Slashdot Mirror


Gyro-Copter Lands On West Lawn of US Capitol, Pilot Arrested

An anonymous reader writes that Doug Hughes, 61, a mailman from Ruskin, Florida was arrested for landing a gyro-copter on the West Lawn of the U.S. Capitol. "A 61-year-old Florida mailman was arrested Wednesday after he landed a gyrocopter on the U.S. Capitol west lawn. The gyrocopter was carrying the pilot and 535 stamped letters for members of Congress urging 'real reform' to campaign finance laws. Doug Hughes told the Tampa Bay Times ahead of the afternoon stunt that he notified authorities 'well over an hour in advance of getting to the no-fly zone, so they know who I am and what I'm doing.' Capitol police sent dogs and a bomb squad to the scene. Nothing hazardous was found. A city block from the Capitol had been cordoned off."

327 comments

  1. I can't really blame this guy by mrsam · · Score: 5, Funny

    Cut the guy some slack. He simply wanted to fly to D.C.; he had his own gyrocopter, and he really didn't feel like having his nuts groped by the TSA.

    Can you really blame him?

    1. Re:I can't really blame this guy by MightyMartian · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Because having his nuts groped by the Secret Service will be a far superior experience.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    2. Re:I can't really blame this guy by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      For some people there are certain bragging rights, yes...

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    3. Re:I can't really blame this guy by The+New+Guy+2.0 · · Score: 1

      Yes, because flying to the Capitol region is a no-fly zone. Trips up//down the East Coast have always had to go around Washington.

    4. Re:I can't really blame this guy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because having your own gyrocopter should allow you to get out of getting groped? What is this?!?!? Some sort of democracy?

    5. Re:I can't really blame this guy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If he would have just used Rocket Mail I bet that would have really gotten their attention!

    6. Re:I can't really blame this guy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Most of the time, yes.

      However, in an emergency, many no-fly zones no longer apply. Maybe he was declaring an emergency on congress. :-D

    7. Re:I can't really blame this guy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mr. Burns has been looking for the gentleman. Please direct him to Springfield for his punishment.

    8. Re:I can't really blame this guy by Noah+Haders · · Score: 4, Insightful

      a couple thoughts...
      1) this guy is a nut. the fact that he is a post man and shows up with 535 *stamped* letters is super funny.
      2) gyrocopters are inherently funny. those things don't fly so much as fall through the air and manage not to crash. they remind me of bumblebees.
      3) maybe this is a woosh on my part, but the GP refers to TSA nut grabbing. This was just in the news yesterday cuz there was a bust at denver where a gay tsa officer was using coded signals to other officers so he would ahve the chance to grope people's nuts.

    9. Re:I can't really blame this guy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because having his nuts groped by the Secret Service will be a far superior experience.

      Immediately followed by a comprehensive prostate "examination".

    10. Re:I can't really blame this guy by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      this guy is a nut....the GP refers to TSA...

      Ok, I get it...

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    11. Re:I can't really blame this guy by ememisya · · Score: 1

      Oh they'll grope more than just the nuts. I think mandatory prostate exams are on the list.

    12. Re:I can't really blame this guy by RaffishTenant · · Score: 1

      Also, everyone knows that gyrocopters are the future of tasty Greek food delivery.

    13. Re:I can't really blame this guy by Noah+Haders · · Score: 1

      ??? I feel like you took words from my post to it together a ransom note.

    14. Re:I can't really blame this guy by bensch128 · · Score: 1

      a couple thoughts...
      3) maybe this is a woosh on my part, but the GP refers to TSA nut grabbing. This was just in the news yesterday cuz there was a bust at denver where a gay tsa officer was using coded signals to other officers so he would ahve the chance to grope people's nuts.

      The TSA in Denver were only groping attactive people....

    15. Re:I can't really blame this guy by Noah+Haders · · Score: 1

      is that why I was searched?

    16. Re:I can't really blame this guy by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      gyrocopters are the future of tasty Greek food delivery.

      ... which is currently in "development hell" due to a severe shortage of tasty Greeks to turn into food.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  2. Shocked he survived by netsavior · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I mean, I do not advocate the death penalty for stupidity, but I am shocked he wasn't hit by a sniper before he even crossed the property line.

    1. Re:Shocked he survived by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It'd be fucking stupid to shoot him down like that.

      So instead of there being a helicopter in the air with a human at controls, doing what you suggest would result in a helicopter in the air with nobody controlling it.

      At least there's a chance of it being landed safely when there's a human controlling it.

      When nobody is controlling it, there's a much greater risk of it falling out of the sky and causing harm. It could land on buildings. It could land on vehicles. It could land on pedestrians and tourists. It could land on your own frigging cock and balls, for crying out loud.

    2. Re:Shocked he survived by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      Clearly it depends on the color of his skin, since he lived and wasn't beaten we can assume he was white. If this had been a male of African descent or someone with a really dark tan they probably would have just blow him out of the sky with a missile.

    3. Re:Shocked he survived by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I mean, I do not advocate the death penalty for stupidity, but I am shocked he wasn't hit by a sniper before he even crossed the property line.

      Well, the article did state he that called ahead of time and warned them he was coming and without any violence or malicious intent, that it was a statement of political protest and peaceful. Good thing they don't have the death penalty for "stupidity", eh?

    4. Re:Shocked he survived by ScentCone · · Score: 0

      I am shocked he wasn't hit by a sniper before he even crossed the property line

      The "property line" was 15 miles away. The DC FRZ (special Flight Restriction Zone) is a 30-mile-wide circle more or less centered around where he landed. What's interesting was that there didn't appear to be any airborne action following along while he made the 15 mile trip from that boundary to the heart of DC. That federal oh-no-you-don't zone means you can't even hover a 3-pound plastic quadcopter 10 feet over your back yard grass out in the suburbs. The feds make no distinction between that 3-pound toy and this guy's much larger machine.

      Shooting it down, of course, could have landed it right on top of crowds of kids, among others, who were right there where he flew. He's a complete jackass for doing it in the first place.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    5. Re:Shocked he survived by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Ahh, 1987...

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    6. Re:Shocked he survived by linear+a · · Score: 1, Funny

      And now the next person with less benign intent can call ahead and get the same response, e.g., fly all the way to the White House? whatcouldpossiblygowrong

    7. Re:Shocked he survived by linear+a · · Score: 1

      Oops edit, Capital Building not WH

    8. Re:Shocked he survived by VAXcat · · Score: 1

      You forgot the in-state tuition prices for college.

      --
      There is no God, and Dirac is his prophet.
    9. Re:Shocked he survived by amicusNYCL · · Score: 4, Insightful

      He's a complete jackass for doing it in the first place.

      I applaud him. He's protesting what is the #1 problem in government today in a peaceful way that was sure to make headlines. The problem isn't people like him, the problem is people who are apathetic about the issue in the first place.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    10. Re:Shocked he survived by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 0

      I figured that he would be denied a heart transplant because of his bad criminal and academic history, until his mom and the popular media play the race card, and in a huge public outcry the medical team is forced to reverse their decision, and then not long afterwards he tries to rob an old lady, shoots at her, runs over a pedestrian, and then dies after he crashes into a very racist utility poll.

      http://www.nbcnews.com/news/cr...

    11. Re:Shocked he survived by ScentCone · · Score: 2, Insightful

      He's protesting what is the #1 problem in government today

      The first amendment is the #1 problem? This guy is complaining because he doesn't like a court ruling that diminished the ability of labor unions (like his) to be allowed to spend money on political ads when other people weren't allowed to. He's upset about a court correctly finding that unequal protection under the law, and the government directly limiting political speech, was unconstitutional.

      in a peaceful way

      Yeah, by violating militarily enforced air space that could have involved the use of heavy weapons while he flies his cheeseball gyrocopter over crowds including bunches of children. In other words, he was willing to seriously risk other people's lives in a political stunt.

      the problem is people who are apathetic about the issue in the first place

      I'm not apathetic about the first amendment, are you?

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    12. Re:Shocked he survived by dbIII · · Score: 1

      He rang ahead. I'd be shocked if somebody fucked up and did shoot him down.

    13. Re:Shocked he survived by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Yes, as complete a jackass as people dressing up as indians and throwing tea in the water.
      It's the situation where a squeaky wheel gets the oil - or the jackass gets attention.

    14. Re: Shocked he survived by DigiShaman · · Score: 2

      You're thinking logically. Politicians don't however. As such, it would have been perceived beneficial to shoot it down to send a message "don't fucking do that!".

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    15. Re:Shocked he survived by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It could land a vending machine, an apple tree, an oak tree, maybe a maple tree. It could land on a stack of hay, a pile of used tires. Yep you missed those just adding

    16. Re:Shocked he survived by dcollins117 · · Score: 1

      I mean, I do not advocate the death penalty for stupidity, but I am shocked he wasn't hit by a sniper before he even crossed the property line.

      I don't know about a sniper, but he was in a no-fly zone. Don't they scramble jets when someone enters a no-fly zone? Especially near the Capitol. I assume they do, but I don't really know.

    17. Re:Shocked he survived by ScentCone · · Score: 0

      Really. You're comparing a protest against a monarchy that was suppressing free speech (among many other very bad things), to a guy who decided to fly a dodgy piece of dangerous equipment with high speed rotors past crowds of tourists in order to register his complaint that we have a constitutional guarantee of free speech?

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    18. Re:Shocked he survived by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You forgot a free phone.

    19. Re:Shocked he survived by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      His maybe half right what?

    20. Re:Shocked he survived by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why would any self respecting soldier, put himself out to "defend" the white house when brother soldiers rot in military prisons for less obvious violations of rules of engagement. To all US soldiers: Until you see someone actually firing on the president in the white house, the rules of engagement imposed on troops in afghanistan and iraq tell you to stand down, retreat or phone up higher authority for orders. Presidents are politicians. They are easily replaced, we simply vote new ones into existence and there seems no shortage of willing candidates.

    21. Re:Shocked he survived by Paradise+Pete · · Score: 5, Funny
      • It might have landed on a box
      • It might have landed on a fox
      • It might have landed on a house
      • It might have landed on a mouse
      • It might have landed here or there
      • It might have landed anywhere
      • it might be singing Joints and Jam
      • I do not like that Will-i-am
    22. Re:Shocked he survived by dryeo · · Score: 2

      One of the purposes of the first amendment is to allow petitioning the government and no where in the American Constitution is the government allowed to stop petitioners from arriving by air to exorcise their free speech right to petition Congress.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    23. Re:Shocked he survived by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not really otherwise the trade centre would still be up.

    24. Re:Shocked he survived by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      So, you've got no problem with flying a gyrocopter over a public tourist location, and landing there? Without any sort of control of the airspace, no provision for safety on the ground, etc? So, you'd be cool with that guy landing on the road right in front of you any time he wants. Or right next to you while you're having a picnic. Seems like you'd be fine with him, say, driving a 10-ton tracked earth mover onto the Capital grounds, to "petition" the government? So public spaces, like, say, the front lawn of the White House ... should be available to you for any use you see fit, at any time you see fit, as you operate any vehicle you please to make some theatrical point, as long as it's political? Regardless, I love the irony. You're defending his actions as an example of someone using his right to free speech, and ignoring the fact that his complaint is that there IS free political speech. He wants the government to limit political speech, not protect the freedom to make it.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    25. Re:Shocked he survived by Duhavid · · Score: 1

      "The first amendment is the #1 problem? This guy is complaining because he doesn't like a court ruling that diminished the ability of labor unions (like his) to be allowed to spend money on political ads when other people weren't allowed to. He's upset about a court correctly finding that unequal protection under the law, and the government directly limiting political speech, was unconstitutional."

      Then I have to assume you are against the recent loosening of campaign finance regulation for corporations.
      If it is correct to limit labor union's ability to spend due to unequal protection, then how can corporations not similarly be limited?
      And how does the "ability to associate" argument fit here? Every time I speak about removing corporate campaign contributions, I hear "ability to associate".
      A labor union spending is no less "ability to associate". And if you argue that it is the union bosses who decide how the money is spent, you are correct, but that is the same situation as in a corporation.

      "I'm not apathetic about the first amendment, are you?"

      Not at all. I think it is great.

      Personally, I think all labor union and corporate campaign contributions should be eliminated.
      "We the people..."

      --
      emt 377 emt 4
    26. Re:Shocked he survived by Skidborg · · Score: 2

      I'm pretty sure "rich enough to fly a gyrocopter for a political stunt" overrides skin color at some point.

      --
      Supporter of the +1 Over Dramatic mod option. In memory of apk.
    27. Re:Shocked he survived by Noah+Haders · · Score: 0

      Really. You're comparing a protest against a monarchy that was suppressing free speech (among many other very bad things), to a guy who decided to fly a dodgy piece of dangerous equipment with high speed rotors past crowds of tourists in order to register his complaint that we have a constitutional guarantee of free speech?

      actually the rotors are very low speed. gyrocopters rotate at 500 RPM, which is the same range as helicopters. but helicopter rotors are designed like a fan, where lift is generated by directing air downwards. If you look at a gyrocopter rotor it has the cross section of an airplane wing. lift is generated from the bournulli effect. ao if you stand under a gyrocopter you aren't blown away by the downwind.

    28. Re:Shocked he survived by AK+Marc · · Score: 3, Informative

      And what would a jet do? He would have been so small, slow and low, I don't expect that they could get a good lock for missiles, and they would have the backdrop of city streets if they went hot with guns. Their best bet would be to try to ram him as he passed over the river, risking an expensive jet for a minor stunt.

      A helicopter with a door-gun would have been the least-damaging to the surroundings, and they may not keep those on ready stand-by.

    29. Re:Shocked he survived by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Why are you so emotional about it? "Dodgy"? Says who? Oh, none of the reports, just your lies to insult him and us. "Crowds"? What crowds? Random people walking on streets he wasn't near, just over? His "stunt" would have been legal over Atlanta, which is as crowded as the area he flew over. There was no great risk. Note, you don't complain about his high speed craft, as it was slow, but the "rotors". Why do you hate helicopters? Should they all be banned from urban areas? If not, you are a lying hypocrite.

    30. Re:Shocked he survived by ScentCone · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If it is correct to limit labor union's ability to spend due to unequal protection, then how can corporations not similarly be limited?

      Wow, you are really missing the point. You have it backwards. The law wasn't "loosened," it was struck down, in part, because it allowed some groups to do things like run political ads on TV while barring other groups from doing so. Regardless of that unequal treatment under the law, which favored some groups and companies over others, the main issue remains: telling people that they're not allowed to say things during an election is a direct violation of the first amendment. Period. The court came to the same inevitable conclusion. If you don't like the groups like Greenpeace or a labor union or the NRA can run opinion pieces on cable TV or in a newspaper ad, then you need to figure out how to let the government stop those people from saying what they think while not violating the first amendment. And then you have to apply that new speech-inhibiting law evenly to everyone.

      Personally, I think all labor union and corporate campaign contributions should be eliminated. "We the people..."

