What you need, son, is a homeopathic cure for your gullibility.

But the solution will be just a more complex variant on this theme. Consider also that you might have allowed complex to become Rube Goldberg.

And all of this is completely irrelevant to the point I originally made, which is that the regulations you cite don't make a damned bit of difference if Congress didn't give regulatory agencies the authority to make them.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.

Yes, but it's filtered by natural processes rather than by the lowest bidder.

So you're saying Republicans drink poop water?

Actually, the key thing for them is "cheap". They need to keep costing sub-$1k missiles in the ballpark of these Iron dome systems - the more, the better. They might as well just omit the warheads to save money and increase range. Every $50k shot Israel fires with those systems costs 25 Israelis' annual tax contribution to the IDF. Every $55m system they deploy costs 27.500 Israelis' IDF tax contributions.

Palestinians are poor, but they're not *that* poor that they can't leverage those kind of lopsided financial ratios.

Thank you for that!

I can't help but picture a sign on the door at the exit of an airport in Israel. It reads "Thank-you for not stirring up ancient inter-tribal conflict".

Now I can't help but think of this excellent video :)

Using a nuclear device at high altitude? You do know what happens if you do that, right? That one test bomb knocked out street lights and long distance phone service nearly 1000 miles away and took out a third of all satellites in orbit around Earth at that point in time.

No, in the case of Iron Dome, that's only PR too. They're shooting $50k+ missiles at $800 rockets. Even after factoring in that Israel's per-capita GDP is 20 times that of Palestine's, that's still a losing proposition, even *if* they had a 100% hit rate (which this article is suggesting it's anything-but) and assuming that you get the launcher, radar, etc for free instead of the actual $55 million per unit. It's in Palestine's best interests that Israel deploy as many of them as possible and try to shoot down every last rocket, because every shekel they spend on Iron Domes and missiles is a shekel they don't spend on jets, tanks, and bombs.

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.