I don't believe you actually need a pilot's license to fly anything characterized as an "ultralight" aircraft, as these tape-and-balsawood gyrocopters appear to be. Doesn't mean the FAA can't fine your ass, of course, when you do dumb crap like flying a possibly deadly set of large rotors right past crowds of tourists at low altitudes in an urban area like DC.

OK, so you're ANOTHER person who hasn't read the summary or the article. OK, just another one.

Have you considered watching what Assange does, and listening to what he says? Coming to any OTHER conclusion would be the fantastic leap.

Why aren't you asking the author of the article that question? Regardless, prior leaks of this info show communications with HR, discussions of paychecks, etc.

Yeah, you would not BELIEVE how much money I get from the Tri-Lateral Commission. You can too! Just follow my simple 5-step plan, which I lay out in my seminars, which I host annually at the Rothschilds. They always let me stay in their pool house.

But it's not the same "right now" that includes driving cars.

Keepin' in classy, Wikileaks.

Nothing like proving your critics right while also accomplishing a lot of nothing.

That's exactly what it was. How else would you characterize you being subject to felony federal charges if you (personally, or as part of a group) run an issue or party advocacy ad in the week before an election? It wasn't about the size or loudness of the "megaphone," it was about political speech, period. Unless you are part of one of the groups that the law allowed to continue. Which is the second reason why the law was struck down - unequal protection. The law abridged free speech, and applied the law unevenly to different parties. Unconstitutional right out of the gate on both counts.

The DC FRZ is indeed there to cut down on the need to deal with a bunch of yahoos buzzing very high-profile targets. But the who decided to fly his gyrocopter right past crowds after a low-level pass over an urban area is up for reckless operation charges from the FAA either way. That bit of idiocy is idiocy whether it's done around people in DC or around people in downtown Miami.

It would be great if you can point out where, in the First Amendment, it says that your rights to say what you want about politics is taken away if you do it by, say, paying a printer to copy your message onto 500 pieces of paper you want to hand out. Paid speech! Paid speech! The government must censor that, since it took money to reproduce the message and spread it around!

Do you even listen to yourself?

That's true, but I see it as a matter of degree. Windows does a lot more, sure, but FreeBSD is still doing some HTTP parsing in a kernel module.

Exactly this. I'd like to think that there's an air gap (ahem) between the avionics and passenger networks, and that it's impossible to access the avionics system from the passenger compartment. I'd also like to think it doesn't rely on security through obscurity, like "we run our API server on port 81 instead of port 80, ha-HA!". Come on, Slashdot: we have to have at least one aerospace engineer in here, don't we?

FWIW, I think those are perfectly plausible explanations. I mainly meant wanted to frame the GP's own opinion as a formal test case; that's a copy-and-paste of what he wrote.

That test fails. What if it costs $50 per night for the bunk-bed and the rest is subsidized through external donations?

And if that $200 turns into renting clinic space and buying supplies to provide free medical care to poor children?

My point is that the answer to these questions is never simple, and if you think you've found a simple definition that neatly covers everything, it suggests you're likely missing something.

We don't even have to get IN to whether or to what degree one ad or another does or doesn't feel "fair" to you. Because it all comes down to what you want: censorship. Until you just plainly say what you want, there's no point getting into the rest of it. And you won't come out and say it because you know that the control you want is not compatible with the constitution.