      So when you join a labor union or incorporate your business, you think you're surrendering your rights to free speech? What if you incorporate a landscaping business in your town, and some local politician says he's going to make it the focus of his term as mayor to prohibit all gasoline powered landscaping equipment in town. Do you really think that the would-be mayor should be allowed to say what he thinks about your business practices and equipment, but you and your fellow landscapers in town shouldn't be allowed to run an ad saying, "Don't elect Mr. Smith, because all of your local landscaping companies will end up out of business." Why do you think such political speech should be banned, but only when it's the business owners who speak it?

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    31. Re:Shocked he survived by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Your blowing it out of proportion. The guy didn't endanger anyone. In any event he was prepared to be arrested and took precautions to ensure nobody took drastic actions that might endanger himself or others in the vicinity. You'd know that if you read the article. Your so obviously a government spook.

    32. Re:Shocked he survived by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      actually the rotors are very low speed. gyrocopters rotate at 500 RPM, which is the same range as helicopters. but helicopter rotors are designed like a fan, where lift is generated by directing air downwards. If you look at a gyrocopter rotor it has the cross section of an airplane wing. lift is generated from the bournulli effect. ao if you stand under a gyrocopter you aren't blown away by the downwind.

      Oh, OK. So if were to have crashed that machine into the group of school kids he flew past, it probably wouldn't have hurt anybody.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    33. Re:Shocked he survived by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ahh, 1987...

      I was wondering how long it would be before someone brought up Mathias Rust. I wonder which one of them will get the harshest sentence for their stunt.

    34. Re:Shocked he survived by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      Your blowing it out of proportion. The guy didn't endanger anyone.

      So if that gyrocopter developed trouble on his approach, and veered 20 degrees to the left on its way down, which would have put him into a crowd of kids and tourists, no big deal?

      Granted, only a few hundred people have died in gyro accidents since they became popular.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    35. Re:Shocked he survived by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I don't know about a sniper, but he was in a no-fly zone. Don't they scramble jets when someone enters a no-fly zone? Especially near the Capitol. I assume they do, but I don't really know.

      Yes, usually...

      In this case, he wasn't on RADAR and the Secret Service knew he was coming. He was known to them and he had made prior contact to let them know of his publicity stunt.

    36. Re:Shocked he survived by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 3, Informative

      Really. You're comparing a protest against a monarchy that was suppressing free speech (among many other very bad things), to a guy who decided to fly a dodgy piece of dangerous equipment with high speed rotors past crowds of tourists in order to register his complaint that we have a constitutional guarantee of free speech?

      If that is how you describe the aircraft he was flying, then you have no idea what you're talking about and you should really shut up before you embarrass yourself.

      The autogyro is one of the safest aircraft that exists, unlike a helicopter that only *CAN* autorotate (often like a brick), the autogyro is *ALWAYS* autorotating and lands that way without power every single time.

      It is not a "dodgy piece of dangerous equipment", it is actually very safe.

    37. Re: Shocked he survived by aldousd666 · · Score: 1

      You sir, win the internet.

      --
      Speak for yourself.
    38. Re:Shocked he survived by Cyberax · · Score: 4, Informative

      Do you really think that the would-be mayor should be allowed to say what he thinks about your business practices and equipment, but you and your fellow landscapers in town shouldn't be allowed to run an ad saying, "Don't elect Mr. Smith, because all of your local landscaping companies will end up out of business.

      Yes, that's EXACTLY what I want. If you are so concerned about your business then you should use your PERSONAL funds to support the other candidate.

    39. Re:Shocked he survived by Duhavid · · Score: 3, Insightful

      >>If it is correct to limit labor union's ability to spend due to unequal protection, then how can corporations not similarly be limited?>Personally, I think all labor union and corporate campaign contributions should be eliminated. "We the people..."

      "So when you join a labor union or incorporate your business, you think you're surrendering your rights to free speech? "

      Absolutely not. Where did I give you that impression?
      Talk all you want.
      Campaign contributions, on the other hand, are not speech.
      They are the mechanism for election, and should be controlled to ensure that We the People are in charge.

      "What if you incorporate a landscaping business in your town, and some local politician says he's going to make it the focus of his term as mayor to prohibit all gasoline powered landscaping equipment in town. Do you really think that the would-be mayor should be allowed to say what he thinks about your business practices and equipment, but you and your fellow landscapers in town shouldn't be allowed to run an ad saying, "Don't elect Mr. Smith, because all of your local landscaping companies will end up out of business." Why do you think such political speech should be banned, but only when it's the business owners who speak it?"

      The business owners are still individuals and can participate in this debate to their hearts content, as can ( should ) all citizens ( citizens == non corporate, real people with the right to vote ).
      Why should business owners be able to effectively ban non-business owner from political speech by drowning them out with money?

      --
      emt 377 emt 4
    40. Re:Shocked he survived by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

      Your blowing it out of proportion. The guy didn't endanger anyone.

      That's easy to say now. It doesn't mean it's safe to assume that any further gyrocopter stunts are just crazy old geezers with some post.

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    41. Re:Shocked he survived by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "You're defending his actions as an example of someone using his right to free speech, and ignoring the fact that his complaint is that there IS free political speech. He wants the government to limit political speech, not protect the freedom to make it."

      And you're ignoring the point the post you're replying to was making. You say it's corporations providing unlimited financial support for politicians or political issues is totally ok because "first amendment" but this guy's free speech, which didn't hurt anyone, should be limited.

      It's not irony, it's his entire fucking point, you're just being too obtuse to see it.

    42. Re:Shocked he survived by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even if the missile would lock, it would explode very low to the ground, with a very high probability of collateral damage.

      Anti-aircraft missiles don't try to hit the target, the try to explode somewhere close to it to take the target out with the shrapnel this explosion causes.

    43. Re:Shocked he survived by dave420 · · Score: 1

      You might want to brush up on your history...

    44. Re:Shocked he survived by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The first amendment is not about political spending.

      "Petitioning" means making request. People have a right to be heard - politicians cannot refuse to listen. (Although they can certainly ignore the requests after hearing them.)

      There is no constitutional right to fund politicians though.

    45. Re:Shocked he survived by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dr Zeus, is that yooooo?

    46. Re:Shocked he survived by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      Campaign contributions, on the other hand, are not speech.

      The problem is that this distinction is abused. You may not be allowed to donate to a person's campaign, but you can pay large amounts to have ads run on a particular issue that just so happens to be one of the core parts of a particular candidate's campaign platform.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    47. Re:Shocked he survived by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, you've got no problem with flying a gyrocopter over a public tourist location, and landing there? Without any sort of control of the airspace, no provision for safety on the ground, etc?

      Well it's annoying, but I even less OK with people juggling smartphones while they drive.
      In general drivers close to public tourist locations tend to be very inattentive to the road.

    48. Re:Shocked he survived by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      New A.C. to this conversation.

      Let's say that what he did was clearly illegal. And let's say it would be a kind gesture if the president were to commute any sentence he receives for his act.

      The problem with corporations having unlimited speech in the form of money is that they can drown out the speech of human beings who tend to have a lot less money. What good is free speech if it's only a whisper?

    49. Re:Shocked he survived by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 1

      It is not a "dodgy piece of dangerous equipment", it is actually very safe.

      Just like with an automobile, the biggest danger is "a loose nut behind the steering wheel."

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    50. Re:Shocked he survived by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      Why are you so emotional about it?

      Because it was a reckless stunt in the service of a guy who wants to limit free speech. I consider his motivations to be wrong-headed, and thus his willingness to risk other people's lives in pursuit of his agenda to be especially obnoxious.

      Yes, "dodgy." The very nature of that aircraft is that it's especially delicate, particularly susceptible to unexpected changes in wind conditions, and particularly dangerous to bystanders if it comes down in an uncontrolled way. It's a big weed-eater.

      would have been legal over Atlanta

      Actually no, it would not have. You're confusing the FAA's requirements for (or lack of them, for certain machines) a pilot's license with their take on reckless operation. The best footage of this idiot's approach to the capital lawn was taken from within a group of students standing one twitch of his control stick from being what he landed on. Never mind his deliberate violation of the DC FRZ, which brings very real risks to the people around him as he flies a machine in a place where he's very much at risk of having his aircraft shot out of the sky.

      Speed? He was going plenty fast enough to kill someone, even without the exposed lawnmower blades.

      Why do you hate helicopters?

      Why pretend I've said or implied something I haven't? It's the behavior, not the tool. Gyrocopters don't kill people, gyrocopter pilots do.

      Should they all be banned from urban areas? If not, you are a lying hypocrite.

      I think they should be subject to exactly the same rules that govern the flight of a Piper Cub (though the Cub is much safer).

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    51. Re:Shocked he survived by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      you can pay large amounts to have ads run on a particular issue that just so happens to be one of the core parts of a particular candidate's campaign platform

      Yes. Imagine that! Expressing your opinion about politics! This must be stopped! We can't have people saying what they think. And we certainly can't allow them to assemble as a group and speak their minds about a political topic on which they share an opinion. Unacceptable! That pesky first amendment is dangerous and must be taken away!

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    52. Re:Shocked he survived by coofercat · · Score: 1

      ...and it seems to have sparked a lot of people into saying "they should have shot him before he got anywhere close" or similar. That really means "I want my politicians even more remote and inaccessible than they are now". This guy's got more to accomplish than he first thought :-(

    53. Re:Shocked he survived by maple_shaft · · Score: 2

      You're defending his actions as an example of someone using his right to free speech, and ignoring the fact that his complaint is that there IS free political speech. He wants the government to limit political speech, not protect the freedom to make it.

      Are you seriously this dense? Money is not speech. The ability to use money to unfairly gain an advantage and monopolize information that is disseminated to the public is not speech. It would be akin to a public debate, where every time the other person speaks I blow an air horn so nobody can listen. People like you are defending his right to blow the air horn as a 1st amendment right.

      Freedom of speech yes but the very tenant of a functioning democracy requires at its core that people with something to say can be heard and that the electorate is able to easily hear all sides of the issue to make an informed decision. This overload of money in politics is nothing more than an attempt to create an information bubble with the intent to deceive the electorate from being truly informed.

    54. Re:Shocked he survived by XxtraLarGe · · Score: 1

      I applaud him. He's protesting what is the #1 problem in government today in a peaceful way that was sure to make headlines. The problem isn't people like him, the problem is people who are apathetic about the issue in the first place.

      Campaign finance is NOT the #1 problem in government today. It's a symptom of the real disease, which is the fact that government has enough power that makes politicians worth being "financed" in the first place. Reduce the government's ability to hand out corporate welfare & pick who gets to be the winners & losers in the marketplace, and you'd see a lot less money in politics.

      --
      Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
    55. Re:Shocked he survived by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      +1 Reality

    56. Re:Shocked he survived by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Labor unions are large groups of people, each with an equal vote, assembling to conduct speech. That's pure 1st amendment territory.

      The decision to have a corporation spend money on a political campaign is not made by the employees or even most of the share holders. At best it is made by the people who have the most shares. More usually it's a board or executive decision.

      Equating labor unions and corporations when talking about speech is a baseless argument.

      I am not a member of a labor union, but anyone willing to look at the two types of organizations can see the difference.

    57. Re:Shocked he survived by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      And what would a jet do? He would have been so small, slow and low, I don't expect that they could get a good lock for missiles, and they would have the backdrop of city streets if they went hot with guns. Their best bet would be to try to ram him as he passed over the river, risking an expensive jet for a minor stunt.

      A helicopter with a door-gun would have been the least-damaging to the surroundings, and they may not keep those on ready stand-by.

      I live in the DC area, and a few years ago heard a godawful racket outside my office, but couldn't see what it was.
      Later learned that it was 2 F-18s escorting a Cessna out of the controlled airspace. Those things are about to fall out of the sky at Cessna speeds.

      There are lots of helicopters at Andrews, I'm sure there's everything you'd need to shoot down a gyrocopter. Not to mention the anti aircraft guns on the roof of (at least) the White House. They knew this guy, and acted sensibly in letting him land and arresting him peacefully. I have very little respect for the Capitol police, but in this case they and the Secret Service did the right thing.

    58. Re:Shocked he survived by whistlingtony · · Score: 1

      Money is not speech. Corporations (And I include Unions in there) are not people. This is not a 1st amendment issue. Why are you OK with letting large organizations bribe our elected officials with campaign donations?

    59. Re:Shocked he survived by whistlingtony · · Score: 1

      " telling people that they're not allowed to say things during an election is a direct violation of the first amendment. Period."

      Exactly! But..... Exxon Mobil is NOT a person. I don't feel guilty restricting the MONEY they spend.

      Look at our political system. Congress needs money to get elected. They get huge campaign donations, with the implied threat of no more donations if they don't vote a certain way.

      This needs fixing. How are you OK with this?

    60. Re:Shocked he survived by Forgefather · · Score: 1

      Apparently he called ahead by an hour to let them know he was coming, and what his intentions were. To lazy to link, but ars has a good article on it.

      --
      "There are lies, there are damn lies, and there are statistics"
    61. Re:Shocked he survived by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I truly hope you're trolling, but I can tell you're not smart enough to do so. This has absolutely nothing to do with the first amendment. This is talking about Citizen's United, and the ability for corporations to literally purchase legislation and legislators. You may not be aware of it happening, but ignorance is a pretty poor excuse to devoutly support oligarchy. And you do realize your post directly and strongly supports oligarchical practices, right?

    62. Re:Shocked he survived by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You either are incapable of reading, or you are literally retarded. Possibly both.

    63. Re:Shocked he survived by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The depths of your stupidity really know no bounds. Please go back to high school, kid. Participate in adult discussions when you're capable of being an adult.

    64. Re:Shocked he survived by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have demonstrated your lack of intelligence already, why do you dig yourself deeper into the hole? You are not impressing anyone, you're only proving yourself to be mentally deficient. Please, stop. Nobody cares about what you say.

    65. Re:Shocked he survived by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      group of school kids

      Please, stop thinking of the children. This emotionally manipulative language damages the credibility of your argument. That is all.

    66. Re:Shocked he survived by Xylene2301 · · Score: 1

      agree with you 100%. Apathy is problem #1.

    67. Re:Shocked he survived by Xylene2301 · · Score: 1

      Money is not speech. Corporations (And I include Unions in there) are not people. This is not a 1st amendment issue. Why are you OK with letting large organizations bribe our elected officials with campaign donations?

      Exactly. ...and there is a distinction between corporations and unions as far as speech is concerned; corporations don't generally give a hoot about the political agenda of their workers whereas unions might. Also, a lot of corporations have offshore workforces whose rights aren't even covered under the US constitution at all. Not so the unions. I recommend that as an extension to Citizens United, any corporation with offshore workforces should be stricken from making campaign contributions either directly or through any PAC.

    68. Re:Shocked he survived by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      Labor unions are large groups of people, each with an equal vote, assembling to conduct speech. That's pure 1st amendment territory.

      I am not a member of a labor union, but anyone willing to look at the two types of organizations can see the difference.

      Your first sentence agrees with your last sentence. Labor unions don't work that way, which you would know if you were forced to join them like anyone else in a union shop.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    69. Re:Shocked he survived by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And what would a jet do? He would have been so small, slow and low, I don't expect that they could get a good lock for missiles, and they would have the backdrop of city streets if they went hot with guns. Their best bet would be to try to ram him as he passed over the river, risking an expensive jet for a minor stunt.

