Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Amazingly stupid comment (Score 1) 291

Way to completely (deliberately, of course) miss the point. You're (deliberately) confusing tactics and specific weapon use with strategy and motivation.

the war crimes of the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq

Oh, please. The Taliban had brutally taken over Afghanistan, and was harboring the group that had just killed thousands of Americans ... and refused to turn them over. Dealing with them was not a "war crime." And, Iraq? The UN authorized the use of force because, among other things, Saddam never even TRIED to honor the agreements he made as he was pushed back from his invasion of Kuwait - he was overthrown because he was continuing to attack the aircraft patrolling the no fly zones set up to prevent him from slaughtering even more ethnic minorities with WMDs, skimming UN aid money to trade in more long range weapons, blocking and lying to weapons inspectors, etc. All of this not only justified, it demanded the action taken - which was blessed by the UN as well as by the US congress. Holding Saddam's regime responsible for his ongoing hostility and cease-fire violations is not a "war crime." HE was the one who continued to commit crimes, and that was stopped.

the illegal war against Libya

You're deliberately pretending you can't tell the difference between "illegal" and "done poorly by an administration that doesn't know how to do such things."

the overthrow of Ukraine's democracy

You're pretending you don't know the difference between Russia and the US. How do you think it's helping you to appear credible when you pretend you're that confused?

the bombing of even more countries that have never been a threat to us

Ah, the ol' hand-waving vagueness tactic. Again, how do you think this helping you to sound credible?

the drone assassins that have killed hundreds of kids

You mean, the Al Qeda and Taliban and ISIS tactics of putting very bad people and their supplies in and around local women and children specifically to make sure that such deaths occur? And if that had been done with a standard F-16, depriving you of your reliance on cartoonish dwelling on the word "drone" ... then you'd have to actually address the substance of the matter instead of invoking the D-word to add some drama you hope will cover for the lack of actual knowledge?

Comment Re:Why should the FAA allow drones without COAs? (Score 1) 182

I'm not.

Then why aren't you calling for the same (or, really, much more) stringent regulations on the millions of casual noobs, instead of the comparative handful of people who happen to regularly use the technology as part of the bucket of professional tools? The vast majority of reckless behavior involving these devices is at the hands of idiotic beginners who - unlike professionals - don't think there are any consequences for operating like jackasses.

Comment Re:Why should the FAA allow drones without COAs? (Score 1) 182

You're still tap-dancing around the question. You've come up with a list of "what-if" scenarios, but only scenarios that tilt one direction. Why is it you're assuming that recreational noobs flying once or twice a month are safer than people who use the technology every day? Specifically.

Comment Re:Don't fly over people or private property. (Score 1) 182

Actually, it isn't that far off the mark. Any RC hobbyist that joins the AMA does have an impressive insurance coverage.

That only applies if you're flying in strict accordance with AMA rules. Flying in your neighbor's back yard, at 25', in order to help him check the shingles on his roof? AMA insurance dries up and goes away. Poof.

Comment Re:Why should the FAA allow drones without COAs? (Score 1) 182

I know what you mean, but I think you might have overlooked something: It's kind of like sex. For free it's one thing, to use it as part of your business model is clearly something else entirely.

Why? If I send I a small plastic quad-copter up to 25 feet to check my gutters for debris after a storm, and there's a guy next door doing exactly the same thing in exactly the same way for exactly the same three minutes using exactly the same equipment with exactly the same skill and exactly the same safety considerations ... but he's charging $20 to do it so he doesn't have to charge $50 to put up a ladder in five places around the house ... how is that Clearly Something Else Entirely?

And why is my own use, or that other safety-minded, business-reputation-at-stake adult's use of a small quad LESS safe than a twelve year old noobie kid who says, "Sure, mister, I'll get some pictures of your rain gutters for free! What how fast I can do it..." ? Please be specific. Personally, I trust my own skills far more than I trust some noob operating "recreationally" - and yet the FAA is implying that the guy who does it every day and cares about his reputation is more dangerous than a middle school kid flying the same equipment for fun.

Comment Re:Sandy Hook (Score 1) 1135

What's "best" about that non sequitor of a platitude? Who said killing children was bearable? It would have been just as unbearable if the mentally ill person in the Sandy Hook case had killed his mom with an axe, and then used a pressure cooker from her kitchen to build a cheap and easy Boston-style bomb, and tossed that into a classroom to kill just as many kids. The lesson from Sandy Hook was that crazy people are crazy, and that political correctness and parental delusion makes it nearly impossible to lock them up. A just as crazy guy in Japan rather famously killed a bunch of school kids ... with a single knife. Also unbearable.

You know what else is unbearable? People like you trying to leverage both crazy people and dead children in order to try to shut down a part of the constitution you don't like. Other people are just as game to do the same thing with the First Amendment. Are you on board with that, too? No? Why not?

Comment Re:What about the rights of those injured by firea (Score 1) 1135

and what about the "well regulated Militia" part?

What about it? You're mentioning it without any sort of context. The actual context: the people who wrote the Second Amendment said, essentially: "It turns out that we're going to have to have some sort of trained, standing military at one level or another. The need to have such organizations does NOT mean that the military has a monopoly on keeping and bearing arms: the government MAY NOT infringe on the people's right to keep and bear arms, even though there will be well organized militia, as well."

So what about that phrase, exactly? What's your point?

Comment Re:Kudos (Score 0, Troll) 571

Damn straight, just ask any Native American!

You mean, the people who were born here to migrants from Asia? Those "native" Americans? Anyone born in the US is just as native as those we call Native Americans. And they (that sprawling collection of stone age tribes) were quite good at using violence to take territory, possessions, and people from each others' tribes and turf. Playing the Native American card in order to distract from the problem of huge numbers of immigrants swamping Europe's entitlement states is intellectually lazy, at best.

Comment Re: How about the rest of the world? (Score 1) 184

Impugn? I'm not impugning a thing. I'm pointing out that the guy who - without any constructive commentary about the substance of the matter - just claims that everyone is "editing" history is an intellectual coward, and using one of the more familiar tactics of lazy ad hominem rhetoric in order to avoid confirming (through actually attempting to address the matter at hand and proving his point, if there is one) that he's a fool.

Comment Re:How about the rest of the world? (Score 2) 184

edit edit edit edit

Interesting how you cannot actually address the substance of the matter, but only stamp your feet and say that word. Typical cowardly ad hominem argument, trying to impune the motive of the person to whom you're responding, instead of addressing the matter directly.

We have plenty of evidence that his attacks were essentially political. Among other things, because he SAID SO. You are trying to imply that it was a "Christian" attack, but of course you cannot actually back that up, and so you're attacking the people who provide information that goes against your phony narrative. Why are you afraid of the facts?

Comment Re:Assumptions (Score 1, Insightful) 184

Perhaps a better solution would be to increase the time window for this event- spread the crowd over a few months instead of a few days.

Perhaps a better solution would be to try to cure large populations of magical thinking so that they no longer feel the need to conduct silly medieval rituals in order to please an imaginary deity.

Comment Re:How about the rest of the world? (Score 1) 184

Need I remind you that Adolf Hitler was a self professed "God Fearing Christian". I feel sorry for you if your mind edits these things for you.

You're the one re-imaging history to suit your agenda. Hitler didn't march across Europe in the name of Christianity. And his party singled out the Jews as a convenient ethic group on which to blame Germany's inability to recover gracefully from the previous time they'd gone to war with their neighbors.

There is no likelihood man can ever tap the power of the atom. -- Robert Millikan, Nobel Prize in Physics, 1923