Anything is possible but they have helicopter rides at the county fair around my neck of the woods. They take off and land right next to the fair way with an area about 30 yards roped off. Of course they approach and leave from the far side and away from the rides but its usually still over a parking lot.

I'm not sure I would be overly excited about his landing. Still some concerns but likely not dangerous.

There is a surface to air missile battery on the capital building and white house. Likely in other areas around there to.

Because of his slow speed and open cockpit they had the opportunity to watch him instead of just reacting. If he got closer or appearedt to be threatening to the white house he likely would have been shot down.

If you can convince the government that your open-source project should fall into the 501(c)(3) category (which will involve a good deal of paperwork on your project's behalf), then yes.

I'm not sure. Ask a lawyer and/or tax professional.

So, your browser remarked on the replaceability of replaceability?

My opinion was always that Wikipedia should be treated as a single interview with an expert in a field. It is generally accurate, but almost certainly wrong on a few details, that other unrelated sources should be used to verify.

From that perspective, it's certainly a good starting point for learning about the "unknown unknowns" in a field, and getting a path for further study. It might even be suitable as the main source for a select few kinds of research.

It occurs to me that a small chute at the top would help keep it vertical for a landing, as well as slowing it down a bit. Like the tail of a kite or dart, even a small amount of drag really would help keep it straight.

Top fuel dragsters show that a chute can be combined with other types of braking effectively.

You say "privilege", but the usual word is "freedom".

I am free to choose to support my local homeless shelters more than my local roads, rather than entirely accepting the distribution that my elected representatives have chosen.

It's still not a unilateral election, because to qualify as a "charity", organizations must jump through several bureaucratic hoops to get approval, effectively giving the government a means of control over what's a society-supporting charity or not.

Because the point of government is to support the general welfare of the population, and that's what taxes are supposed to be for. If you're doing your share of social support directly, it's rather unfair to also require you to contribute the full amount to the government pool.

Nobody can say anything definitive becaus because we do not have all the facts yet. It is suspicious when congress asks for all the correspondents over benghazi and hers were missing just to find out she used an outside server and email and decided to purge anything she didn't want congress to see. Whether that purge contained anything pertinent to state or not is still being determined.

As for 2008, she would have lost by a significant amount. People like to say Obama was elected because he is black but the truth is that people were sick of the same old shit which after Bush, a Clinton would have been no different. Obama won because he was new and not a legacy. He offered change simply by not being related to previous administrations. I do agree it was Bill who lost it but not in the way you think.

Or, rig 3 phones in advance, wait until it looks like your guy is going to lose, drop off a phone in each stall he used, give the signal and have your guy complain. Then go about proclaiming how shocked you are and how guilty he has to be.

If i was to frame someone, that's what I would do.

Or maybe it's for the same reasons he always turns door knobs to the right or pats his pockets whenever leaving a building or that some baseball players don't change socks until the end of season. People have all sorts of quirks that doesn't mean they are guilty. For years I used to wait until the ace of hearts came up when playing solidare before I would put any aces in the slot.

But some patterns are obvious enough that they could be used to do whatever - like accuse someone of cheating and point to the behavior as proof.

Thank you for reminding me of the Muslim's other typical response - ridiculous equivocation. Drawing a picture that you don't like becomes the moral equivalent of killing people. Raping children becomes the moral equivalent of protesting about the rape. And in your case of course someone who points out that Muslims try to ban truth about a genocide becomes "exactly like" the people committing the genocide.

Google does have an effective monopoly in search, and it's not a bad idea to have some degree of regulation in place to make sure that it doesn't harm consumers. (Though nonsense like a 'right to be forgotten' is going too far, and should be dropped)

The problem is that that very well may not be the EU's only motive here. At about the same time that the charges were announced, Gunther Oettinger, the EU's Digital Commissioner gave a speech where he said:

A great challenge is also Europe's position in the development of the next digital platforms that will gradually replace the current Internet and mobile platforms. We have so far missed many opportunities in this field and our online businesses are today dependent on a few non-EU players world-wide: this must not be the case again in the future. ... We need European industry 4.0 champions to win the global game in industry 4.0. ... Industry in Europe should take the lead and become a major contributor to the next generation of digital platforms that will replace today's Web search engines, operating systems and social networks.

Maintaining a level playing field and ensuring fair competition is one thing. Using the law to rig the market in order to engage in protectionism, however, is not acceptable. If the EU wants to pursue Google, they're going to need to do so in a way that is justifiably beyond reproach. Otherwise it's relatively easy for Google to restructure the way it does business internationally to avoid the EU from having any power over them, while still offering its services to persons in the EU, and to have many people cheer them on in the process.