      A helicopter with a door-gun would have been the least-damaging to the surroundings, and they may not keep those on ready stand-by.

      I think they'd really fly over him with a helicopter and use the downforce to force him down, if they cared to.
      I'm guessing they had enough Intel on this guy they were comfortable letting it play out and arresting him after landing?

    70. Re:Shocked he survived by jriding · · Score: 1

      Business owners were and have always been allowed to speak.
      The business they own has not. No one ever said a business person was not allowed to contribute or speak.
      The problem is now the business is allowed to speak with as much money as they have.
      Having laws that says you are only allowed to contribute X amount means that everyone has the chance to speak and those that are VASTLY more wealthy then others will not be able to drown out all of the "common" folk.

      --
      love the taste, hate the texture
    71. Re:Shocked he survived by __aanbvm4272 · · Score: 1

      So if this guy did some real heinous thing... Sure IF he did blah blah blah but he did not he got in the news the modern way. He makes a point we are being sidelined for PACs and capitalism. We need a voice anyway possible. I applaud this hero from the Post Office. KUDOs man!

    72. Re:Shocked he survived by __aanbvm4272 · · Score: 1

      Imagine there's not assholes it easy if you can. Imagine theres no bird dogs or even their man. Imagine all the people realizing all the crap you hoo speel. Being subjected to over paid messages is NOT free speech it PAID for speech. And there is NO WAY you can shoe horn it into our 'democratic' platform shoes. Damn bird dog humpers anyway go watch FOX news.

    73. Re:Shocked he survived by __aanbvm4272 · · Score: 1

      Scent Cone GO AWAY your obviously spewing chunks of FOX news all over us and it hurts. Stop the corporate lies son and go hump yer dogs man!

    74. Re:Shocked he survived by BostonPilot · · Score: 1

      Your blowing it out of proportion. The guy didn't endanger anyone.

      So if that gyrocopter developed trouble on his approach, and veered 20 degrees to the left on its way down, which would have put him into a crowd of kids and tourists, no big deal?

      Granted, only a few hundred people have died in gyro accidents since they became popular.

      Actually I think you're the one blowing it out of proportion. The no fly zone isn't there to protect the kids and tourists, otherwise there would be no fly zones over every major city and populated area. It's there to prevent terrorist attacks which this guy took some reasonable (but not foolproof) steps to make sure nobody thought was what was going on. Yes, if he had aircraft problems he could have endangered people, but that's the case with every airliner flying into every major city. As a helicopter pilot with a couple hours in gyrocopters, I think it's pretty safe to say that he posed a very small and manageable risk to kids and tourists on his approach path.

      My only problem with the stunt (I think it was pretty funny/cool mostly) is that the government will no doubt feel they need to further tighten security around D.C. in order to prevent future embarrassment. Luckily I'm in Boston with few requirements to ever fly in that airspace - in general I would avoid it like the plague but this will probably make it even worse.

    75. Re:Shocked he survived by BostonPilot · · Score: 1

      Hear hear.

    76. Re:Shocked he survived by BostonPilot · · Score: 1

      Actually gyrocopter rotors and helicopter rotors use exactly the same types of airfoils. The only difference is that a helicopter can use an engine to turn the rotor, while the gyrocopter uses the airflow through the rotor to turn it. Helicopters do exactly the same thing when we glide with the engine shut down/disconnected. There are many different designs, but generally speaking gyrocopter and helicopter rotors are identical except that helicopters may use an engine to power the rotor.

      If you want to check out a couple links on my helicopter website that discuss this:

      http://www.copters.com/helo_ae...
      http://www.copters.com/aero/au...

    77. Re:Shocked he survived by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      Being subjected to over paid messages is NOT free speech it PAID for speech

      It would be great if you can point out where, in the First Amendment, it says that your rights to say what you want about politics is taken away if you do it by, say, paying a printer to copy your message onto 500 pieces of paper you want to hand out. Paid speech! Paid speech! The government must censor that, since it took money to reproduce the message and spread it around!

      Do you even listen to yourself?

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    78. Re:Shocked he survived by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      The DC FRZ is indeed there to cut down on the need to deal with a bunch of yahoos buzzing very high-profile targets. But the who decided to fly his gyrocopter right past crowds after a low-level pass over an urban area is up for reckless operation charges from the FAA either way. That bit of idiocy is idiocy whether it's done around people in DC or around people in downtown Miami.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    79. Re:Shocked he survived by Noah+Haders · · Score: 1

      at your links, autorotation in a helicopter occurs only when it is decending. effectively translating horizontal motion into rotatation. it's like saying in a moving electric car the road under the car "the road flow" charges the batteries. This is true, but only when decelerating and the regenerative brakes are applied.

      in a gyrocopter, airflow provides lift but you need external power to rotate the rotors if you want to go up or stay level. I can imagine that if you're decending in an autogyro you can do the same thing in a helicopter of reducing the load on the engine.

    80. Re:Shocked he survived by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Anything is possible but they have helicopter rides at the county fair around my neck of the woods. They take off and land right next to the fair way with an area about 30 yards roped off. Of course they approach and leave from the far side and away from the rides but its usually still over a parking lot.

      I'm not sure I would be overly excited about his landing. Still some concerns but likely not dangerous.

    81. Re:Shocked he survived by Duhavid · · Score: 1

      Express your opinion
      Say what you think
      Assemble and speak ( but neither a corporation nor a union is a political assembly, they have other purposes, and the others in those assemblages are likely not like minded )
      Freedom of speech, the right to address/petition your government,very important.
      But when money makes it so that others cannot address their government, that is wrong.

      Campaign contributions by corporations are bribery
      If they are not, then anonymous donations would suit the purpose. But you know that would fly like a led zeppelin.

      --
      emt 377 emt 4
    82. Re:Shocked he survived by Duhavid · · Score: 1

      Quite. But I can see the point that they should be allowed their say.
      I think they should have to be clear about who they are and all that.
      And I think you are correct, it is abused.
      How to correct that, without limiting someone's ( real person, citizen ) right to speech and petition?

      But campaign contributions, ax them. Or make them anonymous.

      --
      emt 377 emt 4
    83. Re:Shocked he survived by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      That's a fine strawman you have there, but to answer your specific question, no, I have no problems with the first amendment, I never claimed I did, that's not what he's protesting, and that's not what the problem is about. That's a pretty common debate tactic for people on your side though, I see you got the memo. The problem is the corrupt influence of money in politics. There is a tremendous amount of money in politics today. The Citizens United ruling not only does nothing to help that problem go away, but it magnifies the problem tenfold. You can go on and on about how corporations should have the right to free speech and frame yourself as some sort of valiant defender of the constitution and your opponents as godless communists, but the fact is that the CU ruling made the problem of money in politics and the corruption that goes with it exponentially worse. Consider the fact that Hillary Clinton believes she needs a goal of $2.5 billion to win the election. That equates to spending $20 for each American voter. That's the problem, and all of the lobbying and backroom deals that go with it. But I know you're just going to ignore the issue and instead talk about how much you love the first amendment, so you just go right ahead.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    84. Re:Shocked he survived by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      So when you join a labor union or incorporate your business, you think you're surrendering your rights to free speech?

      Seriously, you guys are funny with your arguments. No where, at no time, has any INDIVIDUAL ever surrendered their right to free speech because they started a business. Their INDIVIDUAL rights have never been abridged because of that.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
  3. Delivering the Mail by l0ungeb0y · · Score: 5, Funny

    A 61-year-old Florida mailman was arrested Wednesday after he landed a gyrocopter on the U.S. Capitol west lawn. The gyrocopter was carrying the pilot and 535 stamped letters for members of Congress urging 'real reform' to campaign finance laws.

    So in other words, they arrested a Federal Employee on Federal Property for doing his job.

    1. Re:Delivering the Mail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

      Except that Congress isn't in the White House, so just like usual, the federal employee was Fucking It Up.

    2. Re:Delivering the Mail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's well known that the US has strict laws against federal employees doing their job. Especially on federal property.

    3. Re:Delivering the Mail by war4peace · · Score: 4, Informative

      My oh my.
      The Capitol hosts the Congress.
      The White House is the residence of the US President.

      The mailman landed at the US Capitol. Correct addressee.

      You mixed the Capitol with the White House. Who fucked up?

      (I'm Romanian and even I can tell the difference)

      --
      ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
    4. Re:Delivering the Mail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The White House isn't on the west lawn of the US Capitol.

    5. Re:Delivering the Mail by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      I doubt his job description includes "Flying small aircraft to personally deliver letters."

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    6. Re:Delivering the Mail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hahaha falling on ground.. ur so right!!!!!
      let the professionals take care of it right.
      But then again you cant blame the individual, as he is just a product of his environment.
      Like a Lemming..
       

    7. Re:Delivering the Mail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OMG i just realized this! THAT IS EPIC!

      No. Not really. Just another victim of Citizens United Derangement Syndrome, filled with selective outrage about campaign finance and blissfully incapable of recognizing his own complicity as a member of a powerful government worker union, while wallowing in so much disposable income he can stage a media event using his own private aircraft.

      A misguided malcontent. Wow.

    8. Re:Delivering the Mail by Invidious · · Score: 4, Informative

      I'm fairly sure that such gyrocopters qualify as ultralight aircraft, and thus require no license.

    9. Re:Delivering the Mail by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Either did Charles Lindbergh's. I mean, it did, but not on that night.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    10. Re:Delivering the Mail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, they *didn't* require a license. That'll change shortly. And another freedom goes phblttt.

    11. Re:Delivering the Mail by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      I'm fairly sure that such gyrocopters qualify as ultralight aircraft, and thus require no license.

      Which doesn't excuse him from honoring the DC FRZ (which also means you can't fly toy airplanes or plastic toy multirotors, etc) within a 30-mile circle around where he flew. And it certainly won't change the fine (at least) he's going to pay.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    12. Re:Delivering the Mail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Hmm - I wouldn't call him an idiot. He was fully aware of what he was doing, that he was breaking the law, and that there would be ramifications. He simply felt that his cause was so important that that sacrifice was necessary.

    13. Re:Delivering the Mail by The+New+Guy+2.0 · · Score: 1

      Doing his job wrong.... he's supposed to drop that mail off at a mail processing facility, not the Capitol itself.

    14. Re:Delivering the Mail by amxcoder · · Score: 1

      "Neither snow nor rain nor heat nor gloom of night stays these couriers from the swift completion of their appointed rounds..."

    15. Re:Delivering the Mail by Deadstick · · Score: 3, Informative

      And you're fairly wrong. A gyrocopter is an aircraft and it requires a pilot's license.

      This one meets the "Light Sport Aircraft" criteria, which means the license is cheaper and easier to get, but you still have to go through flight training.

    16. Re:Delivering the Mail by spiritplumber · · Score: 4, Funny
      DONT ARSK US ABOUT:

      rocks

      troll's with sticks

      All sorts of dragons

      Mrs Cake

      Huje green things with teeth

      Any kinds of black dogs with orange eyebrows

      Rains of spaniel's

      fog

      Mrs Cake

      --
      Liberty - Security - Laziness - Pick any two.
    17. Re:Delivering the Mail by dpidcoe · · Score: 2

      A gyrocopter is an aircraft and it requires a pilot's license.

      Whether or not it's an ultralight is defined by weight and capabilities, not visual features.

    18. Re:Delivering the Mail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How much do you want to bet that this guy's "notification of authorities" amounted to a bizarre and opaque posting to Twitter? And he only has 6 followers, all family or fellow mail carriers?

    19. Re:Delivering the Mail by amicusNYCL · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No, they arrested an idiot who is supposed to have a pilot license who does not understand the concept of a 'no-fly-zone'.

      You might be the idiot. He fully understood all of the implications of what he was doing, and worked out several scenarios. His expected scenario was that a Blackhawk would be scrambled from Quantico, but would overfly him as he was flying so low and slow, and he hoped that by the time the Blackhawk caught up to him that they would have orders to not shoot him down. His biggest worries were that he would be shot down or that he wouldn't have the nerve to do it in the first place. I can't imagine the adrenaline going through him as he was flying across the national mall in sight of the Capitol without a single LEO or military aircraft in sight.

      http://www.tampabay.com/news/p...

      He's right, too. Campaign finance laws and all of the corruption that goes with them is the single largest problem with the current government, and apathy from people like you helps to ensure that it doesn't get fixed. Go on, citizen, stamp the vote card. R or D, your choice. Whichever R or D you want to pick will be just fine.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    20. Re:Delivering the Mail by amicusNYCL · · Score: 2

      he's supposed to drop that mail off at a mail processing facility, not the Capitol itself.

      Such as the US post office in room HT-1 of the US Capitol?

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    21. Re:Delivering the Mail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You need certification. here

    22. Re:Delivering the Mail by tquasar · · Score: 1

      He just might be in jail for a while. Psych evaulation. I hope he has some support from his family.

    23. Re:Delivering the Mail by The+New+Guy+2.0 · · Score: 1

      HT-1 only accepts mail that's been cleared at a non-talked-about facility. It's gotta come from the right clearance to get there. There are many "downtown" post offices that only accept one truck route, and only go outbound by that same truck route.

    24. Re:Delivering the Mail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He is sure going to pay. He just disclosed a big whopty doo hole in the WH security. Doesn't really matter if it was a low or high security situation. The basepoint is set.

    25. Re:Delivering the Mail by Goetterdaemmerung · · Score: 2

      You need certification. here

      Your link appears to be based on Australia laws. In the US no license or permit is required to fly an ultralight aircraft. However everyone should receive training. The autogyros are extremely stable due to their design but of course unexpected things happen.

      As to the craft itself, I cannot tell from the article if it is an ultralight copter or a traditional one. Auto-gyros are somewhat difficult to achieve the ultralight weight restrictions but not impossible.

    26. Re:Delivering the Mail by Noah+Haders · · Score: 1

      i'm pretty sure what will happen to him is he'll be charged with all sorts of crazy stuff and face a harrowing trial then prolly end up doing 12 mo in lockup.

    27. Re:Delivering the Mail by modecx · · Score: 1

      This guy is an archetypal patriot. Combining the most obvious but peaceful act of civil disobedience imaginable with petitioning congress. Huh. The magnitude of his brass clangers is surely remarkable. We would do well to have more like him.

      --
      Constitutional rights may be respected, repealed, or modified; but they must never be ignored.
    28. Re:Delivering the Mail by Jeremi · · Score: 1

      No, they arrested an idiot who is supposed to have a pilot license who does not understand the concept of a 'no-fly-zone'.

      He understood the concept perfectly well. He flew into the no-fly zone on purpose, with the full knowledge he would be arrested and prosecuted for doing so.

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    29. Re:Delivering the Mail by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 1

      I'm fairly sure that such gyrocopters qualify as ultralight aircraft, and thus require no license.

      And you'd be wrong...

    30. Re:Delivering the Mail by x_IamSpartacus_x · · Score: 1

      Burma Shave!

    31. Re:Delivering the Mail by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      No, they arrested an idiot who is supposed to have a pilot license

      Supposed to? Does he or doesn't he need one, and if he does need one, does he or doesn't he have it?

      Don't know? Then shut up and learn something before opening your mouth.

