Real full spectrum 'white' light, or just equalized peaks in the spectrum for RGB?

That's not destruction of property, that's maintenance of property. Want a better analogy than the soccer ball? If your neighbor parks in your driveway without permission you can probably have him towed. What you can't do is take a 9 Iron to his headlights.

No, that would still be destruction of property. The fact that it's on your property does not give you the right to destroy it. If the neighbor's kid kicks a soccer ball over your fence does that give you the right to slash it with a knife before you return it to them? Of course not.

That's hilarious. Data is data.

It doesn't matter where you apply your math or methodoloy, if you're doing them in an obviously incorrect way. A point which you keep seeming to miss. Scientists are not gods, they deal in the real world with real data just like so many others do.

You don't seem to know what irony means either, Mr. Coward. Do you think I am not (or never have been) a scientist? On what do you base that assumption?

Since it has been clearly explained to you many times that I am not any of those things, no they're not.

The only logical way to put those statements together is that you claim I am those things. It's not just an implication, or your final sentence would make no sense.

But making potentially damaging false claims about people in public, when you know (or reasonably should) that they are not true, is called libel. You know that, too.

So no, the tables aren't turned. They're right where they were before you made that ridiculous libelous comment. If anything, you have locked the tables firmly in place. That was a real dumbass thing to do.

I have to wonder why you keep doing it.

Whatever helps you sleep at night I guess, person-who-doesn't-know-bigotry-from-economics.

As I stated earlier: you can save all your misdirection. All it takes is simple logic to clearly show that Karl et al. results are an outlier.

I didn't exactly make this up, either. Lots of others have been saying it. In fact, even many of the big news sources haven't dared to touch Karl with a 10-foot pole. It's just that -- ahem -- "credible".

Serious (and valid) critiques of it started to appear even before it was officially published. And several papers have come out since which disagree.

I'm not going to go look them all up. But if you want a good idea of just how *desperate* this paper appears to be, have a look here.

No, I do not claim Watts is any kind of "final authority". It's just one example among many. If you haven't found at least 10 takedowns of the "science" in Karl et al., you haven't been looking. (Or paying attention.)

Your other rantings about past things you disagree with are of no interest to me. I stated it clearly enough in that last quote of me you supplied above. You're still doing the same old shit. Calling it something else wouldn't make it any more "charming". Actually, it would be lying.

I didn't bring politics into it. I was only talking about certain politicians. And I clearly stated Hillary wasn't the only one; I only used her as an example because she's an easy example.

So... usually I would tell you to take your questions about my votes elsewhere, but I don't mind saying: no, I did not vote for George Bush.

Now take your butthurt party politics and go away.

I would expect that it's classified as some sort of "Experimental" vehicle at this point, for which the usual rules do not apply. So I doubt the FAA has much to do with it either.

Even so: given the known design of the craft, how could he possibly NOT know that unlocking the tail section prematurely was dangerous? I mean, seriously. "Oh, sure, let's just let it flap in the breeze at a few thousand miles per hour. No big deal."

Sheesh.

If you don't think the U.S. is suffering mightily from BOTH, you aren't paying attention.

Just as an example (because she's the easiest, I'm not claiming she's the worst) is Hillary Clinton. She has NO real accomplishments to her name, and scandal has followed her everywhere she went. (I rather think a more descriptive phrase would be to say she "led" scandal wherever she went.)

Back during the investigation of Richard Nixon, one of her supervisors accused her of being too dishonest of an attorney to participate. (YES, a staunch Democrat said that.) He said she "... conspired to violate the Constitution, the rules of the House ... and the rules of confidentiality." She ALSO made important documents "disappear" during that period. Surprise, surprise.

Yep. Even back then. Nothing seems to have changed. If you think that's just "incompetence", I suggest you start re-thinking before elections come around.

Seems like those are applications that scream, "CHEAPER TO DO WITH DRONES!" to me. :)

No, that's a false statement. If he had any realistic expectation of being treated like a citizen rather than a terrorist, and get a real "trial by his peers", he wouldn't have had to go to Russia. (Remember: he didn't go there first, the U.S. chased him there.)

Realistic thinking says he has almost no chance of a real trial. He would be treated as a terrorist. Government has said so more than once.

So no, he's not hiding from his actions. He's hiding from ridiculous OVERREaction on the part of government. This is the reality:

He had no realistic means of coming forth with the information from within the United States.

He didn't want to go to Russia, and did not at first. That was a last resort.

Government has (yes, really) called him a terrorist and strongly indicated he would be treated as such.

So no. As long as government is being crooked and dishonest, he's not refusing to take responsibility for his actions. He's evading unconstitutionally harsh treatment from his own government.

My Western Electric Model 1500 begs to differ.

There's an easier way. Just put the phone in airplane mode. Problem solved.

(Some minor loss in functionality may occur, but you can never be too safe....)

You can get all of that stuff from alt.binaries.erotica.* without needing a YouTube account. ;)