Really? How do you figure $100k paying jobs? You're assuming that every company that uproots and moves to NY, or which launches there, is going to be paying their lobby receptionist, clerical help, etc., six figures? What if they manufacture something. Is every assembly line worker going to be making six figures?

Stuxnet wasn't all about "getting anything out," either.

Or not, if you use technology that isn't 50 years old. What's your agenda, that you're objecting based on completely out-dated information? You can't be ignorant of current options, so that means you're hoping that other people are when you spout deliberate misinformation like that. Really - who are you hoping to fool? What's your purpose?

See above.

Wow, you've really got some hang-ups, don't you?

This, from someone who appears to be reliving a "No Nukes" rally from the 1970's? Did you get some bad mushrooms or something at one of those events, and haven't been able to shake it off since?

Again, this from someone who is clearly stuck (or wants to be) in a decades old complaint, and who's using a cartoon villain fantasy version of "conservatives" as his main take on those who think contemporary nuclear technology, including reprocessing and new fail-to-safe designs, is a useful tool? The person with the fixation on the past and delusions about the "now" and the future, here, is you. Hyping those delusions here is fairly harmless, since people here understand that what you're complaining about is just nonsense. But please don't do things like vote, OK? The future thanks you.

So what you're saying is that you couldn't bother yourself to read the summary or the article, right?

Solar isn't nearly efficient enough to do that without pretty much paving over the entire southwest with solar facilities, further enraging the environmentalists and bird lovers.

Since you're going to piss off the environmentalists no matter what you do, shy of simply having a massive human die-off (and please do that in an environmentally thoughtful way, people!), we might as well piss them off by using a technology that can actually do an adequate job of large-scale desalination: nuclear power.

Exactly. And we use all of the tools at our disposal - especially the most efficient ones we can when they make sense, things like drones - to make it costly and more difficult for groups like ISIS and Al Queda to do what they're trying to do.

That's the whole point. Tools like drones are designed to help stop mass killers like ISIS without having to use less-precise, larger-scale weapons. You do get that, right?

Yes, it makes much more sense to go back to using manned aircraft in those situations, because that way the aircraft can be louder, bigger, and burn more jet fuel. As a bonus, the planes can perform a lot more dangerous in-flight refueling maneuvers, or make make many more trips to the same region, require larger localized airbases and far more on-the-ground support people and a bigger supply chain.

Or are you really saying you'd prefer that we use a massive ground force to attempt to achieve the same goals?

Oh, I get it. You're speaking code. When you say you don't want drones to be used, what you really mean is you don't want people like ISIS to be counter-attacked, or for it to be risky for groups like Boko Harom or AQAP to move their leadership and people around between attacks on infidel schools, that sort of thing. Can you expand on why you think that's a good thing?

Oh, I get it, now, You DO want a huge new ground invasion into places like Syria and a giant new force back on the ground in Iraq, so that we can surround and capture thousands of heavily armed militants in what would be a sustained series of big battles and firefights ... which the jihaddis would make absolutely sure occurred in and around innocent civilians, which they've shown repeatedly they're more than happy to see die in order to score propaganda points. Why you prefer prolonged gun battles in populated areas in order to capture people who post videos of themselves torturing people to death in the name of their religion (rather than simply removing them from the battlefield when we catch them out on the road in a vehicle or small convoy) is beyond me. You seem to have no problem with huge numbers of casualties in the interests of trying to capture for trial people who would see a ground force coming for them weeks in advance. Strange priorities you have.

I see. So we should tell Russia to stop attacking Ukrainian military positions, and that will cause Putin to stop doing so? Do you pay no attention at all to what's going on? The Russians have already been "told" to stop invading Ukraine, and they agreed to do so. But of course they're still doing it, and shelling Ukrainian positions every day. What, specifically, do you think should be said to Putin, differently, that would have him change his mind about lying, the way he's doing right now? What words would you use? Be specific.

Then why are you even saying what you're saying?

"The west" has violated no such thing. The Soviet Union no longer exists, though it sounds like you'd prefer that it does.

No. You are exposed to the same "dangerous thoughts" as every self-radicalized would-be jihaddi killer. The difference? Their message of medieval theocratic dominance and death-to-the-infidels is repugnant to you, but appeals strongly to them. This is a world view issue. If embracing that twisted vision for the future of humanity is your definition of mental illness, then what you're saying is that untold millions of Muslims are mentally ill.

We could have a separate discussion about religiosity in general, and what it means to go through life clinging to a plainly irrational system of magical thinking. But not all contemporary religious people let their magical thinking instruct them to put the infidels to sword (or car bomb, as the case may be).

You're missing the point.

Sure, just like countless other objects. But if the FAA was worried about safety, they'd be expecting the recreational users of them to also be subject to the regulations they're putting on commercial operators using exactly the same 3-pound plastic quadcopter in exactly the same way. A guy checking out his own roof gutters with a consumer-grade quad, and a roofing contractor using exactly the same device in exactly the same way present exactly the same safety risks ... but the FAA only considers one of those two people to be subject to a $10,000 fine. How do you reconcile that?

I could build and fly around a device that meets or exceeds the size and danger presented by something Amazon might be testing, but if I do it for fun, I'm not hit with the same rules or penalties. Are you suggesting that I, as some newbie who's just figuring out how to build and fly such a thing, am inherently safer than a crew of professionals working for an engineering project? Explain!

There are amateurs who fly heavy, large-scale ducted fan model aircraft that push 200mph. The FAA isn't worried about that, from a safety perspective. But the roofing contractor with the 3-pound plastic quad copter ... scary, right? Or is the roofing guy only evil and dangerous, from your point of view, if he (gasp!) incorporates his one-man business. Eeeevil corporate drone user, using drones to deliver his service faster, by not needing to put up a tall ladder on the side of your house! Eeeeevil!

You're confused. If you want to fly RC aircraft for fun, the FAA requires no such thing. No pilot's license, private, commercial or otherwise.

Let's look at how it actually is. If you, right now, want to stand in your back yard and fly a 3-pound quadcopter to test out a new flight controller for fun and personal research/interest, you have the FAA's blessings. If an engineer from Amazon stands in exactly the same place, and hovers the exact same piece of $200 hardware exactly the same 10 feet off the ground that you do, and does it on the clock ... and he's not licensed pilot, with two assistants, with that device being certified, and him having filed a flight plan ... he's up for a $10,000 fine. If he punches out, and does exactly the same thing with exactly the same equipment following exactly the same safety protocols, none of that matters. This isn't about safety. If it was, hundreds of thousands of people flying RC for fun would be facing the same restrictions that Amazon is going to Canada to escape.

Yes. And at no point was it someone else's fault.

So, you're saying he was only under 99% mind control, and only 1% of his own mind was in a position to try to stop himself from signing into a teacher's computer to deface it?

Are you REALLY saying that their weak password is WHY he did what he did?