    32. Re:Delivering the Mail by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Are you sure it doesn't meet the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U... criteria?

    33. Re:Delivering the Mail by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      So?

      Was it an ultra light or not? If it wasn't he needed a license, I know.

      If it was, I know now he does not need one in the USA, but in the rest of the world.

      So perhaps you shut up if you don't know stuff?

      Or be polite as I am and: simply explain stuff to the not knowing. Would make much more sense.

      Best Regards

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    34. Re:Delivering the Mail by GlennC · · Score: 1

      Go on, citizen, stamp the vote card. R or D, your choice.

      I think I may have found my new signature...

      --
      Go on, citizen, stamp the vote card. R or D, your choice.
    35. Re:Delivering the Mail by Gavagai80 · · Score: 1

      Typically in these cases he'll be charged with terrorism, threatened with the death penalty, and then take a plea bargain for a $500 fine.

      --
      This space intentionally left blank
    36. Re:Delivering the Mail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In fact, that is how we tell you foreigners. ;)

    37. Re:Delivering the Mail by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Or be polite as I am and: simply explain stuff to the not knowing.

      I'm simply explaining to the people that you don't know what you are talking about. I did so politely. You took offense because I was explaining how you are an idiot. I have a pilot license. I know how these things work. I've seen the news report it using the word "ultralight" http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

      Have you seen any stating it isn't? No? Then you are guessing in direct opposition to the facts reported, in order to make yourself feel smarter by finding something to argue about that isn't actually a point of interest. Good for you. I hope you feel better, and that this makes up for all the times you were piked on in school. Now sit down, be quiet, and let the adults discuss the actual facts of the matter.

      Best Regards

    38. Re:Delivering the Mail by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      So, did you check waht an ultralight is?

      Funnily only the usa has an ultra light class that is _lighter_ than everything that is called ultralight in the rest of the world.

      Funnily only the USA allows flying without a license in some 'special' air crafts.

      I would strongly suggest you reconsider whom you call an idiot. Most people I call that way strongly deserve it. I doubt that is true in your case.

      E.g. not knowing the facts I stated above (I did not know them a week ago) makes YOU anidiot. Because younalready have the licesne, I have not, working on it though.

      Btw: there where no facts reported in the /. article, and I did not read the original one and did definitely no research if it was an 'ultralight' or not.

      If you missed the discussion: quite a few people on /. debated whether that copter was a ultra light. So again, it seems the jumping to conclusions idiot was ... well, you again. Sorry :)

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    39. Re:Delivering the Mail by AK+Marc · · Score: 1
      Funnily, this happened in the USA, so the USA definitions of ultralight would apply. The media coverage called it an ultralight, though based on the charges, that could have been a factual error.

      If you missed the discussion: quite a few people on /. debated whether that copter was a ultra light.

      I didn't miss the discussion. I noted the reports called the contraption an ultralight. You argued about the US definition being different than the Australia definition. Which, for an event in the US with a small aircraft, is irrelevant. That was obviously false, and stupid, so now you are attacking others so you can "win" an argument related to this, so you feel better. Do you need a hug?

    40. Re:Delivering the Mail by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Yes, funnily it happened in the USA.

      Hence as the USA is the exception regarding ultralights, I would expect that a guy like you with a pilot license knows: that an european can not know that. Obviously you where not aware about that exception, hence ... well, up to you to make conclusions :D

      If you think, someone who by his own background knowledge has a different definition of "ultralight", is stupid, then I hope you have not often to work with Australians or Europeans ... I myself find your standpoint pretty stupid.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    41. Re:Delivering the Mail by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      I myself find your standpoint pretty stupid.

      Why is it stupid to use the most accurate technical term for the location under discussion?

      When I talk to friends outside the US, I will give units in metric. When I talk with friends inside the US, I use US/Imperial units.

      Your argument is that if I'm talking with a US friend while outside the US, and someone overhears and complains about the terminology, that I'm "stupid" for using US/Imperial units.

      I find that stupid. A US event on a US site being discussed mainly by US residents, I'll use the US term, even if that term is used differently elsewhere.

      When submitting an editorial to the Canberra Times, I'd use different and locally relevant terminology.

    42. Re:Delivering the Mail by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      I'm not talking about the US term.

      I'm talking about your standpoint to call people "idiots" who are unaware that there is a "terminology shift".

      Your argument is that if I'm talking with a US friend while outside the US, and someone overhears and complains about the terminology, that I'm "stupid" for using US/Imperial units.

      No I'm not arguing that way. Why should I? That would be stupid.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    43. Re:Delivering the Mail by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Ah, so you are wrong. You know you are wrong, and you are insisting you are right because you feel offended. You are an idiot for insisting you are right after having been proven wrong.

    44. Re:Delivering the Mail by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Erm ... you have a reading problem?

      I did not insist that I was right.

      I insist that you calling me an idiot is wrong.

      That is all.

      Otherwise I could call you an idiot for every simple oversight you make out of culture clash or what ever.

      Seems you are not able to follow such a discussion :D So go ahead and call me an idiot, but please note: I accepted that I was wrong something like 5 or 8 posts back ...

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
  4. Guy From Road Warrior... by jratcliffe · · Score: 2

    ...is now the SECOND-craziest SOB ever to fly one of those things.

  5. he should have used by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

    a drone

  6. Some Republicans oppose campaign finance limits by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Campaign finance reform is a somewhat partisan issue. Some Republicans oppose limits on campaign spending. Money can buy many things in Washington, but it can't buy votes. Bloomberg found that out in Colorado involving gun control. I wonder if Hillary or Jeb will be able to buy the presidency in 2016.

    1. Re:Some Republicans oppose campaign finance limits by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Some Republicans oppose limits on campaign spending. Money can buy many things in Washington, but it can't buy votes.

      You sir, are part of the greater ignorant majority.

    2. Re:Some Republicans oppose campaign finance limits by Shadow+of+Eternity · · Score: 0

      Hillary won't buy votes with money, she'll buy them with fear and hate by painting everyone who doesn't kiss the ring as a horrible misogynist rape culture neckbeard fedora beta dudebro pissbaby fuckboy womanhater.

      --
      A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
    3. Re:Some Republicans oppose campaign finance limits by neminem · · Score: 1

      > "dudebro pissbaby fuckboy"

      Next up on stage, Pissbaby Fuckboy!

    4. Re:Some Republicans oppose campaign finance limits by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, Carly Fiorina, et al won't be doing the same?

  7. Thank goodness the NSA is looking our for us by gestalt_n_pepper · · Score: 1, Insightful

    So, this guy published the the fact that he was going to do this on his blog and in email before he did it. Here's the quote from "Thehill.com":

    On the webpage thedemocracyclub.org, he wrote: ''My flight is not a secret. Before I took off, I sent an Email to info@barackobama.com. The letter is intended to persuade the guardians of the Capitol that I am not a threat and that shooting me down will be a bigger headache than letting me deliver these letters to Congress.''

    Tell me again, what our incredible spying and surveillance program is supposed to be doing? Because, I'm pretty sure this is the definition of "intelligence failure" in all senses of the phrase.

    --
    Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
    1. Re:Thank goodness the NSA is looking our for us by amicusNYCL · · Score: 4, Informative

      Before he took off he also called his friend back home to tell him the plan. His friend had the business card of a Secret Service agent who had previously visited and interviewed them after hearing about his plan for a "big thing" to call attention to campaign finance reform. His friend called the Secret Service agent, got no answer, but left a message informing him of the impending flight. He never got a call back, and the authorities claimed they were not aware of the flight. So, yeah, bit of an intelligence failure there.

      Here's a much better article that includes a video at the bottom of him actually landing on the lawn, as well as the text of the letters he was trying to deliver. Note the complete lack of any resistance to him landing, the Capitol Police weren't out there and it took a little while to hear the first sirens.

      http://www.tampabay.com/news/p...

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    2. Re:Thank goodness the NSA is looking our for us by The+New+Guy+2.0 · · Score: 1

      info@barackobama.com

      That's like e-mailing the home address of a CEO to get a store employee to do something. BarackObama.com was one of his campaign sites.. government business happens at whitehouse.gov instead.

    3. Re:Thank goodness the NSA is looking our for us by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      He's a mailman, not a computer guy. It's all the big blue "E".

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    4. Re:Thank goodness the NSA is looking our for us by sexconker · · Score: 1

      BarackObama.com was one of his campaign sites

      Seems like the best way to reach that clown, even at T-19 months from irrelevancy.

    5. Re:Thank goodness the NSA is looking our for us by The+New+Guy+2.0 · · Score: 1

      He sent an e-mail to the president's website declaring he was going to do it, and assuming that generated permission to fly in a zone where a baseball home run isn't even allowed.

    6. Re:Thank goodness the NSA is looking our for us by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      I don't think he ever thought it gave him permission - it was merely advance warning of his intention to engage in civil disobedience... I don't know if you've ever had the concept explained ?

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    7. Re:Thank goodness the NSA is looking our for us by The+New+Guy+2.0 · · Score: 1

      A claim of civil disobedience doesn't lead to a not guilty verdict.

    8. Re:Thank goodness the NSA is looking our for us by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A claim of civil disobedience doesn't lead to a not guilty verdict.

      Of course not. Nobody said it did. If you conduct civil disobedience, you expect to be arrested and convicted. That's more or less the point.

    9. Re:Thank goodness the NSA is looking our for us by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      Where did I say it does ? Where did I say civil disobedience makes it not a crime ? But it can in many cases make a crime justified, and it's often the only way to bring about social change.
      Martin Luther King Junior's civil disobedience made him a national hero and got a holiday named after him. What about Rosa Parks ? Or the Boston Tea Party ? Or on an international scale Ghandi or Nelson Mandela ?
      Civil disobedience on a just grounds tends to make you a hero - conviction for it, will usually make you a martyr and while that is not much fun - it is a powerful weapon, there is no greater thorn in the side of a bad government than a martyr.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
  8. Right on Maaan..!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Talk about direct MAIL service with a personal Touch..
    So after informing the auth. of this issue, i bet he was still arrested, and charged with some mundane, not even remotely realistic reason, and will subsequently end up in a MAXIUM federal Pen with rapists, druglords, REAL TERRORISTS, and others of a truly unsavory character with a 100+ yr sentence..

    Pathetic

       

    1. Re:Right on Maaan..!!! by amxcoder · · Score: 1

      You see, only Jeff Bezos has special permission to be delivering mail and packages via a small helicopter. I guess Amazon got beat to the punch this time.

  9. Just get rid of democracy instead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    535 stamped letters for members of Congress urging 'real reform' to campaign finance laws

    Wouldn't it be simpler just to get rid of democracy instead? Whether you think democracy is a facade or real, it's past its use-by date, if it ever was a good idea.

    1. Re:Just get rid of democracy instead by smaddox · · Score: 2

      One representative per ~500,000 citizens is not democracy.

    2. Re:Just get rid of democracy instead by amicusNYCL · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What is the exact ratio between citizens and representatives which defines a democracy?

      All of this, of course, ignores the fact that the US is not, and has never been, an actual democracy. It is a Federal Republic.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    3. Re:Just get rid of democracy instead by DaHat · · Score: 1

      I hate to break it to you... but we aren't a democracy, we are a republic.

      Lets say we changed that ratio a bit... maybe 1 rep per 50k citizens... that would perhaps bump the number of reps to 4,350... do you think that would be any more workable?

    4. Re:Just get rid of democracy instead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If they actually represented those 500k people, then it would be fine. But they do not. They represent themselves and strive only for their own ambitions; fuck the average person that actually makes this country.

    5. Re:Just get rid of democracy instead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you know that every state has at least one representative no matter how few people live in the state? That means if Colorado City secedes from Arizona, it would have one representative for every 4,800 citizens. (Plus two senators equals three electoral votes FTW!)

      So what are you waiting for? Get seceding!

    6. Re:Just get rid of democracy instead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      42

    7. Re:Just get rid of democracy instead by Livius · · Score: 1

      It's more of a democracy than zero representatives per 500 000 citizens.

    8. Re:Just get rid of democracy instead by quintessencesluglord · · Score: 1

      I'd be in favor of creating a third branch of congress, made up solely of people chosen at random from their respective states.

      Give them the right to veto legislation, maybe not create bills, and otherwise oversee congress.

      We'd have a federal democratic republic then.

    9. Re: Just get rid of democracy instead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is no provision for seceding from a state, and certainly no automatic process to become a state.

    10. Re: Just get rid of democracy instead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      West Virginia did it, so it's possible.

    11. Re:Just get rid of democracy instead by sexconker · · Score: 2

      It would be much MORE workable.
      Bribery and blackmail would have to hit 10 times as many targets to be as effective. Deadlocks would be more easily broken through. The sharp edge of partisan lines would become blurrier. People would have an actual chance of meeting and talking to their representatives outside of some lip service campaign event or writing a big fat check.

    12. Re:Just get rid of democracy instead by DaHat · · Score: 1

      Your time would be better spent pushing for the repeal of the 17th amendment and ending direct election of senators.

    13. Re:Just get rid of democracy instead by Beck_Neard · · Score: 1

      It is neither a 'democracy' nor a republic. It is an oligarchy - in the technical sense: http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-...

      --
      A fool and his hard drive are soon parted.
    14. Re:Just get rid of democracy instead by Beck_Neard · · Score: 1

      It is just a republic on paper. In practice it's an oligarchy: http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-...

      --
      A fool and his hard drive are soon parted.
    15. Re:Just get rid of democracy instead by quintessencesluglord · · Score: 1

      There is too much vested interest in maintaining the current power structure for any substantive legislative change to happen within my lifetime. At this point, short of open revolt, there will be nothing except for a dog and pony show, with a token reform here and there.

      Nope, I'm looking more for future generations, and up and coming countries to learn from our mistakes and institute something new. We are not even a federal republic anymore, but an oligarchy, and as with all corrupted governments, a footnote on the way towards a better society.

    16. Re:Just get rid of democracy instead by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Just as well there's State and Local government as well then isn't it?
      Sorry if that sabotages your attempt to dumb things down to the point of uselessness.

    17. Re:Just get rid of democracy instead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh God, not the inane democracy vs. republic argument. You're wrong. Words have more than one narrow meaning.

      This is why a little learning is a dangerous thing.

    18. Re:Just get rid of democracy instead by The+New+Guy+2.0 · · Score: 1

      This is as old as the Roman Era governments... a democracy requires everybody to vote on everything, a republic selects representatives/senators to vote as an assembly.

    19. Re:Just get rid of democracy instead by The+New+Guy+2.0 · · Score: 1

      What source of randomness would you use for such a branch? In an era where there's too many rigged elections, how do you expect your randomness to be fair?

    20. Re:Just get rid of democracy instead by quintessencesluglord · · Score: 1

      Method could be as involved as, I forget the name, but the system was people chosen at random to then choose the next group of people to choose the next group of people, and seven iterations that group then finally choose the representatives. Or you could just select from the social security numbers in a state. Fairly anonymous then.

