I've seen idiots with guns. They are the type that will purchase a hand cannon like a .357 or .44mag for home defense. The ones who choose a shotgun likely did so for reasons that put them out of the range of stupid. And even if they are the type who asked the clerk some advice, they are at least asking which makes it much more likely they wouldn't be stupid idiots.

You do not need to belong to some gun club or have some associates degree in firepower in order to be knowledgeable about guns. I learned most of what I know from my grandfather before I was 10. I suppose there will be idiots who inherit a gun and decide to keep it for home defense but I doubt the majority of them are in that league.

Actually, explosives might be right for this situation.

Anti aircraft weapons since WWII had altitude and proximity fused which causes them to explode more near an aircraft than when striking one. It then causes the aircraft to fly through shrapnel and be damaged by the percussion of the explosion.

A small air to air or surface to air missile and radar could likely be employed to take these drones out without much danger to anything below or other aircraft.

Alternatively, a laser of some sort mounted on another plane flying lead of the tankers or from the ground stationed along the flight path could possible render the drones unusable.

This brings me to another question. Lasers. It seems that the intense heat of lasers could flash burn combustible materials in the fire's path so I'm wondering why several couldn't be used to either back burn or create a fire break along the fire's path. Is it a matter of power consumption or would it just not burn the material fast enough to not create other out of control fires?

One of the problems here is information- dissemination.

First, how did the drone operator know he was in the path of the flights. It could very well be that the flight path changed because the winds shifted a bit and they needed to approach differently to hit the intended targets. You also have the problem of the targets changing. These planes were dropping retardant which means they would want to drop on different spots with each flight. Finally, why not- if you have to abort and I assume drop the retardants anyways due to duel considerations, why not drop it on the drone which was at least near the intended target. The drone would likely have been taken out and the next run could fill in the gap and the only lost value would be dropping out of order in the runs.

But seriously, where does a drone operator get the information from or more importantly, how does the fire crew disseminate it so the drone operator would have known?

Why wouldn't they be dumb?

Most people who use a shot gun for home defense are either smart enough to understand how a bullet or shot penetrates (because a shot gun will go through walls but often not be deadly a few feet away from the wall on the other side where a bullet can go through multiple walls and remain deadly depending on the gun) or they picked it because they have other things to be concerned about besides humans invading. Wild animals and rodents are around a lot of places and just as viable of a concern in home defense as an intruding human might be.

I keep several loaded shotguns around. My favorite, a bolt action savage, I keep one round of 000 buck and two rounds of #8 or #6 shot loaded at all times and I have a stock wrap which 8 more of the same ammo is present if needed. I have coyotes, a certain type of vulture, and rodents like rabbits
(that eat my garden) and groundhogs
(that destroy beans and create holes for the cattle to step in and break a leg) to deal with. The vultures I only have to worry about right after a birth until it is weaned. Black vultures will attack young calves, piglets, chicks, and so on. And yes, I know it is illegal to kill them, but just like speeding, you got to be caught first.

But if you think someone with a shotgun for home defense is stupid, you are going to be really surprised when you meet them. You have either been watching too many movies or hanging out with the wrong people.

any employer worth their salt

Where do you find them?

Its not just three years, Its three years regardless of the outcome of the ISP lawsuit over the FCC's move. That means if the lawsuit gets the rules tossed out next month, they are still going to give it a go for the three years. If the lawsuit fails, they should already be there and positioned to be compliant.

That - i can agree with. The example you gave or that was given didn't follow though. Perhaps semantics got in the way of the point.

BTW, lack of action - refusing to grant certiorari is not addressing the question outside of saying it is either not important enough for their time of more pressing issues occupied their time. Sometimes issues of standings block it but that is still not addressing the question.

Nah; i like it this way more. Can you imagine - you think you might have gotten an STD and someone hands you a condum and says go get fucked.

Hmmm. Was not aware that you could turn the exit node off. Maybe i should look into it again. Been a long time.

Maybe.

The problem with TOR is that it would route others traffic through your connection too. This leaves the same problem of others on your network.

There was a couple stories a while back where people were getting their internet shut off on the three strikes rules (somewhere in Europe ) for copyright infringement and it was claimed it was because they ran TOR.

The courts cannot and normally do not arbitrarily reinterpret law. The best they can do is declare something unconstitutional or that a law is ambiguous enough that it cannot be reasonably enforced. If any court decided that your insistence that the cannabis be called by it's street name therefore not covered by the law being enforced was correct, they would promptly be overturned by a higher court and possibly removed from the bench. It just doesn't work that way in the U.S.

I was thinking the same thing. I bet the cops do not initially buy the story about open WiFi when they kick your door in, put you in bracelets, and proceed to notify the news channel that they just busted a pedo looking at kiddie porn just before perpwalking you to the squad car. It would probably take weeks before some lab informed them that your harddrive is clean

Sure it is to a degree. There was something about a court case in which they inverted it and said that the feds can only withhold additional funds.

But if the point is true and legal, it shows that the court got it wrong.

Sigh.. the law defines what cannabis is not you. You cannot claim a hammer and pribar is a key so you didn't break and enter. Calling something by a different name doesn't change what it is. A rose by any other name. ...

Its not interpreting federal law, it is interpreting the circumstances.

I don't know what you are talking about and evidently neither do you. Congress has voted to remove that wording several times now. Even Obama references those attempts.

And no. Congress was definitely not ambiguous in the wording on this. Supports made mention of it as a tool to force republican governors to create state exchanges when promoting the law to supporters.

This is twice now that scotus has changed plain language wording or ignored it altogether in this law in order to keep it alive.