This Internet TROLL has nothing to do with me or anyone I know, nor will I have anything to do with him.
Ignore his obsessive rants and fantasies about me. I am long past trying to reason with him.
Provide money and guidance to the local school systems then let them buy the approved technology they need rather than what is dictated to them
I've got a different take on the matter. As far as I know, the federal government exerts control over public education by taking money away from the states via taxation, and then only returning it if the states will teach in the manner seen fit by the Dept. of Education.
I.e., they use the ability of the federal government to tax anything and everything to circumvent the limitations on the powers of the federal government.
So in contrast to your solution, I'd suggest the federal government just taxes the states' citizens less, and let the states figure it out if they want to. Problem solved.
Anything coming out of the U.S. is a threat to everybody else's national security.
Actually, anything with practically opaque internals is a potential security hole, including processors, compiled software, network equipment. Also anything involving telecommunications.
If China is picking on only Apple, I'd wager it's to drum up business for some company that's owned by a state or an official.
China is right: the iPhone is a gaping security hole.
I also have little doubt that their "solution" will also be a gaping security hole, except that it will be designed so only China's intelligence services can exploit it.
one might even be justified in calling them fraudulent
... is a statement of opinion. I did not make any claim of fact. I did not, in fact, "accuse" anyone of fraud.
Further, using words like "asshole", "jerk", etc. are generally accepted statements of opinion. It seems pretty clear that you are a human being (albeit one I have cause to greatly dislike), therefore you could not literally be an asshole. Again no claim of fact was made.
Your failure to understand this has likely already gotten you pretty deeply into trouble. I don't know what you think you're doing here now, but I suspect you aren't helping yourself or anyone else with all this harassment.
As for the "97%" BS, it is easy to show that it was indeed a statistical lie. That one was a claim of fact. But it's pretty easy to show that I have very, very good evidence to back it up. So again: I had -- still have -- very damned good reason to believe I was telling the truth.
You haven't caught me in any "lies". Period. For the simple reason that I am not in the habit of uttering them.
Whenever your misinformation is challenged, you almost always double down and refuse to admit your mistakes. I'm challenging your pathological lies about your own gender to see if you act differently when you're defending blatant lies that can't possibly be blamed on cognitive bias. So far, you don't. It's getting increasingly difficult to rule out the possibility that Jane/Lonny is deliberately spreading civilization-paralyzing misinformation. If true, this would imply that Jane/Lonny Eachus has betrayed humanity.
Yet again, this is bullshit. You're just digging yourself a deeper hole.
My comments such as "asshole" -- EXPECIALLY given the context in which they were written, which should be pretty obvious to anyone who reads the entire threads -- are very clearly statements of my OPINION about your observed behavior. They are not claims of anything else. Not even claims about your general character. They are observations about THINGS YOU DID.
I haven't done that "when my 'misinformation' was challenged". I stated those things when YOUR BEHAVIOR was, in my opinion, that of an asshole, not that of someone who wanted to have a scientific discussion.
And of course, it's only gotten worse since.
You seem to forget that other people can read these things too. I can pretty much promise you that an awful lot of them don't see things quite the way you do.
Once again, obviously you can't recognize that your accusations are baseless, even though you reasonably should have known that. Obviously, this is not an admission that your comments aren't baseless. It's an admission that your Sauron-class Morton's demon has such a tight grip that you'll probably never be able to recognize that your accusations are baseless, even though you reasonably should have known that.
To what "accusations" are you referring? You have kept saying that, but I have no idea what you mean. Certainly, I have criticized climate science, when I thought it deserved criticism. But where are these "accusations" that YOU are accusing ME of making? I don't understand what you're getting at... because in fact you aren't saying anything here.
Yes, indeed: statements of fact and libel are different things. Where are your statements of fact here? You just wrote an entire post that doesn't say anything.
Sure, if you separate the word Aircraft in to "Air" and "Craft" you might be able to argue that one of the words could mean a manned vehicle.
It isn't my idea. It was the judge's reasoning about the intent of Congress when they wrote the law. Which is, in fact, pretty clear.