      As other people have mentioned, increasing the numbers of representatives makes it cost prohibitive to buy legislation. If people are chosen randomly, you get a broad section of the population who don't have re-election campaigns to donate to. They serve three years and then they are gone, replaced by the next lot who have no allegiances to previous backroom deals. Downside is it also makes it near impossible to pass legislation, so you need clear delineations of authority, and even greater checks and balances. Citizen juries have already been used in lower government functions to good effect, so it's not like it is unprecedented.

      Regarding fairness, it isn't absolute, as it will still have a strong element of majority rule, except for the occasional fluke, however, it is proven to be more effective:

      http://arxiv.org/abs/0907.0455

    21. Re:Just get rid of democracy instead by bondsbw · · Score: 2

      Why do we even need to elect our representatives? Consider this: if a rep gets 51% of the vote in the district, then nearly half the people are not represented. On top of this we have gerrymandering. If 80 out of 100 districts are 51% for party A and 49% for party B, and the other 20 districts are 100% for party B, you can easily see that despite having a real majority, party B has no actual power. Pretty sucky if you ask me.

      No... I have a different answer:

      Appointing our representation. In this system, each representative carries one vote for every person who appoints him or her. Taking the above scenario, if 51,000 people appointed rep A and 49,000 appoint rep B, then rep A gets 51,000 votes in congress and rep B gets 49,000 votes. But consider what that does to the 100 districts... now party A has 4,080,000 votes and party B has 5,920,000 votes on every issue... exactly what it should be.

      Appointment-based representation is fair, and it removes the power of gerrymandering.

      --
      All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
    22. Re:Just get rid of democracy instead by bondsbw · · Score: 2

      And I am aware of a few kinks that would need to be resolved. If you keep the current districts, there would need to be more seats as now there are multiple representatives per district. And what if 20 people run for a district and get votes, should all 20 get seats? Probably not.

      Some possibilities:

      - Reduce the number of districts.
      - Limit the number of representatives allowed per district.
      - Perhaps, just get rid of districts. If someone from across my state represents me better than someone local, then perhaps my appointment should not be limited by borders drawn for an election system that would no longer be in place.

      --
      All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
    23. Re:Just get rid of democracy instead by Dutch+Gun · · Score: 1

      Nowadays, when someone says "democracy", it's highly likely they're simply referring to the over-arching type of government in which power is vested in the citizenry. This happens to include republics like the US, as well as "pure democracies", in which every citizen takes part in the governing process, and many other variations as well, like the UK's constitutional monarchy.

      Note that historically, the term "democracy" has often been used to refer to "direct democracy". This was certainly true in the times and writings of the US founding fathers. Nowadays, the reverse is probably true. If you want to get stupidly technical or pedantic, the US could probably be considered a "hybrid", because while we clearly utilize a republic for most of our governing machinery, over half our states also have ballot initiatives, which are a form of direct democracy.

      I think it's perfectly fine to call the US a "democracy", so long as we recognize that we're obviously using the umbrella term and not a "direct democracy".

      --
      Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
    24. Re:Just get rid of democracy instead by dave420 · · Score: 4, Informative

      A country being a republic or not has absolutely nothing to do with being a democracy. And being federal also has nothing to do with being a democracy. These are orthogonal notions - a republic simply means a country without a hereditary or dynastic leader. It can be a democracy, or a dictatorship, or anything in between. A federal republic means simply a group of republics cooperating on common matters of interest while governing their own internal affairs - again, it has nothing to do with democracy. One could have a federal dictatorship, if one really wanted. Hell, there are non-republics which are democracies (Britain is a good example). Why do so many people have such difficulties with these words? The concepts are childishly easy to grasp. Why you got a +4 for telling everyone you don't know what those words means is beyond me :)

      The phrase you are probably looking for is "representative democracy".

    25. Re:Just get rid of democracy instead by houghi · · Score: 1

      Well, you are forcing other countries into democracy. Why not try it for youselves?

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    26. Re:Just get rid of democracy instead by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      The differences really aren't always that clear-cut. Was the Roman Republic a democracy ? Well it was called a Republic and it had senators acting as representatives... but it also had a form of direct democracy where all citizens were participants in the law-making process.

      What about hybrids found around the world today where a government of elected representatives govern while any citizen is empowered to propose new legislation, which the population then votes on whether to pass or not (direct democracy) - California has such a system, as does Switzerland and Sweden just of the top of my head ?

      Are they republics or democracies ? They are actually both.

      The original definition of democracy is actually a better description today of modern anarchist philosophy - which is all about direct democracy limited only in a few specific ways to prevent a tyranny of the majority (an example would be the PartPoly proposal from Harvard).
      Democracy and Republic are almost synonyms now. Republican and Democratic have another entirely different set of meanings attached due to the political parties bearing those names and what's worse, prior to the passage of the civil rights act those meanings were basically the exact OPPOSITES of what they are now, all of today's red states were blue and all the blue states were red and the Dixiecrats were a real thing ! Lincoln's party may have been called the Republicans at the time but they were voted in by the populations who voted for Obama the last two times and the groups who voted for Bush in the 2000s were people who voted Democrat in Lincoln's day.

      The problem with this is it makes it hard to acurately describe anything using simple terms since the meaning of those terms are so contextual and often downright lies (China and North Korea both claim to be Republics despite having absolutely no resemblance to a republic by any definition). A very large chunk of the people who vote Republican in the US today are actually Theocrats, and the politicians are an odd mixture of Fascists and Oligarchs (with perhaps the sole exception of Bernie Sanders, and maybe Ron Paul back in the day).

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    27. Re:Just get rid of democracy instead by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      A million republican voters just had a heart attack at the thought of any part of the government getting ten times bigger...

      As usual though, knee-jerk responses and rational responses do not correlate. I think that would be a pretty good idea.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    28. Re:Just get rid of democracy instead by JesseMcDonald · · Score: 1

      Perhaps, just get rid of districts. If someone from across my state represents me better than someone local, then perhaps my appointment should not be limited by borders drawn for an election system that would no longer be in place.

      Why even restrict the choice of representative to someone in your state? I'd just let anyone interest in the job apply to serve as a representative, provided they could meet some minimum number of votes nation-wide—perhaps 0.1% of the eligible voting population, so there could be at most 1,000 representatives. In practice it would probably be much less than 1,000, with a few individuals representing the major factions but plenty of room for minority positions. Each eligible voter gets three votes, and thus up to three representatives, which they are given the opportunity to change at regular intervals (e.g. quarterly, or when one of their representatives steps down). The votes are persistent until changed, and can be concentrated or spread out according to the voter's preference. A representative's influence in the House is determined by how many votes he or she currently holds.

      This would, of course, be separate from the states' representatives in the Senate, to be appointed by the state legislatures. Popular representation is all well and good, but someone has to look out for the long term. Under my system the House would be able to approve any short-term (discretionary) expenditures unilaterally out of existing savings, but a 2/3 super-majority in the Senate would be required for anything requiring new debt (to include any increase in the money supply), speculation on future revenues, or a commitment of more than a few years. Finally, all laws would be required to maintain the approval of a simple majority in both the House and the Senate or face immediate repeal following a call for a vote.

      --
      "The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
    29. Re:Just get rid of democracy instead by bondsbw · · Score: 1

      Why even restrict the choice of representative to someone in your state?

      That might work. My concern would be, it might kill local representation altogether in the House. It could also lead to a very popular person, or a small group of 5 or 10, having so much voting power that the rest really don't matter.

      I guess the same could happen in large states. Perhaps districts are still a good thing for this reason, but I think there might be merit in reducing the number of districts while increasing the number of representatives per district.

      --
      All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
    30. Re:Just get rid of democracy instead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's no amount of oligarchs that can make a democracy. The fact that "representative democracy" is nothing but a weak cover for rule by the powerful was considered obvious millennia ago. Modern experience does not contradict that experience. That's why real democracy puts power in the hands of statistically representative citizens, not those citizens who have enough wealth, power or charisma to become representatives.

    31. Re:Just get rid of democracy instead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It seems to be a common assumption that the phrase "representative democracy" is meaningful, but rule by representatives chosen by popularity is theoretically at odds with democracy in the original sense and practically at odds with democracy in any sense.

  10. Keep testing the fences by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Our failures of leadership need to have a little fear put into their hearts. Yes, anyone with a $500 drone, a gyrocopter, or the ability to climb a fence can get close enough to do some damage.

    I would be happy to defend the good old USA by donating to this patriots defense fund.

    1. Re:Keep testing the fences by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Spoken like a true terrorist

  11. a mailman from Ruskin, Florida by neminem · · Score: 0

    > "An anonymous reader writes that Doug Hughes, 61, a mailman from Ruskin, Florida"...

    I'm tired, and managed to somehow read that as "a mailman from Russia". I was pretty impressed with the guy's dedication, flying a gyro-copter all the way to DC!

    1. Re:a mailman from Ruskin, Florida by David_Hart · · Score: 1

      > "An anonymous reader writes that Doug Hughes, 61, a mailman from Ruskin, Florida"...

      I'm tired, and managed to somehow read that as "a mailman from Russia". I was pretty impressed with the guy's dedication, flying a gyro-copter all the way to DC!

      Well... He'd have to, wouldn't he. After all, with global warming the ice bridge to Alaska is gone.... (grin)

  12. Great idea, needs more volume... by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    I would love to see an organized protest (of anything) that involved a fleet of hundreds of quad-copters converging on the capital...

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  13. Notice doesn't always generate permission by The+New+Guy+2.0 · · Score: 1

    Simulated call...

    Suspect: I'm going to deliver some mail by Gyrocopter on the west lawn of the capitol buliding. Here's my ID and flight plan.
    Spook: Uhm, that's a no-fly zone...
    Suspect: Thanks for letting me do this.
    Spook: We'll have plenty of capitol police around you when you get there.

    The US Government doesn't accept mail at sites anymore... they download it from Earth Class Mail.

  14. Mail and autogyros go way back by magarity · · Score: 4, Interesting

    One of the first produced autogyros was for mail delivery and landed on the White House lawn. That one got a trophy from Pres Hoover.

    1. Re:Mail and autogyros go way back by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      And they say that history doesn't repeat itself.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
  15. Remembered for the wrong thing. by MinamataHG · · Score: 1

    Here is the problem with the news and the comments above.
    I went on to deliver letters for members of Congress urging 'real reform' to campaign finance laws but nobody will remember him for that.
    He'll be remembered as the guy whom landed a gyro-copter on the Capitol's lawn. This is sad.

    1. Re:Remembered for the wrong thing. by MinamataHG · · Score: 1

      Self correction... "He went on..." not "I went on..."

    2. Re:Remembered for the wrong thing. by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      We'll see. Although I agree it is unlikely to move the ball any, he stands a lot better chance doing it this way than say, taking off his clothes and running through a mall or some other stunt. He's going to get his 15 minutes of fame (and a huge passel of legal hurt) but if some politician were to take this up and push it, he has the enormous advantage of being thrown into the world's eyeballs for the next little while. It could go viral and maybe bang on the system a little bit.

      This day and age, that is a pretty significant accomplishment. Moreover, he actually sounds cogent and reasonable which is truly unusual.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    3. Re:Remembered for the wrong thing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Too late, Doug.

  16. Balls of steel by ArylAkamov · · Score: 5, Interesting

    What a man. Even if you disagree with his message (I can't think of anyone who would) the sheer courage to go ahead with this plan is astounding. What a man. Can we donate to his legal fund yet?

    1. Re:Balls of steel by Tontoman · · Score: 1

      The Capitol police showed remarkable restraint.

    2. Re:Balls of steel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can we donate to his legal fund yet?

      Not anymore. It's illegal to donate to enemies of the State (which means everyone).

    3. Re:Balls of steel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You mean they did their job in a professional and trained fashion rather than running him over with a tank?

    4. Re:Balls of steel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I just wanted to say that when I first read this story on google news it made me very happy. Here is a man willing to take action, ready for the consequences and most importantly not a dick. If you read the tampa newspaper article about him he really sounds like a swell guy.

      The fact that he wasn't shot down or anything else terrible is a testament that despite all the 9/11 knee-jerking we've had over the last 15 years, the terrorists have not won. In some important ways we still are a decent country. It gives me hope.

    5. Re:Balls of steel by ScentCone · · Score: 0, Troll

      Even if you disagree with his message (I can't think of anyone who would)

      What? His message is that he wants the government to limit your ability to engage in free speech. Ironically, he wants to the right to make a highly dangerous (to other people), theatrical exhibition of political speech ... in support of limiting other people's constitutionally protected speech. That sort of irrational position on free speech may indeed be in keeping with someone who thinks he's doing others a favor by risking their deaths in a publicity stunt.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    6. Re:Balls of steel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > His message is that he wants the government to limit your ability to engage in free speech

      That is not his message, but complete fabrication is part and parcel of your typical troll posts.

    7. Re:Balls of steel by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      That is not his message, but complete fabrication is part and parcel of your typical troll posts.

      OK, so what IS his message? That he thinks the government should NOT interfere with political speech? Because that's the opposite of what he's saying. He thinks that the government should control who gets to say what. That's the bottom line of his position. Just because you don't like it being boiled down to its essence and said out loud doesn't mean that doing so is trolling. It's just calling it what it is.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    8. Re:Balls of steel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The argument for limiting corporate contributions and even individual contributions is pretty sound actually. It's got an undue influence. No doubt there are problems with doing so mind you. However it's quite concerning that some organizations are restriction and not others. That is unions are restriction and for-profit corporations are not.

    9. Re:Balls of steel by goodmanj · · Score: 1

      Yes. I actually feel a little bit better about America knowing that this guy lived to tell the tale.

    10. Re:Balls of steel by Jeremi · · Score: 4, Insightful

      His message is that he wants the government to limit your ability to engage in free speech.

      There's a constant and deliberate conflation of money and speech going on in this country. They are not equivalent to each other.

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    11. Re:Balls of steel by dave420 · · Score: 1

      This is a massive part of what's screwed up with US politics - this perverse idea that money = speech.

    12. Re:Balls of steel by houghi · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The fact that you think it is remarkable that police did NOT beat somebody senseless or kill him is very worrying.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    13. Re:Balls of steel by dfenstrate · · Score: 0

      His message is that he wants the government to limit your ability to engage in free speech.

      There's a constant and deliberate conflation of money and speech going on in this country. They are not equivalent to each other.

      It's a lot easier to be heard when you have money. You know it, I know it. What Mayday pac and their friends want is to shut down voices that aren't sufficiently obedient to the left.
      Incidentally, you stop hearing about the evils of money in politics for a while whenever Tom Steyer or Tim Cook opens his mouth, but as soon as another two-minute hate of the Koch brothers is invented, it's all over the headlines again.

      --
      Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
    14. Re:Balls of steel by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      This is a massive part of what's screwed up with US politics - this perverse idea that money = speech.

      Well, I get that "evil money is speech!" is the rallying cry of those who want a bigger, more powerful government limiting what some people (but not everyone) can say.

      But money isn't speech. Speech is speech. If the people who say they're mad that "money is speech" had their way, the new complaint would be "control is speech."

      If the court hadn't struck down the unconstitutional law, we'd still be in a position where you, personally, couldn't run an ad expressing your opinion about your local congressional race a week before an election expressing your opinion ... even while the editorial staff at, say, NBC or NPR or Fox or CNN are allowed to shape and air all the opinions they want, or certain exempted groups could. Just not you. The first amendment was no longer protecting you (or 10,000 of you and your like-minded friends who wanted to pool your time and other resources to express your opinions together).

