What? People have been flying remote control hobby aircraft for well over half a century. And between companies like Blade and DJI alone, people are buying over 200,000 of the devices per month.

Yup, and indeed there have been a handful of minor injuries along those lines. Statistically what amounts to zero, of course, compared to the number of people who are actually killed attending motor sports events as spectators, or while skiing, or while commuting to work... or while flying as actual licensed pilots in vehicles excrutiatingly regulated in their form, maintenance, and use by the federal government.

Or, people could simply follow existing laws, and stay under 400', away from airports, and use a simple app on their phone to be made aware of FAA NOTAMs so they no when specific areas are off limits. And people who don't care about laws and rules? You're not going to be able to do anything about them (unless you can catch them after the fact of having done something stupid) than you are about people who illegally parachute off of tall buildings, or illegally drive their ATV off-road in parks, or operate their boats too fast in a no-wake zone.

Really? There are literally millions of them. Are all of them idiots? People driving cars have a wildly worse track record when it comes to deaths. For that matter, licensed media helicopter pilots have caused more deaths. and there are merely thousands of them, not millions. What's your point?

Yeah! And what's it going to take before these idiots who start the fires in the first place come to their senses! We should definitely regulate matches, hot catalytic converters, hibachis, and magnifying glasses. Oh, right, it's already against the law to start wildfires. Just like it's already against the law to interfere with firefighting operations. We don't need new regulations (since that won't stop idiots from being idiots anyway) - we need substantial penalties for being a jackass. Like we already have. Enforce the laws we've got, problem will be reduced as much as it can be.

Why? All they did was stop Gore from employing cherry-picking and capricious unequal-protection-under-the-law methods to spin a manual count his way, something a politicized Florida court was trying to help him do. Putting a stop to that is exactly the sort of thing the SC is supposed to do, because that sort of behavior at the state court level is counter-constitutional.

This current ruling is, you're right, deeply flawed. Because it's very clear that the language in question was deliberate, and that the one-party legislative action that rammed the law through didn't contemplate the prospect of a number of states standing up to them and refusing to play ball. As Gruber pointed out, the wording of the law was intentionally meant to strong-arm the states, to essentially extort their participation in the absurd manifestation of that legislative train wreck. This was an opportunity to trash it and start over with a law that wasn't based on lies, sold with lies, and which resulted in essentially the opposite of everything its con-artist cheerleaders promised.

Yes, and I'm sticking with my point. If he's not offering something valuable enough that he can charge enough for his time to tolerate not being paid for a week here and there, then he needs to become more valuable, or find a customer that can afford him. Just as true for contractors as it is for traditional employees.

You've got this completely backwards. The market is working - it's establishing a value for the skills in question, and the GP isn't liking that value precisely because there's too much of a supply and not enough demand. He needs to go to someone who has demand, or go where it is, or offer something that's more in demand. If he does, he'll find the market works for him, just like it's supposed to.

Still the market, working as expected. If he values those things more than he does bringing home more money, than he can't complain - he's the one establishing the priorities. Why should someone else make it their priority to match his goals, rather than their own? Especially when there is indeed a huge supply of people willing to do the same work, many of them who aren't putting other priorities first. It's a value analysis for everyone involved.

It is if you want more money. If you value staying put for your kids' sake, then you've just made a value judgement, period. That's reality, working.

Think about that.

Right - he's never brought it up or acted to change it, like he has so many other things that he has decided are important to him. So, you DO know exactly the story. He thinks it's just fine.

And ... presidents can't "change the law," just in case you're forgetting basic Civics 101.

So, you work for an imaginary cartoon character?

Of course what you really mean is that our current president also thinks it should be that way. Right? Right? Ah.

Spoken like someone who has never done the actual math (let alone paid self-employment taxes, spent time arranging for that next contract, buying your own health insurance and all the rest). People who bill $600 a day are lucky to take half of that home at the end of the day.

You're doing it wrong.

If you feel pinched by the fact that a sick day or a holiday isn't a billable day, then you have made some very poor choices about what you're selling, and how much you're charging for it. Why should anyone take advice from some one who hasn't done a little basic math before signing a contract?

It's also likely you were going to feel better again anyway. But more to the point, how are those placebos at treating, say, a raging inner ear infection, or blood cancer?

Someone who uses terms like "feeling down" and "feeling great again" while attempting to lecture other people about how scientifically worthless their opinions are needs to look in the mirror.

I'm referring to the fact that we find (and refine, through legislation and court review) reasons to infringe on constitutionally protected rights all the time.

Remember though, not counting people who've been found to be crazy (who also can lose their liberty before actually committing a crime), the people who lose their rights to keep firearms because they're felons are being punished after the fact (same thing happens when they lose their right to vote). Likewise when a judge finds cause to issue a legally binding order that says he/she thinks a person's behavior is looking dangerous enough that they're not allowed to go certain places or see certain people. When you lose the right to purchase a firearm because a judge thinks you're acting like a dangerous jerk, that's still the judicial system reacting to your chosen actions.

Constitutionally, we also embrace the notion that the government can't infringe your right to speak, assemble, and move about ... but we lock up criminals, preventing them from doing just those things. Your participation in the social (and constitutional) contract goes away when you act to deny its protections to other people. So, you stop enjoying the defense of your liberty when you decide that someone else needs to give theirs up so you can (for example) rob them or whatnot. This isn't an irreconcilable situation - it makes perfect sense.

Of course they can. That's what the courts are for. Just recently, the Supreme Court ruled on exactly this topic, pointing out that some of the local restrictions on gun ownership (like DC's) were in fact counter-constitutional. There: matter resolved.

First, they aren't a matter of law. Amendments to the constitution are a structural change to the nation's operating charter. The constitution's single most important purpose is to LIMIT the power of the government. Changing the charter in order to allow the government to take away liberties is indeed difficult, and damn well should be. Some people on the left are incensed by what some other people have to say (witness what's happening on college campuses, where speech is being censored like never before). Those groups would LOVE to strike down the First Amendment, so that they could use government power to determine what people can say. You should be very glad that it would be so difficult for them to be able to strip away the constitution's protections.

So, again, point to a person who stole $15 million. Specifically. Or $5 million - whatever you like. Referring to a "thing" that happened, without actually pointing out which person broke an actual law but was not prosecuted - that's deliberately vague on your part. You seem to have something specific in mind, legally, so why not mention it?