Speaking of which: do you even have a job anymore? I wonder what YOUR employers would think about your rantings here on Slashdot. I doubt they would see them in a very favorable light. Not much of anyone else does, from what I've observed.

Other than pointing out how unethical that post you made above was, I repeat that I am done with you here. You can expect no more replies from me.

I have no idea what you're talking about.

I will say, however, that you appear to be linking to a page related to somebody's employment, which is low even for you.

Do you think I should start doing the same?

PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT

This Internet TROLL has nothing to do with me or anyone I know, nor will I have anything to do with him.

Ignore his obsessive rants and fantasies about me. I am long past trying to reason with him.

Not a bad thought, if you don't mind very expensive ammo...

Tho my first thought was to wonder how easily this could be misdirected by a competing targeting laser.

I had the thought that yeah, since mom is infected it could be a re-infection, but not necessarily through what I suspect you're thinking. Any accidental exchange of bodily fluids can suffice. Did mom have a cold sore and kiss the child on the lips? (Remember kids have potential breaks in the mouth due to new teeth) Might be enough.

Well, no. Not unless you can account for ballistics, and the drop zone for your projectiles. But perhaps you should be permitted to use a tethered net launcher.

Or any public property. Whether the restrictions on line-of-sight are reasonable is a whole other discussion (my thought is "maybe") but public lands belong to all of us. As always, the thing must be operated in a manner which does not represent a realistic risk to others.