For those who are not aware, the American dream is the opportunity for prosperity and success through productive work, regardless of class in society. It's not working to death at 60 hours a week for $13 an hour. It's not working one day a week at $100 an hour and being lazy the rest. You can do that if you want, but it's your choice. A successful person chooses a field in demand and becomes productive in that field. Or perhaps finds a need for a product, and invents and markets that product. There's an infinite number of ways to become successful, and everyone can do it. Being an Uber driver for life probably isn't one of them (though Uber driving may help you along the way of getting to success, such as paying for college).

You're switching subjects. You stated a cruise missile, not the drones that DARPA is asking for.

If you just want a bomb on an aircraft, none of the things you mentioned in your original post are necessary (communication, radios, jamming, etc).

If it's off-the-shelf components, then no new code is required.

For example, a quadrotor with a homemade bomb attached, ignition linked to an RF control. It's very easy, and very dangerous. Not a single line of code is required.

You're over simplifying a cruise missile.

Can you put together a reliable propulsion system for long flight?
Can you make it take off vertically reliably?
Can you make it fly fast?
Can you create accurate flight control to impact a target?
Can the vehicle accurately verify it is the correct target before impact?
Can you make a jammer that won't interfere with it's own communication?
Can you make a warhead from off the shelf components that have a real impact on a target?
Can you show in flight testing that it will be reliable for years to come?
Can you set up constant communications as it flies hundreds of miles over the ocean?
Can you REALLY guarantee that it can't be hacked?

A cruise missile is a difficult thing to design and make for these reasons and many more.

This assumes all wind is blowing everywhere in the world to maximize the capacity of wind power. Unless that is happening, nuclear is still ahead.

A right is a liberty, a freedom to do something without the government interfering.

The internet is a service, someone's labor for which they need compensation.

You never have a right to another person's services or goods. At best you could say it's a good idea to pool resources. Even that involves forcing those who do not want to pool resources into giving up their resources. As a result, a byproduct of pooling resources is a gradual reduction of individuals choosing what to do with their own resources.

It worries me that so many politicians are giving away our resources as if it's a gift (we're paying for it after all, not the politician) and calling that "gift" a right. In this case, I can get internet access without the government "gifting" me with it. A program to make internet available to all areas is certainly a better way to frame the proposal (but not for free).

Being that the program was classified, they would have just ordered are large number of assets without telling her the reason for them. If I were HP and the NSA wanted to buy a large numbers of servers, I would sell the servers to them as well.

From the article

The summary makes it sound like she purposely did it to screw over Americans. There's nothing to indicate that. The waterboarding issue is added on even though it is not related. This is a flame bait summary, and a misleading article. We really don't need articles on Slashdot that demonize people like this.

The best way to test the emissions software, and the best from an engineering validation perspective, is to compare the Volkswagen software readings against direct measurements of the emissions (out of the tailpipe). This is a much more accurate method of regulation, and would have prevented this Volkswagen fiasco from the beginning. Regulators should test it this way rather than assume a vehicle manufacturer wrote software correctly, or even deliberately miswrote it. Access to software source code becomes unnecessary.

The summary misrepresents the article. Coke disclosed the list to offset the idea that they were funding research to downplay obesity and Coke links.

Nowhere in the summary does it say that all the research it funded supported a specific conclusion. Rather, just it implies the opposite, that Coke funded everyone.

The only problem with this list is the conflict of interest in taking funding from a beverage company to study the effects of the beverage in diets.

Whoever wrote the summary, please read the article carefully!!

From the article,

It was just the web sites, not satellites. This is far overblown.

Both of these crimes are malicious actions for political gain, not accidents or a cop defending an innocent. Neither are justified by motive or by result.

The presence US classified documents implies US government. It's not proof, but that's probably what she's thinking. It may be other news agencies, competitive journalists, people she's pissed off, foreign governments, all just checking up on what's she's doing and ready to set her up for arrest.

I've done that to people before. Remote log in and start keyboard presses like delete as a prank. It may not have been to delete the data so much as to drive them crazy. If she was hacked by specific people to cause problems, that's a very logical tactic.

Whether the motive is political or personal does not justify crime. This is suppression of information for the purpose of affecting an election. Nixon was stealing information for the purpose of affecting an election. The difference is minor.

Journalism based on political gain is propaganda, and all over in the news. It's hard to believe any one news source these days, they're all biased one direction or another. Get your news from as many sources as possible, get the facts, and make an educated assessment. It's the best way to remove the journalists' biases.