Comment Re:Please, no more! (Score 5, Funny) 144
This is apparantely not a joke
Well which is it?
This is apparantely not a joke
Well which is it?
just because they aren't fighting for -YOUR- concept of freedom, doesn't mean they aren't fighting for freedom
Which is exactly why I cited examples where any rational person couldn't get it wrong. Nobody who is fighting for the power to take away other people's freedoms (say, of speech, assembly, religion, etc) is fighting for freedom. It's possible to objectively look at two different fights, and see where one is actually about freedom, and the other is about gaining power to deny freedom.
Your knowledge of the revolution and the governance of England is also rather lacking.
The governance of England (not to let it off the hook there, even so) was not the same as England's governance of the colonies. Don't tell me to learn more about it when you paint with a brush so broad you miss out on that reality. The Americans were fighting to be free of how England was ruling the colonies. Even if you consider the then-state-of-affairs in England to have been the model of freedom (plainly not true), the colonists did not enjoy the same liberties or representation.
That's not to sugar-coat the man Che became and his eventual ruthlessness.
"Became?" He started out that way, and didn't stop. He was no champion of a constitutional democracy. Didn't seek one, and didn't act to establish one. What he and dictators like Castro found to dislike about the regimes against which they rebelled has nothing to do with their vision for a totalitarian communist paradise. They set out to achieve what the Castros have been using violent oppression of their own people to preserve ever since.
If they were ever about freedom, they wouldn't need to lock people away or simply kill them for speaking their minds.
there is no requirement for a pilots liscence. you are totally off base
Yes, there is. The only way you can get a section 333 waiver is if you are a licensed pilot. Period. Here's the existing process:
https://www.faa.gov/uas/legisl...
Their currently proposed rule changes contemplate a simpler grade of permit, but still make no provision for BLOS flight. You'd still need to pass an FAA operator's test, and pay to sit and re-take it every year. The proposed rules also require each and every aircraft to be registered - something that makes flying continually changing prototypes off the work bench a near impossibility.
I'm not "totally off base," I'm aware of the actual situation. You're just engaged in wishful thinking, or making excuses for the administration, and hoping nobody will do any fact checking.
You really want to make the case that America of all countries has clean hands and a clean conscience in this dirty enterprise called war?
Do you mean that when a huge undertaking involving actual, you know, human beings taking action in opposition to a monstrously violent totalitarian regime sometimes involves some of those human beings doing assholish things
There is still hatred towards the Japanese over what they did
Right. Because that's what they (the country of Japan) set out to do. Cruelty and torture and rape weren't the actions of a few idiots/asshats in the Japanese army, those things were the stated tactics, the official policy, from the top down. That wasn't assholishness by abberration, and prosecuted (a la the WV guards at Abu Ghraib), that was marching orders. Your need to confuse the difference between that, and things like what Japan systematically did in China, shows you to be either completely misguided, or simply trolling. The latter, most likely.
Just post other site's actually funny content, or don't post anything until tomorrow.
BRING BACK OMG PONIES!
And here in the US, we are told that women are denied the chance at education
Who's "we" and who is doing the telling? There are more women in college then there are men. So, basically you're just blathering.
we are a Christian nation
They "land grabbing" revolutionaries you're complaining about fought, among other things, to tear down the form of government under which they were living
I remember when Red Dawn came out (the first one) that we discussed the differnce between freedom fighters and terrorists. The answer was history.
No, the answer is: look at what they're actually fighting for. "Freedom fighters" who fight for the opportunity to deny women the right to go to school, or to set up a regime where people who aren't willing to claim faithfulness to one single state religion are not freedom fighters. It really is that simple. US revolutionaries fought to be free from what was essentially a military dictatorship (the monarchy) that didn't provide some rather important freedom-related features (like those we see protected in our constitution). When freedom fighters are fighting for actual freedoms, then that's what they are. When "freedom fighters" are fighting to institute totalitarian rule (like, say, Che Guevara and company did) they're not freedom fighters at all. The Taliban aren't fighting for freedom, they're fighting to set up a ruthless medieval theocracy. Doesn't matter what they call themselves, it's what they do.
I wonder how the myopic thinkers will react to this scenario. Of course, we'll have to wait a decade for them to realize what has already happened.
Or we could realize that attitude won't keep industry in the US.
You could read the IPCC report.
I have. They do not have evidence to back those claims for small changes in temperature.
Overall, it doesn't look good.
I think here the point of the IPCC is to make it not look good.
Yes, how dare the US government insist on there being some standards and paperwork for a flying machine that moves at freeway speed, weighs as much as a child, has spinning blades of doom, a battery that can catch fire if poked wrong and will be built by a company that has trouble taping a box closed.
And does nothing to actual develop these standards.
Only if by "it" you're just talking about the bailout itself and not the crash.
No, I speak of both.One can't consider the crash in absence of the bailout.
Car analogy time: a car crashed. The cops (government) showed up to investigate, the politicians bicker, and somehow they ended up writing more laws (regulations) as a response. That there was a government response doesn't say anything about whether the car crash was caused by free markets or lack of it.
Car analogy time: a car crashes and the driver gets the local government to pay for any damage he does. He then crashes again a few years later and gets the government to do it again. This pattern repeats for the past century or so of this guy's driving record with him getting more and more aggressive with his driving as the years go on.
But testing? Perfectly legal right now.
Sure, perfectly legal if you make all of your drone research team run out and get a pilot's license, and then file flight plans for every single test. You know, if you take a quadcopter out into the parking lot and hover it ten feet off the ground to test a delivery mechanism, you need an FAA licensed pilot and a filed flight plan for all 30 seconds that will take. Sounds like a really great environment in which to conduct thousands of man hours of testing, huh?
And no, there is no provision in the FAA rules for Amazon to test a single flight where the vehicle goes out of line of site of the hands-on operator. The entire premise of what they're researching is prohibited, barring a waiver that they've only issued to an operator in rural Alaska inspecting pipelines while using existing, military-class equipment.
The key elements in human thinking are not numbers but labels of fuzzy sets. -- L. Zadeh