Even if you discount his reasoning about what Congress meant by "aircraft", the word "navigable" is not ambiguous at all: in this context it means passages that can be navigated by person-carrying vehicles.
Then by your own logic the GOP is
Yes. What's your point?
What I stated was that the Democrats (who have been in power) have been pissing off more people lately. And it's true. Which means that the largest voting block is going to be GOP plus all those independents who are pissed off at Obama's unconstitutional government... and there are a LOT of those.
What I didn't say -- but just because I didn't say it, you don't get to assume the opposite -- is that I think it's sad that the backlash against the Dems is likely to mean big wins for the GOP.
This is all implied by the other fact I mentioned: the largest voting block now, for the first time in the last century or so, is "independents" at 40% of the voting population. People are jumping off both the Democratic and Republican bandwagon in droves. Because BOTH of the 2 big parties are full of shit, but in (mostly) different ways.
Link to the exchange with that admission, because it sounds like you're talking to imaginary voices again.
obviously you don't think your accusations are baseless
So by this statement you have admitted that you have been asking me to publicly say something I don't believe is true. Simple logic, man. (Which is a discipline you do not seem to understand very thoroughly, given what you have been writing.)
Jane, I've been defending people like you for years, insisting that you're not knowingly lying. I've insisted that you're spreading misinformation not because you're dishonest but because you're unable to overcome your honest cognitive biases (Morton's demon). But because Jane/Lonny is pathologically lying about facts as simple as his own gender, it's possible that Jane/Lonny is knowingly spreading civilization-paralyzing misinformation. If true, this would imply that Jane/Lonny Eachus has betrayed humanity.
You don't know what my "cognitive biases" are, because you are filtering things through your own. And that is pretty obvious, right here, for everybody to read.
First you try to make it all about you, then you claim your delusions about me (which I have repeatedly corrected) are facts. Are you SURE you know even the first thing at all about libel law?
It is pretty easy to show, even on your own blog, that while I have been wrong at times, I have used logic and logical arguments, while your arguments have demonstrated straw-man, ad-hominem, "moving the goalposts", and other logical fallacies to the point of utter ridiculousness. For someone who insists on "D4" arguments on his blog, why have you failed to make them yourself?
I repeat, yet again, for how many times now I have lost count: your opinion of me is not excuse for the claims you have been making. You have been trying to claim that your opinion (if it even is your genuine opinion... I have reason to doubt that) is actually fact, when it is not. Your sense of "offense" over my words -- again, even if real -- do not excuse your own behavior.
I am just amazed that you don't seem to get that. What's the matter? Did you lose your job or something?
That's actually what's going on.
I doubt that very much. This bears repeating, for about the fifth time recently here on Slashdot:
A Federal NTSB judge has ruled that Congress did not give the FAA authority over small low-altitude drones, commercial or otherwise. The Federal law explicitly gives the FAA authority over "aircraft" in "navigable airways", which are by definition routes used by planes that carry people. These are usually high-altitude except for areas near airports and heliports. Further, "aircraft" (because of the "craft" part) means a vehicle that carries people. So there are at least two different passages in the law that very clearly limit FAA authority to commonly-traveled airways and people-carrying aircraft within them.
The court ruling has been stayed pending appeal, but the FAA has tried to regulate everything it could get its hands on before it is (almost surely) smacked down by the appeals court. I say almost surely because the "authority granted by Congress" argument is strong and the judge made his case pretty clearly.
My guess is that these companies are (quite intelligently) betting on the FAA losing in appeals court.
But the people calling for low taxes are, by and large, far-right nutjobs
Nonsense. The people calling for lower taxes today are right-wingers AND independents... who today make up the largest voting block, at 40%.
Sorry, but Obama, Pelosi, Clinton, et al. have been driving away voters in droves. If the Democrats came even close to beating out Republicans and Independents in the 2014 elections, I'll be amazed.
You can only piss people off for so long, before they fight back. A concept Obama doesn't seem to understand.
"Call immediately. Time is running out. We both need to do something monstrous before we die." -- Message from Ralph Steadman to Hunter Thompson