Can the person for whom you will be casting your vote actually win the election? Use your new-found Yes/No skills to simply answer that with a yes or a no.
You have no evidence of this
You mean, other than the FBI director directly answering questions about whether or not specific things that Clinton swore were true were in fact untrue? Are you really going to pretend that you haven't watched video of him clarifying that in response to multiple direct questions with examples?
And yes, the director was very clear that other people would face consequences for the things that he found Clinton had done and lied about. No, he was not able to find anyone willing to cite an example of a cabinet secretary deliberately destroying public records and mishandling classified information. Who was going to come up with that? It doesn't happen (until now). What he should have asked for was for any intern-level high school student to spend some time giving him a list of the people representing the long history of criminal prosecutions for government employees breaking the law - including the removing of classified information, sharing it with non-cleared third parties, and more of the things which he agreed that Clinton did. Because there are numerous examples of felony convictions in just such cases, many of which involving far less critical behavior than Clinton's.
If the Russians wanted to help Trump they would release some "they weren't classified when on my server" emails that they got from her bathroom server.
Whether or not they have them, there's no need. The FBI has already said that Clinton was lying about that, and they have the evidence to prove it. They just don't have Clinton's leverage with the Obama administration, so no prosecution for that act and the lie told to cover it up - even though anyone else would be in deep legal trouble for doing exactly the same.
That's because they don't fly through populated areas.
What? People operate these machines in suburban and busy areas all the time. Millions of them. Most operators are very casual and have very little skill, while using easy-to-fail devices with little or no redundancy or ability to tolerate even mild LiPo failure. And despite all of that, all of the mayhem that the hand-wringing nanny-staters keep talking about... doesn't happen.
Actually, I didn't read the actual article, so I can't literally gage the actual value of your actual comment.
If drone delivery becomes common, is there going to be a problem with drones falling from the sky and hitting people on the head?
Have you been worrying yourself about ground-based delivery and shipping vehicles striking and killing people? No? Why not? Road-related injuries and deaths happen all the time, and some of them involve commercial delivery vehicles.
In the meantime, millions of people fly remotely operated small aircraft, with untold millions of hours in the air and more or less statistically non-existent rate of people on the ground getting hurt. And that hasn't even really involved more expense, professionally operated machines with built-in redundancies and higher quality motors and batteries.
There are much more realistic things to think about. For example, tens of thousands of people die every year in easily prevented medical mistakes in hospitals.
Probably, the FAA will be knocking on their door in 3.... 2.... 1.....
They introduced 3.5mm (still mono) way back when, but almost nobody was using them until much more recently
The 3.5mm plug/jack was introduced in 1964 (52 years ago).
The 3.5mm plug/jack was universally adopted for portable equipment once portable equipment became... portable. I.e. the Sony Walkman, the very first prototype of which was shown off in the early 70s and from the moment it was announced was stereo.
Just simplifying it to unchanged for 50 years isn't wrong in the eyes of history. I can take my current state of the art headphones and plug them into that very first Walkman just like I can take a set of headphones from the 70s and plug them into my top of the line smartphone complete with it's video output and it will just work. The fundamentals of it are unchanged.
They want to certify it as safe and secure then tell England that they cannot use this validation because they left the EU. Instead England will have to use the version that is identical but not as safe because it won't have the stamp on the box.
Seriously though. It sounds like maybe they are trying to look important and beneficial to remaining members to avoid another exit push gaining momentum.
The 2.5mm jack is not incompatible. It is just a different size. There's a world of difference between that and effectively locking down and fundamentally changing the way audio is delivered from your phone.