We had a lunatic stalker (certified) that came to my house because she thought I was some imaginary person. When she was banging on my door I called the cops even though I have a gun. Now if she had broken into the house instead of just banging on it this might have been a different story (this woman made death threats against my wife but I don't think they were serious) but I wont open the door to shoot someone, they have to actually break in first.

Yeah, I'm a wussie for not wanting to face an armed intruder bare handed.

The main thing is finding someone willing to stick with something difficult and not bail on it. Four years with something (the same job, or a degree) is a good indicator. In some ways the degree is better as it shows the person is willing to stick with something that is not always what they want to do.

The primary purpose of the law was at one time to ensure those not in power have to do what they are told. Fortunately things are at least a little better than that.

You make it sound like something new. How much of warrantless wiretapping and surveillance are recent and how much are things the government has been doing for as long as it existed and are just being brought to light by new technologies?

Ok so I still think this was very stupid but the complaint is they disturbed sand? How indignant is Peru when a wind storm comes through?

True, when I say cosmology I'm probably thinking more the loud individuals you hear every time a new observation comes out.

Yet Russia didn't make it as far into space as the US.

Haven't seen a crop duster in over a decade and I live around farmland, also haven't seen military aircraft operating low outside of normal touch and go flights near the airport. Also the typical drone being flown weights half that of a seagull and there are a lot of those birds around here.

Don't look a gift horse in the mouth, even if it is a tad (lot) under weight.

Cut two F-35s and keep all the remaining A-10s flying. Cut a squadron of F-35s and we can build a few new Orion spaceships. Cut all of the F-35s and we could colonize Mars (not sure how much I'm exaggerating...)

In the same matter I wish cosmology would create less theories based on on a single observation as one observation can neither prove or disprove theories.

So you prefer to use baseless arguments rather than point to references? In fact I can find a paper that suggests we may not have lost a significant amount of water during the impact forming the moon:

"Genda and Abe (2003, 2005) showed that Earth is unlikely to lose much of its water as a result of the Moon-forming impact, although loss of a significant amount of atmosphere is possible. " http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm...

And does the evidence we have to date support the loss of all water at some point as the most likely or are there other theories that fit the data equally well but are pushed to the side? In pure science theories are based on evidence, in human science theories are affected by politics.

I don't think the GP is nitpicking the use of "navigable" but the use of "restricted". See the below link, restricted airspace means an area where general aviation is not allowed to enter (ex flying over the white house is permanent restricted airspace). Controlled airspace is the airspace around an airport which according to the FAA Advisory Circular is when a model aircraft operator must notify the control tower (note the circular does not say you cannot fly there, just that you must work with the control tower).

Interestingly the FPV article in wikipedia appears to be wrong, which scares me slightly as some people take that for bible. That article states you must be under 400 ft when in controlled airspace. However when I read the FAA Advisory Circular it appears to state you must always operate under 400 ft, in addition you must contact the tower when 3 miles from an airport (as in controlled airspace). But I could be misunderstanding something.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...