      So what's your suggestion? The government "shall make no law ... abridging speech" except when it's abridging the speech of people who buy ads? It's never been less expensive to get a message out in front of huge numbers of people. Money doesn't equal speech, well-crafted messages equal memorable speech - and you can get it out there for free, with people who think like you passing the word. But the Nanny State types even want to control that. They only want the mostly lefter-leaning media operations to have a free hand with their audiences prior to an election, because they know which candidates such media entities will back. And they'd prefer that you couldn't even be allowed to run a politically-oriented blog that might interfere with that orchestrated message. People who want control over political speech really want control over particular types of political speech, and they're making a calculated gamble that they can skew that control in their favor. The court was right to deny them that power over your freedom of expression.

      The "perverse idea" that's on the table isn't that money = speech. It's that control = liberty. Thankfully the first amendment is still very much in place.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    15. Re:Balls of steel by ScentCone · · Score: 0

      It's a lot easier to be heard when you have money

      Right. It's a lot easier to hand out leaflets if you have a printing press. Can't afford one? Have a good enough message that people who DO have a printing press will agree with you and help to print some stuff up. Or help air an ad, etc.

      This is what was wrong with the law the court struck down: it was preventing people from gathering together and pooling their resources to speak in a more organized way. Counter-constitutional on many levels, and absolutely deserved the fate that it got. And you're exactly correct about the hypocrisy when it's the left's darlings throwing around big piles of money.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    16. Re:Balls of steel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They showed restraint in that they didn't point 10,000 guns at him the second he landed. Or tackle and tase him as soon as he disembarked.

      I understand it's fashionable to scream "ABUSE" these days, but this story doesn't fit that particular meme.

    17. Re:Balls of steel by silentcoder · · Score: 2

      No. You fucking idiot.
      His message is that how much attention government officials PAY to political speech should not depend on how rich the speaker is.

      And that is why campaign finance reform is needed, because without it the ONLY people who get listened to AT ALL is the rich. Without it, you HAVE no freedoms unless the rich don't CARE that you have them - anything that bothers them can and will be revoked.

      Without campaign finance reform you don't live in a democracy OR a republic - hell you don't even live in an oligarchy ! You are living in a thinly disguised aristocracy ! The whole point of creating your country was to ESCAPE aristocracy and monarchy as systems of political power - and you're insisting that those who bravely fight back against the forces turning the USA into the very thing it was created to escape from are somehow the enemies of freedom.

      No my friend - the only enemy of freedom in this discussion is you, and the wealthy campaign donors you are defending.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    18. Re:Balls of steel by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      It's also worth noting that corporations are not people, cannot vote and don't have human rights. You can't violate a corporation's rights, they don't HAVE any and even if you accept his ludicrous idea that money == speech so restricting spending on politics is censorship - you can STILL restrict corporate political spending WITHOUT intruding on ANYBODY'S freedom because corporations do not HAVE freedom to intrude upon.
      They have whatever privileges society benefits from giving them.

      And when it comes to campaign finance, it's about time somebody pulls a Picard: The line must be drawn here, no farther !
      Actually, that time was probably about 60 years ago...

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    19. Re:Balls of steel by khallow · · Score: 1

      you can STILL restrict corporate political spending WITHOUT intruding on ANYBODY'S freedom

      Of course that is wrong. As ScentCone noted, the law in question was preventing people from pooling their resources (via a corporation, a very common organizational structure for non-profits) to distribute a political message, which is a legitimate application of the First Amendment.

    20. Re:Balls of steel by jpvlsmv · · Score: 0

      Of course they didn't. He's white.

    21. Re:Balls of steel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      His message is that he wants the government to limit your ability to engage in free speech.

      There's a constant and deliberate conflation of money and speech going on in this country. They are not equivalent to each other.

      So, let's say I want to print out fliers about how the government sucks. You are saying that the government can't prohibit me from saying they suck, but you are ok with them passing laws saying it is illegal for me to buy printer paper to print my fliers saying that. Likewise, I want to put up a web site. They can't stop me from saying it, but they can make it illegal to pay for my monthly cable bill in order to use the internet to post the message. I can say stuff out loud, but they can legally prohibit me from spending money on a taxi to get downtown where there are a lot of people to hear my message right? And they can legally prohibit me from buying shoes to walk downtown to spread my anti-government message too, since that is money, not speech, right? It turns out that if you can stop people from spending money on speech, you can pretty much stop them from speaking if you want to take it far enough...

         

    22. Re:Balls of steel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Of course that is wrong. As ScentCone noted, the law in question was preventing people from pooling their resources (via a corporation, a very common organizational structure for non-profits) to distribute a political message, which is a legitimate application of the First Amendment.

      I have no trouble with people pooling resources and having their First Amendment rights maintained as group. However, if they want limited liability, then I have a problem with that. You can't give up your responsibility for the speech and still keep your full First Amendment right at the same time. That bullshit.

    23. Re:Balls of steel by penandpaper · · Score: 1

      But money isn't speech.

      You should tell that to Justice Scalia. He seems to think so.

      Citizen United is predicated on the idea that Corporations are people therefore they have the same legal protections as citizens. As you pointed out, if you agree with that premise then it would follow that you should not be able to restrict which corporation can spend money in politics. This underlying idea, that corporations are people, is not new and has been around as judicial precedent since the founding of the republic.

      Do you think that corporations should be able to influence elections despite their inability to vote? What is stopping the citizens that make up those corporations exercising their rights to express their opinions?

      Money in politics is not a good thing. I don't think any one disputes that. What is disputed is that non-voting "people" are controlling the dialogue because of their vast reservoirs of cash.

      How do you reduce the blatant corruption and bribery infecting all levels of government? http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/... https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    24. Re:Balls of steel by khallow · · Score: 1

      I have no trouble with people pooling resources and having their First Amendment rights maintained as group. However, if they want limited liability, then I have a problem with that.

      It's a standard application of the First Amendment. The whole point is to allow it no matter how much of a problem you or the powers-that-be have with it.

  17. going postal by bugs2squash · · Score: 4, Funny

    Once he radioed in to tell them he was with the USPS the secret service knew for sure he could not possibly be an armed maniac.

    --
    Nullius in verba
  18. Hughs' Letter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    Dear ___________,

    Consider the following statement by John Kerry in his farewell speech to the Senate —

    "The unending chase for money I believe threatens to steal our democracy itself. They know it. They know we know it. And yet, Nothing Happens!" — John Kerry, 2-13

    In a July 2012 Gallup poll, 87% tagged corruption in the federal government as extremely important or very important, placing this issue just barely behind job creation. According to Gallup, public faith in Congress is at a 41-year record low, 7%. (June 2014) Kerry is correct. The popular perception outside the DC beltway is that the federal government is corrupt and the US Congress is the major problem. As a voter, I'm a member of the only political body with authority over Congress. I'm demanding reform and declaring a voter's rebellion in a manner consistent with Jefferson's description of rights in the Declaration of Independence. As a member of Congress, you have three options.

    1. You may pretend corruption does not exist.

    2. You may pretend to oppose corruption while you sabotage reform.

    3. You may actively participate in real reform.

    If you're considering option 1, you may wonder if voters really know what the 'chase for money' is. Your dismal and declining popularity documented by Gallup suggests we know, but allow a few examples, by no means a complete list. That these practices are legal does not make them right! Obviously, it is Congress who writes the laws that make corruption legal.

    1. Dozens of major and very profitable corporations pay nothing in taxes. Voters know how this is done. Corporations pay millions to lobbyists for special legislation. Many companies on the list of freeloaders are household names — GE, Boeing, Exxon Mobil, Verizon, Citigroup, Dow

    2. Almost half of the retiring members of Congress from 1998 to 2004 got jobs as lobbyists earning on average fourteen times their Congressional salary. (50% of the Senate, 42% of the House)

    3. The new democratic freshmen to the US House in 2012 were 'advised' by the party to schedule 4 hours per day on the phones fund raising at party headquarters (because fund raising is illegal from gov't offices.) It is the donors with deep pockets who get the calls, but seldom do the priorities of the rich donor help the average citizen.

    4. The relevant (rich) donors who command the attention of Congress are only .05% of the public (5 people in a thousand) but these aristocrats of both parties are who Congress really works for. As a member of the US Congress, you should work only for The People.

    1. Not yourself.

    2. Not your political party.

    3. Not the richest donors to your campaign.

    4. Not the lobbyist company who will hire you after your leave Congress.

    There are several credible groups working to reform Congress. Their evaluations of the problem are remarkably in agreement though the leadership (and membership) may lean conservative or liberal. They see the corrupting effect of money — how the current rules empower special interests through lobbyists and PACs — robbing the average American of any representation on any issue where the connected have a stake. This is not democracy even if the ritual of elections is maintained.

    The various mechanisms which funnel money to candidates and congress-persons are complex. It happens before they are elected, while they are in office and after they leave Congress. Fortunately, a solution to corruption is not complicated. All the proposals are built around either reform legislation or a Constitutional Amendment. Actually, we need both — a constitutional amendment and legislation.

    There will be discussion about the structure and details of reform. As I see it, campaign finance reform is the cornerstone of building an honest Congress. Erect a wall of separation between our elected officials and big money. This you must do — or your replacement will do. A corporation is not 'people' and no individ

  19. the real crazy: by circletimessquare · · Score: 4, Informative

    most americans agree with him

    he could have chosen a better way to make his point. but he'll be prosecuted, and the corruption will continue

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:the real crazy: by mishehu · · Score: 2

      What "better" way would that be? Seems to me guy's got balls of steel or is mentally unstable.. I'm going with the former, and I think I'll contribute to his needs-stronger-underwear-to-hold-his-steel-balls fund. :-)

    2. Re:the real crazy: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      one better way would be somehow that people knew what he was protesting instead of just how wacky landing on the white house lawn is.

    3. Re:the real crazy: by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      most americans agree with him

      No, most Americans do not think that the government be allowed to stop you from expressing your opinion about politics. That's what the First Amendment is there to prevent the government from doing.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    4. Re:the real crazy: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      most americans agree with him

      No, most Americans do not think that the government be allowed to stop you from expressing your opinion about politics. That's what the First Amendment is there to prevent the government from doing.

      Do you have a point or are you just making non-sequiturs for your own amusement?

      Companies are not people, institutions are not people, groups are not people, only individuals are people, groups do not deserve extra rights over individuals.

    5. Re:the real crazy: by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      groups do not deserve extra rights over individuals.

      So I have the right to say something political during an election. And you have the right to do so. Each of us can, say, run an ad in the newspaper to express ourselves about politics, and the first amendment protects us from the government controlling our speech. Right?

      But if we also engage in our protected right to assemble as a group, and do something horrific like ... sharing the cost of running that exact same ad because we realize that we're on the same page ... then suddenly we lose the rights protected by the first amendment?

      The amendment says: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

      Explain where, in that very clear language, it says that the government CAN make a law abridging the freedom of speech of two people who say the same thing together as a group. Be specific.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    6. Re:the real crazy: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most Americans probably will not agree that money is equivalent to speech, that's the crux of the issue. Does that mean they're ignorant and incorrect or does it mean the Supreme court's verdict on Citizens United is questionable?

    7. Re:the real crazy: by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      Most Americans probably will not agree that money is equivalent to speech, that's the crux of the issue.

      Who said money is the equivalent of speech? We're talking about the striking down of a law that was prohibiting political speech (only by some groups and companies, not others) whether it cost any money or not. The law was about political communication, not about whether or how much it cost. The first amendment doesn't say that government is prohibited from interfering with speech as long as it's done on a low budget. It says it can make no law abridging speech.

      Does that mean they're ignorant and incorrect or does it mean the Supreme court's verdict on Citizens United is questionable?

      It means they're ignorant and incorrect, yes. About the First Amendment.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    8. Re:the real crazy: by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

      money isn't speech

      money is corruption

      if the guy with the most money gets the most speech, that is in fact the exact definition of corruption

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    9. Re:the real crazy: by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

      you're not being intellectually honest. if the guy with the most money gets the most speech, that is a corrupt government. it's pretty much the exact definition of corruption

      "i have more money than you, therefore my words matter more than you" that's the end result of what you are saying, whether you admit to it or not. now you need to be intellectually honest and admit that's what your beliefs really mean. you embrace corruption

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    10. Re:the real crazy: by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      you're not being intellectually honest. if the guy with the most money gets the most speech

      Except it's never been LESS expensive to get your speech out in front of millions of people. If you really want the unconstitutional law back in place, what you're really saying is that you are afraid that your own message is too unconvincing, too bankrupt to be swept up and passed along and echoed by honest people, and that you'd prefer that the government limit the speech of your opponents so that what you stand for isn't held up to scrutiny. If you prefer the unconstitutional law that was in place, it means you prefer that companies like NBC or the New York Times are allowed to put all of their resources into political speech in the period before an election while your opponents are muzzled by the government.

      That's the end result YOU prefer, and which we were facing until the court correctly weighed the law against the plain language of the constitution. As with every one of your posts, the only way you can pretend you're being honest is to pretend you're so dumb that you completely misunderstand the constitution and turn it exactly upside down. You think the first amendment is meant to limit the speech of people you don't like, rather than what it's really for, which is to prevent exactly that.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    11. Re:the real crazy: by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      So if you persuade 100,000 other people to agree with you on an topic and decide to act in concert to make sure that the rest of the country notice your take on things (by doing things like running a good web site, using social media, maybe running some ads), that's corruption, to you? Or is it only corruption when you don't like what 100,000 other people get together and say and you happen to disagree with them? Yeah, I thought so.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    12. Re:the real crazy: by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

      if you get to plaster propaganda and lies, it is very easy to crowd out truth and reason

      you do understand people lie in the service of their agenda, right?

      broke ass liars exist too. it's just that they get drowned out by truth, all else being equal

      add money to the equation, and lies crowd out truth, because those who make money from sources that depend upon lying need to keep that coming. it's an investment: keep people dumb and divided, and you can keep robbing them

      this notion that money is the equivalent of speech is stupid and laughable. that anyone says it with a straight face is simple proof of how corrupt they are

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    13. Re:the real crazy: by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

      the repetition of lies in bought and paid for media channels crowds out truth. people are easy to confuse and don't have the time to research topics. so you smack them over the head repeatedly with smears and propaganda and you move opinion away from truth

      those who derive cash from unfair sources depend upon keeping people divided and ignorant as to the truth to keep robbing us. it's an investment

      this notion that money mixed with speech is fair is stupid and laughable. it's the very definition of corruption. if you honestly see no problem with it your intent is malicious or you're stupendously naive/ ignorant

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    14. Re:the real crazy: by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      you do understand people lie in the service of their agenda, right?

