Comment First they came... (Score 3, Funny) 531
Because I was not an Immigrant.
Then they came for the Muslims, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Muslim.
Then they came for the Porn, and you can bet your ass I spoke out then!
Comment Re:Clickbait Science (Score 2) 230
Comment Re:As a C programmer (Score 1) 315
Comment Re:As a C programmer (Score 1) 315
Comment Re:real reasion (Score 2) 460
Comment Re:obvious response (Score 1) 1023
Comment Re:And where is Snowden hanging out these days? (Score 5, Insightful) 177
I'm willing to permit Snowden a little self-preservation on this one. It's not as though he's going around *defending* Putin. Nor does he have any information about Putin that no one else is privy to.
Snowden did a great service and continues to be of service. Let's at least grant him the privilege of a place to live.
Comment Re:Sure, I guess ... (Score 1) 218
Comment Re:This crap again? (Score 1) 264
Comment Re:9kA Wireless Transmission? (Score 1) 169
Comment Re:What about supremacy (Score 1) 151
The U.S. Constitution provides that federal laws are the "supreme law of the land." In the context of aviation, the doctrine of field preemption—that state action is preempted because Congress intended to occupy the entire regulatory field—has been held by many courts to generally prohibit state regulation of aircraft safety and operations. Underlying this position is that the U.S. government by statute "has exclusive sovereignty of airspace of the United States." As the Supreme Court explained more than 40 years ago in an opinion invalidating a locally imposed curfew on aircraft noise, "a uniform and exclusive system of federal regulation" is required "if the congressional objectives underlying the Federal Aviation Act are to be fulfilled." Thus, in the context of aviation, federal preemption long has been understood to sweep with a wide broom.
Comment Re:Moving to Marshall, Arkansas? (Score 2) 276
Comment Re:Uber actually comes (Score 1) 385
Comment Window seats first surprisingly not optimal (Score 1) 394
Whatever downsides it has, if such a design is adopted, I hope it leads to a stronger adoption of a convention that those with window seats board first.
Someone did studies on this and found that window seats first isn't significantly better than the current system. The most efficient method they found was to board odd rows first, then evens (or vice versa), the theory being that it gave people enough elbow room to get their luggage into the overheads without interfering with each other.