And all of this is completely irrelevant to the point I originally made, which is that the regulations you cite don't make a damned bit of difference if Congress didn't give regulatory agencies the authority to make them. That was the whole issue here. It wasn't about what the regulations say. It was about whether FAA (and others, if applicable) have any authority to make them at all about anything other than person-carrying vehicles in the navigable airways. (That was the way the judge put it, more or less.)

Just for the sake of OTHER PEOPLE who may read this, I will clarify my comment above:

I have certainly claimed that some people who call themselves climate scientists have been telling bullshit lies. (Like the "97%" fabrication by Cook, et al.)

There have been a few other times when, in my opinion, other climate scientists were telling bullshit lies. As opposed to mistakes. Everybody makes mistakes. You know the difference, and so do I.

I have no idea -- zero -- whether any of those people are "colleagues" of the guy who calls himself Khayman80. It's pretty hard to either affirm or deny something you just plain don't know.

I have also accused Khayman80 of telling lies, like the lie that I myself am a "pathological liar". (He has substituted other names at various times, but he has definitely aimed that one at me, Jane Q. Public, more than once.) He made the claim many times, yet he wasn't able to show even one instance in which I actually told a lie. Which means he has no reason to either say or believe that I am a "pathological liar", or even a liar at all. So his statements are false, and he knows them to be.

As Falls Wichita, So Falls Wichita Falls

Sigh.

For about the sixth time, in only about two weeks, I am prompted to remind people of this:

Just recently -- only a couple of months ago -- a Federal judge ruled that the FAA has no authority over small low-altitude drones or models, regardless of whether they are being used commercially.

The ruling has been stayed pending appeal, but the judge ruled on the basis that it was never Congress' intent to give FAA authority to do this, and his argument was very strong.

In the meantime, the FAA has seemed to be intent on regulating everything in sight, before the appeals court slaps them down... which it is extremely likely that it will do, since it is pretty clear that it wasn't, in fact, Congress' intent to give the FAA such authority.

In that way, they have been acting just like the EPA, apparently trying to usurp every possible authority they can before the 2014 elections. I have no other explanation for their sudden, intense attempts to pass further regulations.

So NOW, after weeks of insults, ad-hominem and attempted character assassination, you want to try to present an actual scientific argument? Under a heading like that?

What the hell is wrong with you?

It seems pretty clear that something is.

As you well know, I have many times denied both of those.

And I have no reason to continue denying them on demand. Shove it up your ass.

Have I read every paper associated with the Assessment Report? No. But then neither have you.

Have I read the summaries? Yes.

What, you think the summaries are dishonest? Yes or no?

Speaking of which: do you even have a job anymore? I wonder what YOUR employers would think about your rantings here on Slashdot. I doubt they would see them in a very favorable light. Not much of anyone else does, from what I've observed.

Other than pointing out how unethical that post you made above was, I repeat that I am done with you here. You can expect no more replies from me.

I have no idea what you're talking about.

I will say, however, that you appear to be linking to a page related to somebody's employment, which is low even for you.

Do you think I should start doing the same?

PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT

This Internet TROLL has nothing to do with me or anyone I know, nor will I have anything to do with him.

Ignore his obsessive rants and fantasies about me. I am long past trying to reason with him.

Provide money and guidance to the local school systems then let them buy the approved technology they need rather than what is dictated to them

I've got a different take on the matter. As far as I know, the federal government exerts control over public education by taking money away from the states via taxation, and then only returning it if the states will teach in the manner seen fit by the Dept. of Education.

I.e., they use the ability of the federal government to tax anything and everything to circumvent the limitations on the powers of the federal government.

So in contrast to your solution, I'd suggest the federal government just taxes the states' citizens less, and let the states figure it out if they want to. Problem solved.

Actually, anything with practically opaque internals is a potential security hole, including processors, compiled software, network equipment. Also anything involving telecommunications.

If China is picking on only Apple, I'd wager it's to drum up business for some company that's owned by a state or an official.

China is right: the iPhone is a gaping security hole.

I also have little doubt that their "solution" will also be a gaping security hole, except that it will be designed so only China's intelligence services can exploit it.

You just don't get it, do you? I'm beginning to firmly believe -- this is my OPINION, you understand -- that you're a fucking idiot. I've explained this to you on a number of occasions now. THIS:

... is a statement of opinion. I did not make any claim of fact. I did not, in fact, "accuse" anyone of fraud.

Further, using words like "asshole", "jerk", etc. are generally accepted statements of opinion. It seems pretty clear that you are a human being (albeit one I have cause to greatly dislike), therefore you could not literally be an asshole. Again no claim of fact was made.

Your failure to understand this has likely already gotten you pretty deeply into trouble. I don't know what you think you're doing here now, but I suspect you aren't helping yourself or anyone else with all this harassment.

As for the "97%" BS, it is easy to show that it was indeed a statistical lie. That one was a claim of fact. But it's pretty easy to show that I have very, very good evidence to back it up. So again: I had -- still have -- very damned good reason to believe I was telling the truth.

You haven't caught me in any "lies". Period. For the simple reason that I am not in the habit of uttering them.

I should add:

You might not have realized it, but you are pointing out exactly the issue that is raised here: the difference between current regulations, and the laws that authorized them.

My point was that the judge's decision says Congress did not intend to give FAA the authority to make all of those regulations. Some of them exceed FAA's authority. Obviously they did it anyway, but that was the whole point.

You are showing us the regulations in question, and trying to use them as proof of themselves. It doesn't work that way.