      Of course, people do it all the time. I've watched you do it here, many times. But would you prefer that the government stop you from being able to talk?

      keep people dumb and divided, and you can keep robbing them

      Which is exactly why we have a First Amendment. So that the government can't be in the business of shutting down speech.

      this notion that money is the equivalent of speech is stupid and laughable

      So why do you keep perpetuating a false idea? Money isn't speech, speech is speech. And you want to get more people to hear what you have to say, you're going to have to get what you want to say out in front of a larger audience. What's your suggestion ... that someone else pay for your ability to do so, because you can't get enough traction with your ideas on your own? Or that people who do get more traction should be silenced by the government so that your ideas, which can't compete, still get plenty of attention? What happens then? Every person with a nonsense agenda is equally heard? THAT is the "noise" you're talking about.

      People who have good enough ideas to attract the support of others, so that they can voice their opinions in concert, aren't stopped from doing so. But the law you seem to prefer was shutting them up. If your ideas can't seem to get any support from other people, I guess I can see why you'd be in favor of the government silencing other people. Luckily, we have a constitution that doesn't allow that.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    15. Re:the real crazy: by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      people are easy to confuse and don't have the time to research topics

      So instead of using your constitutionally protected rights to assemble with like minded people and speak to your heart's content in order to inform and persuade others to see things they way you'd like, you're opting for "people are dumb, so we need the government to silence others with whom I disagree." Right out of every totalitarian's playbook. Hope you're proud of yourself.

      those who derive cash from unfair sources

      Ah, now we're getting to the heart of the matter. You don't think it's fair that other people make money in ways of which you don't approve. Are you talking about criminals? Then you should be supporting the prosecution of crime, not the destruction of the constitution's protection from government muzzling of free speech. But then, people who know they don't have a persuasive message always look to use force to prevent others from saying things. You're in good company with lots of tinpot dictators, fascists, and other totalitarians throughout history. It's a good thing the people who wrote the constitution had just had lots of experience with people just like you, and constructed a national charter that prevents people like you from using government force to silence those you don't like.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    16. Re:the real crazy: by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

      But would you prefer that the government stop you from being able to talk?

      no one is telling anyone not to talk. what is being said is that your speech should rise and fall on its merit alone. not automatically dominate the conversation, simply because someone purchased that. usually to preserve corrupt sources of income that exists exactly because the truthful speech about the corruption is squelched and drowned out by lies and propaganda

      are you trying to say purchased lies and propaganda don't exist and can't dominate and flood out the truth unfairly?

      People who have good enough ideas to attract the support of others, so that they can voice their opinions in concert, aren't stopped from doing so.

      they are stopped

      do you think the full page 72 point bold faced lie on page 2 has equal influence as the carefully reasoned and truthful letter to the editor buried on the bottom of page 32?

      this is what i don't understand about you:

      you're trying to deny a very obvious fact: that money can influence opinion unfairly. it does. this is not a fact in doubt by anyone intelligent and honest on this topic

      so if you continue to deny that, we are left wondering if you are an intelligent person with malicious intent. or a very dumb person who can't understand something very simple

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    17. Re:the real crazy: by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

      i am a manufacturer that pollutes the water source of a small town. i don't want to spend the millions it would take to fix that, pay reparations, face oversight, etc.

      instead i spend a lot of money, but less money, on 72 point bold font lies on page 2 of my local paper every day. "jobs will be lost!" (despite my sky high profits that could easily absorb the costs) "the pollution is harmless!" (contrary to solid scientific evidence) " no one is actually polluting!" {despite proof)

      the proof, science, and financials are attested to by honest citizens, and this is buried on page 32, mostly unread

      most people read the lies first, and only a few people scan the editorials for 30 seconds. in this way popular opinion is shifted, and the populace is left with beliefs that do not match truth

      do you understand that example?

      welcome to the reality of a topic you are injecting a profoundly ignorant or malicious willful intellectual dishonesty into

      stop lying, or start thinking, whether you are malicious or just stupid on this topic

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    18. Re:the real crazy: by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      no one is telling anyone not to talk

      The law that was struck down did exactly that. It made it a federal crime for some people, and not others, to talk. You know this, so why are you lying?

      what is being said is that your speech should rise and fall on its merit alone

      But because you can't get enough people to find your personal ideas to have enough merit to "rise," you want the government to stop other people from gathering together to speak their minds? You don't want merit, you want to use government force to make other people silent because you don't like what someone else has to say.

      they are stopped

      How? They are prevented from running web sites? No. Prevented from using social media? No. Prevented from doing what you're doing right now? No. But under the law you say you prefer, they WERE prevented, by the government, from expressing political opinions ... unless they were the people running the media outlet, in which case they were allowed to. So, you want NBC to be able to speak about politics, you just don't want me to, and you're willing to scrap the first amendment and use government force to stop me from ... spending $50 to run an ad in my local paper, explaining why a congressional candidate's policy position is wrong-headed? You must really have zero confidence in your own ability to voice a coherent opinion if you're so willing to give up the first amendment in order to silence someone else. Complete cowardice.

      you're trying to deny a very obvious fact: that money can influence opinion unfairly

      It's only unfair when people like you use the power of the government to pick and choose which groups of people are allowed to communicate. You want to trash the first amendment so that political appointees working in the FEC can choose to prosecute someone for running that page-two ad, while MSNBC can spend half an hour on the air expressing the opinion you prefer. Are you really so foolish that you think your hypocrisy on this isn't completely transparent? Are you so unable to find merit in your own opinions or your ability coherently communicate them that you'd prefer to take away other people's rights to speak, just so you don't have to get your act together? Talk about craven intellectual laziness.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    19. Re:the real crazy: by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

      The law that was struck down did exactly that. It made it a federal crime for some people, and not others, to talk. You know this, so why are you lying?

      the law says you can unfairly manipulate and dominate a conversation by flooding it with bought and paid for propaganda and lies. why are *you* lying?

      really, your stunning naivete or malicious intellectual dishonesty on this topic is ridiculous

      you want to assert that media buys by people with lots of money to serve corrupt financial influence is not real? you really want to assert that?

      it's like dealing with a creationist or an antivaxxer: you can't continue to assert an insane and clearly false belief and expect to be taken seriously

      unless of course you have a lot of money and flood and dominate the topic... then you are taken "seriously" by professional whores, aka corrupt politicians

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    20. Re:the real crazy: by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      the law says you can unfairly manipulate and dominate a conversation by flooding it with bought and paid for propaganda and lies

      No, the law said absolutely nothing about the content of the political speech. You know this, so saying that it was about "lies" is you: lying. The law said nothing about "dominating" a conversation, or "flooding" anything. That's you, lying.

      What the law did say was that if you, yourself, personally, ran an ad in the local newspaper to say that, maybe, you think gay marriage shouldn't be illegal, and that congressional candidate (or party) X is wrong for saying it should be illegal ... YOU ARE NOW A FEDERAL FELON for having had that opinion printed. This is your idea of how the first amendment works? I know you'll say yes, because you've shown over and over again that you're willing to pretend the constitution says things that it doesn't, in order to allow you to support the government violating that charter.

      your stunning naivete

      Blah blah blah ... what's really amazing is that YOU are so naive that you actually think people aren't capable of reading the words of a law and seeing that you are deliberately, purposefully lying about it. How about this: YOU point out the actual words in McCain-Feingold that talk about the size, accuracy, cost, merit, or any other qualities of political speech, and we'll have something to talk about. YOU show how the law's baked-in violation of the Equal Protection clause wasn't being violated, and we'll have something to talk about. But you won't, because you know you can't.

      Since you can't manage to defend your position on constitutional grounds, why not try this: propose a law that prevents people from gathering together in a group, pooling their resources, and using those resources to express an opinion about politics ... and which doesn't break the first amendment. Remember, the first amendment says that congress shall pass no law that abridges speech. So the law you want, which will stop people from speaking, has to pass that test. Please write down, here, the language of that law, and how it would work. If you don't, then you're showing yourself to be the disingenuous person you appear to be. Otherwise, admit that what you really want is for the first amendment to be altered. It's one of the other, you can't have it both ways.

      OK, I'll save you the trouble: you can't write a law that uses government power to shut people up unless you violate the first amendment. So we get to what you really want: you want to trash the first amendment. Just admit it, you'll feel much better not having to pretend you mean something else, and knowing that everybody can see right through your little charade.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    21. Re:the real crazy: by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

      The law said nothing about "dominating" a conversation, or "flooding" anything. That's you, lying.

      i stopped reading here. i'm still trying to understand if you are being incredible stupid or malicious

      you do understand that a large media buy can (well, no, they *do*, every day) flood a topic with lies, confusion, propaganda, right?

      do you deny that?

      if you do deny that, you're simply not a serious person on this topic and there is no value in talking to you

      9/11 was an inside job, we never landed on the moon, chemtrails poison our mind, etc: that's the same quality of your words on this topic. on this topic, you're a kook. because you deny a very simple and obvious fact and construct a wackjob belief in direct contradiction to simple and obvious reality

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    22. Re:the real crazy: by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      i stopped reading here

      No you didn't. But you're pretending you did so that you can avoid having to actually do what you're being challenged to do: come up with your version of a government law that limits speech while not violating the first amendment. You know you can't do it, so you're pretending you didn't see that part.

      Everything else you're saying is you trying to distract from the fact that what you want is irreconcilable with the constitution. So that you can avoid confronting that reality, you're just blathering. This is exactly what you did when presented with contextual facts surrounding the second amendment. The moment you're asked to reconcile your agenda with the constitution, you have a fit and leave, so that you don't have to demonstrate that your position is untenable.

      Too bad. Not letting you off the hook. Try again:

      How would you write a law that empowers the government to prevent speech, without changing the first amendment? Be specific.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    23. Re:the real crazy: by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

      No you didn't

      i really did. and i just did it again with this comment. because i mean this:

      if you do deny that, you're simply not a serious person on this topic and there is no value in talking to you

      you can't have a useful conversation with someone who lies and denies really simple facts. you're in the same category as creationists and antivaxxers. you can't be taken seriously because your belief is predicated on denying truth

      useless conversation over

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    24. Re:the real crazy: by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      There! Just like always, you run away because you can't reconcile your desire for control of other people with the constitution's limits on the government doing so.

      You want the government to limit speech, but you don't have the personal integrity to say it out loud. What are you afraid of? Explain how you'd reconcile the censorship you desire with the first amendment. But you'll pretend, once again, that you didn't see anyone asking you to face the music. Pretty childish way of admitting you're wrong, but I guess it's one way for you to do it. Glad you've come to your senses.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    25. Re:the real crazy: by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

      i would be delighted to talk to you if you would agree to basic simple aspects of reality. but if you deny truth and persist with a belief that contradicts simple evidence, then to continue to deal with you is simply a form of insanity

      god bless dawkins, because i don't have the stomach for dealing with wackjobs. this is what it is like dealing with someone like yourself who has beliefs in contradiction to simple reality:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

      sorry dude, don't have the time

      but you can persist like the guy who smells like urine, and thinks people back down because he's tough

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    26. Re:the real crazy: by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      So, indeed, you want government censorship of political speech. Yes or no?

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    27. Re:the real crazy: by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      We don't even have to get IN to whether or to what degree one ad or another does or doesn't feel "fair" to you. Because it all comes down to what you want: censorship. Until you just plainly say what you want, there's no point getting into the rest of it. And you won't come out and say it because you know that the control you want is not compatible with the constitution.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    28. Re:the real crazy: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We're talking about it. I'd say it worked. Consider it an act of Civil Disobedience. He did something noteworthy, newsworthy, politically relevant, and did so without injuring himself, others, or property. Nice job.

      I bet he's going to have some high-end lawyers willing to do some pro-bono work on his behalf, since the news will be watching this. And maybe, just maybe, some excellent lawyering and a little Jury Nullification may get this guy off.

    29. Re:the real crazy: by JimFive · · Score: 1

      propose a law that prevents people from gathering together in a group, pooling their resources, and using those resources to express an opinion about politics ... and which doesn't break the first amendment.

      McCain-Feingold was not an attempt to "prevent people from gathering together in a group, pooling their resources, and using those resources to express an opinion about politics". It was an attempt to say that you can't use a giant megaphone to express those opinions within a certain time before an election. Did it succeed? The Supreme Court said, "No".

      Is money corrupting the political process? Is there a way to stop it? Reasonable people can disagree about those things.

      Do you think that laws against libel and slander violate the first amendment? What about a law requiring that political ads not be misleading? What about a law requiring that using someone's name in an ad requires the permission of the named? What about a law requiring that any factual statements in an ad or speech be given a reputable source (and what would reputable mean)? What about a law saying that all donors must be disclosed?

      By the way, it wasn't Citizen's United ruled that money is speech, it was Buckley v. Valeo(1976)

      --
      Please stop using the word theory when you mean hypothesis.
    30. Re:the real crazy: by mishehu · · Score: 1

      And how do you propose to accomplish this? I'm sure that the gov't would be just happy to stamp those permission-to-land-a-gyrocopter-on-capitol-hill forms in a heartbeat...

    31. Re:the real crazy: by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      McCain-Feingold was not an attempt to "prevent people from gathering together in a group, pooling their resources, and using those resources to express an opinion about politics"

      That's exactly what it was. How else would you characterize you being subject to felony federal charges if you (personally, or as part of a group) run an issue or party advocacy ad in the week before an election? It wasn't about the size or loudness of the "megaphone," it was about political speech, period. Unless you are part of one of the groups that the law allowed to continue. Which is the second reason why the law was struck down - unequal protection. The law abridged free speech, and applied the law unevenly to different parties. Unconstitutional right out of the gate on both counts.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
  20. Congress by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Does not have any sense of humor at all.

  21. They would seal off the whole area by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    if a fly so much as takes a shit behind the fences. Americans love to make themselves seem important in ways like these.

  22. What about balloon boy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Balloon boy is going to be pisseddd

  23. Re: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I heard they get you drunk first. Perhaps it is better for people that like the social lubricant.

  24. He had what he needed by SuperKendall · · Score: 3, Informative

    It's gotta come from the right clearance to get there.

    Come on, he had AT LEAST 100 feet of clearance. If that's not enough I don't know what is.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:He had what he needed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uhh, why was this marked as "Informative?" "Funny" I would understand due to the intentional misunderstanding of the word "clearance" (referring to available air space, as opposed to processing facility), but "Informative?"

  25. Well that's rather the point by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    So instead of there being a helicopter in the air with a human at controls

    What about an auto-gyro with 30 lbs or so of C4? Do you still want the "human at the controls"? You don't know what the intentions are, you just know it's very illegal to be there yet there he is.

    At this point you'd have to be an idiot to be a terrorist and not try to pilot a small explosive laden gyro into some major target, since it's obviously so easy.

    I can't believe the "no fly zone" over Washington is such a total sham with not even a monitoring aircraft on top of him. Just like the Pirate Code, the No Fly Zone appears to be more of what you would call guidelines than an actual rule...

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Well that's rather the point by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      The standard interception craft couldn't do anything. They can't follow him. They would only be of use to shoot him down, and would likely have to manually engage with guns (with great risk to the surroundings) because the gryo is too small and slow (and likely low) to do much else with.

      Maybe they could have sent up a helicopter, but the standard response is jets, who can't go slow enough or work closely enough to give an effective response.

    2. Re:Well that's rather the point by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 3, Insightful

      What about an auto-gyro with 30 lbs or so of C4? Do you still want the "human at the controls"? You don't know what the intentions are, you just know it's very illegal to be there yet there he is.

