Use of public airspace does not make an airshow produced by private individuals a government function. Obtaining the necessary FAA waivers and TFRs and NOTAMs for an airshow does not make a private airshow a government function. There are private, state, city, and county run airports all over the place. And EAA is a private organization that regularly holds one of the largest aviation events in the world.

All that needed to happen for it not to happen at all is for the Senate Democrats to jump the party line and approve the continuing resolution the House had already passed.

They're the ones who control the Senate and decided to force a conference committee which they knew wasn't going to accept their version. They're also the party of the current President, who is refusing to negotiate. From here::

So, no, the Democrats are not the innocent party here. They'd rather see a shutdown than a delay in funding ACA which doesn't prevent the exchanges from opening anyway.

You better send of a couple more payments to your current insurance company. ACA coverage through the exchanges doesn't start until 1 Jan 2014.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it Intuit's TurboTax that scribbled data into some of the first 63 sectors of the user's hard drive as a primitive means of DRM? Yes, I did remember correctly. They're also the company that runs my credit union's web presence and have arbitrarily decided what characters a valid email address can contain -- in violation of the RFC. Certainly, let's have Intuit do the website for people who need health insurance and must buy it or face penalties.

Give me a million dollars or I'll turn my autonomous car loose upon your streets...

No, if you were a true anarchocapitalist, you'd have written:

And thank God /. has a "lameness" filter to stop lame jokes:

/. has apparently never heard of true anarchocapitalists.

But "toy" is even easier to roll off the tongue, and more appropriate when the devices they're calling "drones" are $50 (or even $500) toys.

Our local newscasters quite often instruct us to "log in to kgw.com for more information" on the story they just reported. Most of them know that you don't need to actually log in to access the information, but they're using the common vernacular that most people recognize.

I doubt there was a single /. reader who didn't immediately know what the phrase "video card" referred to.

This argument fails because it assumes you have the right to decide what someone else can charge for their efforts and that they must distribute it in a way that is acceptable to you.

Thus, you've already decided before the work is published that you have rights to control that work and that by the act of publishing it the author has abandoned his.

In other words:

You've decided what you want to pay for their service and if they don't accept your offer then you change your offer to zero and take what you want anyway.

Actually you can get as much health care as it takes to deal with your critical issues, whether you can pay for it or not. The sign in our local ER is clear: they cannot refuse to treat you because you don't have money.

Once you are out of the ER, that's when ability to pay is an issue.

ACA is supposed to be for people who couldn't buy health insurance. Here is the story of a UCONN law student who was paying $39/month for health insurance who went to the ACA exchange looking for a cheaper plan. He found it: medicaid. He now pays nothing at all for his health insurance, the taxpayers are footing the entire bill. So, while he's paying $39 less a month, we're picking up the tab, and it costs us all more.

And this talks about higher costs for young people overall. So "pay less" is a very localized phenomenon.

The stories in today's paper report that she ran through a barrier leading to the White House, was temporarily stopped by the second set, and hit a Secret Service agent while she was backing out of that impediment. She then continued down the street towards the Capitol where she hit another cop.

This proves exactly my point about why /. is not the right place for this story. Everyone is saying what they think happened, it's all second hand from some other source, and much of it is incorrect. Why not just go to the sources directly? The only reason I can see for not doing that is if you want to be misinformed with as much conjecture and wild supposition as possible.

Since ACA is not universal health care, it is mandatory health insurance, you've reached a point where no further debate is worth the time. Except to correct one deliberate incorrect statement on your part:

YOU are the one who claimed that nobody could figure out a way of changing the system without leaving people destitute. I'm simply pointing out that you want the change while knowing that it can't be done without hurting people.

You've now been caught in a deliberate misquote, and I'm the troll. Ok.

A conditional statement where the initial condition isn't met isn't wrong, the condition is "false". The statement as a whole is quite correct. If you get paid on the last day of the month and the shutdown ends on the 20th, you will see no difference in how you are getting paid. "If you get paid on the last day of the month" is neither right nor wrong since it makes no declarative statement about what the actual conditions are. For the statement to be wrong the rest of the sentence would have to be incorrect when the conditional part is true.

Perhaps a coding example would help?

if( x==5 ) printf( "x is equal to five\n");

If x isn't equal to five, the code is still absolutely correct.

I went to school and learned how to read english. What's your excuse?