Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Re:It won't matter what Comey says (Score 4, Interesting) 152

I'm surprised you didn't also mention Benghazi.

Why should Benghazi come up? That affair, in and of itself, isn't an example of her law breaking. It was an example (in the event of the death of the ambassador and three others) an example of her incompetence and dismissive attitude towards underlings. And it was an example (in the event of her and her boss deliberately, knowingly lying repeatedly to the public generally and to the faces of the dead people's families literally while standing next to their coffins) of her general aversion to the truth and her willingness to look you, me, and and everyone else in the eye and lie. About little things (where her name came from, whether she "landed under sniper fire," about being "dead broke" and having trouble buying her multiple houses, etc) and big things (like her motivation for and practice of running her State Department email off a home computer, the casual disregard for above-classified document security, and the destruction of federal records while under subpoena).

That last bit IS about law breaking, but was more about the cover-up of her incompetence and lying. Her email arrangements, of course, were made so that she could run her foundation-related influence selling machinery without those pesky FOIA requests coming in later for a look.

When Trump BSes about trivial rhetorical stuff, it doesn't help. Just like it doesn't help when Clinton does the exact same thing ("I never said the TPP was the gold standard ..." and similar demonstrable "little" lies, the type of which she also trots out every day). But when Clinton deliberately lies about her official conduct and has her entire staff getting immunity deals in order to protect her from consequences that would send anyone else to jail, it's an entirely different level of behavior.

It's especially awful to watch her trot out a hearsay anecdote from an occasionally unstable Miss Universe contestant from 20 years ago to show how mean Trump is towards Latinas (despite the endless praise he gets from Latina women working in many management roles throughout his company) ... this coming from Clinton who personally launched the efforts to smear the reputation of multiple women with whom her husband had been screwing, including some of which were clear cases of abuse on his part. You can and should complain about Trump's ungraceful conversational style and bro-ish behavior. But Clinton's career of personal enrichment at the public trough, character assassination, and decades of deceit and lying is far more sinister.

Regardless, neither are well suited to the office. But one or the other of them will be seating Supreme Court justices. That's all that matters at this point. His choices - which will come from a list we've already seen - will skew towards constructionist jurists inclined to preserve the rights the Constitution protects. Her choices will without question be liberals who, like her, promise to act early and often to erode those rights. I'd rather have his likely flavor of jurists in place when we have future cases involving the Commerce Clause, campaign finance, balance of power issues, and friction around the First, Second, Fourth, and Fifth amendments.

Comment Re:Self-sustaining civilization on Mars (Score 1) 419

How about we first master having a self-sustaining civilization on Earth?

Already done. Too well. That's why we have population growth when we don't need it anymore. The more advanced sectors of society are actually shrinking, population-wise and resource-use-wise. It's the slow to catch up third world that hasn't refined its culture to the point where having too many babies eases off on its own.

Comment Re: Rule of thumb (Score 1) 305

Really? No domestic or international commercial air traffic flies over your house? Where do you live that there's no such air traffic. That would be refreshing, I must say. Around here, we see and or hear hundreds of flights a day. The lower altitude stuff is not as common, but there's really no distinction from an FAA perspective.

Comment Re:Look a bit higher (Score 1) 305

"Plain sight," as in "you don't need tools to get to it." The sort of thing any FAA inspector could simply walk over and easily see/get to.

Otherwise, semantics. You can't fly your over 9-ounce toy, at all, unless it bears your registration information. The uniqueness of the registration between someone's multiple toys is neither here nor there. It's "you can't fly your toy without federal involvement and a way to track the toy back to you via a publicly searchable database." That's what matters.

Comment Re:It's already known (Score 1) 305

The FAA has statutory authority over every bit of US (and territorial) air space from 1mm above the ground. They are exactly who defines who can fly where. That has nothing to do with things like privacy laws - that's about what you do with, for example, images taken while flying. Right now, that's a patchwork of local and state laws. But who (and what) can fly where and how high: that's FAA turf, entirely.

Comment Re:Look a bit higher (Score 1) 305

The over .55, under 55 pound RC aircraft must carry a registration number in plain site. If you own four of them, all four must carry that number. If you operate under part 107, all of your RC devices need their own unique registration codes. These aren't "guidelines," these are rules now formally in place with serious consequences should you blow them off.

Slashdot Top Deals

Karl's version of Parkinson's Law: Work expands to exceed the time alloted it.

Working...