      This man was known to the Secret Service, they even interviewed him a year or so before this, on a tip that he would do JUST THIS.

      In addition, he called the Secret Service an hour before he got there to let them know he was coming and why. The press also called them because he was in contact with the press to let them know this was a publicity stunt.

    3. Re:Well that's rather the point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      This man was known to the Secret Service

      This used to mean something back in the days.
      In a time when everyone is under surveillance it only means that you have used the Internet at least once.

      Don't let statements along the line of "previously known by the police" be enough for you to think "there is probably something sketchy with this guy".
      It doesn't mean what it used to.

    4. Re:Well that's rather the point by g0bshiTe · · Score: 1

      Your comment was rational and well thought out but missed the obvious so borders on foolish.

      Would have been much easier and less obvious for the pilot to drive 30lbs of C4 into position in a vehicle or a backpack or bag vs the stealthy manner of flying it in with something as unwieldy and less than threatening gyro-copter.

      To my knowledge gyros also don't have transponders and I'm not sure if they show up on radar.

      --
      I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
    5. Re:Well that's rather the point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So they could have had a response ready to make the point that closed airspace is closed. Now a terrorist knows he just needs to call the Secret Service in advance and tell them he's just making a statement before crashing his explosive laden gyrocopter into the Whitehouse.

    6. Re:Well that's rather the point by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

      Would have been much easier and less obvious for the pilot to drive 30lbs of C4 into position in a vehicle or a backpack or bag

      You aren't going to be able to get close enough for the explosion to do anything on foot or in a vehicle. All of the major government structures now have very imposing anti-vehicular barricades there is no way around. On foot you are going to be challenged long before you reach your target, you are limited to what you can carry, AND you are only at ground level even if you do get close.

      Someone in an auto-gyro could for example take out the dome above the chambers where everyone sits when Congress is in session, instead of not getting anywhere near that chamber on foot or in a car. Or they could fly right up to the window that the Oval Office looks out on...

      --
      "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    7. Re:Well that's rather the point by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      There is a surface to air missile battery on the capital building and white house. Likely in other areas around there to.

      Because of his slow speed and open cockpit they had the opportunity to watch him instead of just reacting. If he got closer or appearedt to be threatening to the white house he likely would have been shot down.

    8. Re:Well that's rather the point by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      SAM would have a better chance than air-to-air would have. A jet would be too high and too fast to pick him out of the ground clutter, but from the ground, it's easier to see it against the sky. But even hitting him with a direct hit from a missile, regardless of where it was fired from, would likely do more damage to DC than anything he could do with his aircraft, had he been malicious.

    9. Re:Well that's rather the point by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      In these situations, I'm not entirely sure collateral damage is of a primary concern. The image of either building being damaged or destroyed or the threat to elected representatives likely presents a worse impact than collateral damage might. Its like all the special protections they already have. For instance, punch your neighbor and face a misdemeanor, punch a senator or the president and it is not only a felony but a serious one at that. Kill someone in an auto accident and it can be a charge with less than 10 years but run over a police dog and you face life for killing an officer of the law.

      Our system has said they are special and more protected than most people for quite a while now.

    10. Re:Well that's rather the point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's to stop a terrorist from doing the same thing while neglecting to mention the C4?

  26. That's not very smart by SuperKendall · · Score: 2

    Step 1) Call/email ahead and say you are totally harmless.
    Step 2) Fly/Drive/Swim vehicle packed to the gill with explosives right into your target without bother.
    Step 3) Prophet!

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:That's not very smart by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Yeah, when you call ahead, and the background check indicates 10 previous arrests for terrorism, and your most recent credit card transaction was at Bomb-Mart, and you aren't an American citizen, I think the response would have been different.

    2. Re:That's not very smart by Lotana · · Score: 1

      Bomb-Mart? I think I know where to go shopping for the 4th of July!

    3. Re:That's not very smart by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, when you call ahead, and the background check indicates 10 previous arrests for terrorism, and your most recent credit card transaction was at Bomb-Mart, and you aren't an American citizen, I think the response would have been different.

      From what I have seen the response would likely be that your call will be ignored together with your history. Maybe someone will gather more info on you.
      After you blow someone up it will be said that no-one could see it coming and we need to increase NSA funding.

    4. Re:That's not very smart by i.r.id10t · · Score: 1

      The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives should be a chain of convenience stores, not a government department!

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos
  27. Florida strikes again! by mark_reh · · Score: 1

    yeah baby!

    1. Re:Florida strikes again! by linearZ · · Score: 1

      Florida mailMan

      --
      Revolution is the opium of the intellectuals.
  28. Courage? by no-body · · Score: 1

    "And I will tell you completely honestly: I'd rather die in the flight than live to be 80 years old and see this country fall."

    I'd think so....

    What he is pointing out is the money corruption going on and making this whole political game a charade - just look at those faces... clowns?

    It would be worth laughing about it if it wouldn'd be so sad.

  29. Attention span! by dbIII · · Score: 1

    Really. You're comparing a protest against a monarchy that was suppressing free speech

    Yes I am. I suggest you read beyond the first sentence to find out why.

  30. A different takeaway message by foreverdisillusioned · · Score: 2

    I will donate $1000 to the first Super PAC willing to make federal gyrocopter subsidy a top priority. (Seriously those things are awesome, but we still don't have a good tipjet solution.)

  31. Invalid argument by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You invoked thinking about the children, therefore your argument is invalid.

  32. Not so fast by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "most americans agree with him"

    Nope. The guy is a union hack with a government job who was probably foaming-at-the-mouth after getting some new bit of propaganda from his union; I have a relative like this - totally ignores all facts and goes on wild rants against Republicans, Libertarians, the Supreme Court, etc every time his union spoon feeds him some more lies. Pay attention to what was in his letter! Like all these guys, his complaints are entrirely one-sided. He and his union want their politician-buying toys back..... WAAAAAAAAAH!

    The thing that REALLY sets the unions off is the Citizens United supreme court ruling that, for the first time, declared that unions were not the only ones who could shovel massive piles of cash into campaigns. For decades, the nation's big unions have poured millions of dollars into every election cycle to elect Democrats and get Democrat policies enacted and get Democrat judges appointed while their opponents were forbidden from responding on equal terms. Unions could negotiate deals in big cities like Chicago that made it so their memeber got paid days off at election time so they could do huge get-out-the-vote activites (those enourmous campaign costs for all those man-hours of work were NEVER accounted for in campaign finance rules AND taxpayers of ALL parties were paying for it without knowing!). The Supreme Court makes ONE ruling that only PARTIALLY levels the field (corporations still cannot have thousands of their employees work full-time on get-out-the-vote activities while billing the costs to the taxpayers and not reporting any of or to the FEC as in-kind contributons!) and the Unions go insane.

    The unions of federal employees (like the one this guy is from) have become VERY arrogant over the years, having negotiated (with the Democrats they helped elect using their pre-Citizens United unbalanced contributions) so-called "official time". There are THOUSANDS of federal government employees whose wages, benefits and retirement are paid by the taxpayers but who work FULL TIME, year-round on union matters and NEVER actually do ANYTHING for the taxpayers - in fact they are working against those very taxpayers by using their time pushing for higher wages and benefits, policies that make it harder to fire bad workers, etc.

    In the wake of Citizens United, I doubt the GOP will ever let the Democrats turn the clock back to the one-sided campaign financing days; The ONLY way to undo Citizens United is with legislation and ANY deal in congress will have to get union money out of politics too (THAT is a form of "Campaign Finance Reform" the Democrats and this dude's union will NEVER accept)

    1. Re:Not so fast by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

      you know, corruption destroying your country should be more important to you than hating unions

      but it's exactly this shortsighted hate they use to keep us weak and divided

      you're the problem. more than unions, more than the corruption really. because they can't keep us divided while they rob us, unless so many people like you care about hating your fellow americans than looking out for a government that actually represents you

      go ahead: hate minorities. hat ethe poor. hate people with different social views

      you hate. that's what is most important to you. more than looking out for yourself. they laugh and rob you. you, you're the problem

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  33. MIssed a bigger point / picture by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The bigger picture is, ultimately .gov doesn't monitor and control the whole spectrum.
    They might be able to jam some parts of it. and OWN others.
    Haarp claims to jam entire global spectrum while set up own network, but _I ain't_ seen it proven.
    Until proven, it remains a BRAGGING MYTH -
    Personally I think they have moved on to the NEXTRAD stations with Spraying Compliments
    but hey I am just a stupid derp and besides what the fuck could I do about it besides keep ranting
    and blurting it out like a homeless mental patient .Gov I agree is adept at other popular parts of spectrum and hardware like mobile phones,
    and maybe even desktop/laptops, but they hardly can't even really monitor everything at all times.
    Even with unlimited budget. Some things you can't just throw money at.

    Facts:
    FCC would be most adept at tracking down rogue transmitter 2 second burst is enough to triangle you -VS- IF they are lookin. (this is key)
    Military after that. If military is going after your transmitter - expect 2K bombs, Bombs DO destroy transmitters

    So take today this win against these oath breaking enemies!
    a. .gov can't crack good encryption with good hygene
    But is your hardware or firmware a compromised chain of custody?
    b. .gov can't watch all frequencies all the time
    Even if they CAN for a segment of time, the chances of them
    reacting with something that CONTROLS the custom signal is unlikely.
    Surely they can only copy and replay back my existing commands, but if I
    CHANGE them with TIME SYNC or something else, their defence just FAILED, and further more
    my little TOY is a successful sortie regardless of expenses, at least until they find my patterns and time sync sources.

    With that said, what they do watch they RECORD for PLAYBACK. This deserves a rant on it's own. Not my rant today.

    It's time for .gov to not give a crap about TOY airplanes and helicoptors who are NOT a
    TERRORISM THREAT. And NO BECAUSE YOU Do Not want to be filmed while you
    BREAK YOU OATH doesn't give you a STATE SECRETS PASS to hide from toys trying to penetrate.
    Do I think flying shit near the whitehouse is good Idea? No. But I also don't want over-reaction.
    I am sick of IL-LOGIC. If it's ILLEGAL to spread state secrets in public, then there is already a LAW for governing the white house, so there is no need to PROTECT from TOY RC aircraft since your Classified DATA is in a fucking VAULT not openly displayed in the sunlight on the outside WHite House Grounds.

    My Opinion: What we the people need more than your DRONE horseshit, is a few HIDDEN CAMERA to catch TREASON in your own OFFICE. Quit attacking your own country, and embracing those who ATTACK Americans or get the fuck out of office.
    Corporate media wants to talk about Obamacare, Getting Vaccines, and Banning Guns. Americans (not these socialist/commie fucks) want to talk about TREASON, OATH BREAKING, the Constitution and bill of rights- It will come to a HEAD. You ain't going to keep fucking us much longer.

    c. No/Bad data in, means no exploitable data back out
    SADLY - The TREASON and framing and modifying DATA to target good people remains

    There's a common theme here.
    TREASON AGAINST AMERICA.
    That's who runs shit.
    It's EXACTLY THE WAY THEY WANT

    Next time HIllary talks about Democracy, you tell that fuckin treasonous bitch fuck off this is a Constitutional Republic and the FOUNDERS WARNED AGAINST HER MOTHERFUCKING DEMOCRACY HORSESHIT

  34. Be my mailman! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now that I've witnessed this I demand that all my mail is delivered to me in this fashion.

  35. Waddling Guard!? by EzInKy · · Score: 1

    Surely I'm not the only one who noticed the guard whose belly hung so far over his beltline that it jiggled as he trotted towards the scene. Surely there has to be some physical fitness requirements for his job.

    --
    Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
  36. Don't forget the message by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    There is no democracy when corporations are allowed unlimited campaign donations, have the rights of 'people', and can direct their media/news to support their candidates..

    If all the information most of the population get is from controlled sources, then theres no hope for "3rd party" and nothing will ever really change..
    Republican or democratic parties, Bush, Obama... Other than token issues theres no difference. :(

    Remember folks the wealthiest 400(four hundred) people in the USA own more assets than the lower 150 million(150,000,000) people combined.

  37. A way that's automatically ignored? by Uberbah · · Score: 1

    he could have chosen a better way to make his point. but he'll be prosecuted, and the corruption will continue

    Like drop those same letters in a mailbox? Those were 100 to 1 against telecom immunity....D's and R's DGAF. This was a harmless stunt that got him worldwide press - doubt you could come up with something that would have got him more attention, as one man, peacefully.

    1. Re:A way that's automatically ignored? by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

      the problem was what he did wasn't harmless

      yes, he's a nonviolent person, but we don't know that

      if i point a gun at you as a joke and you don't know me, you're going to react as if i am serious

      likewise, anyone flying towards a government building could be a harmless protester, but we have to assume their intentions are violent. simply because we have to be responsible and protect people from harm

      frankly, he's lucky to be a live. and i agree with him 100% ideologically. but i would have preferred he had been shot down. yes, he could be killed if shot down. so you shouldn't FLY AT A GOVERNMENT BUILDING. it's really not complicated to understand that's a threat

      you cannot pull stunts that can easily be construed as malicious and be expected to get away with it. there are a million better ways to get your point across. the guy obviously was creative, he couldn't think of something else far less threatening?

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    2. Re:A way that's automatically ignored? by JimFive · · Score: 1

      He should have trained 535 owls to fly in to the Capitol building and drop the letters on the floor.
      --
      JimFive

      --
      Please stop using the word theory when you mean hypothesis.
  38. Chronic Failure by JimSadler · · Score: 1

    So here we are with our mega-giga-buck super high tech defense system complete with a spy system that the gestapo would admire and we can't stop drones or gyro copters or even people from invading the White House. A couple of alert sentries with shot guns could have dealt with this before either the drone or the gyrocopter made it to the lawn. It reminds me of small people with black pajamas running the US out of Vietnam.

    1. Re:Chronic Failure by SuiteSisterMary · · Score: 1

      You think that because they *chose* not to shoot him down with a stinger, they're *incapable* of doing so?

      --
      Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
  39. Proof NSA needs no further powers ... by fygment · · Score: 1

    ... as this man's actions were hardly a secret, and yet.

    The truth is out there in plain sight, no need for super secret privacy invasion.

    --
    "Consensus" in science is _always_ a political construct.
  40. the spirit of Larry Walters is alive and well by Thud457 · · Score: 1

    Gyrocopter FUCK YEAH!
    coming to save the motherfucking day...

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

  41. I liked the lady on the news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who said it was a guy in 'drone'.
    I think the guy was the drone.

  42. oh, wow, it just keeps getting better by Thud457 · · Score: 1

    Doug Hughes, 61, a mailman from Ruskin, Florida was arrested for landing a gyro-copter on the West Lawn of the U.S. Capitol.

    headline should read :
    Floridaman lands GYRO-COPTER on US Capitol lawn to save the Republic

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

  43. FloridaMan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Florida Man, that says it all.

  44. overpriviliged disgruntled white guy in a light AC by Thud457 · · Score: 1

    maybe April 15 wasn't a good day to pull a stunt like that, LEO could be nervous.

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

  45. A minor technical note by Rambo+Tribble · · Score: 1

    The downdraft of any reasonably large helicopter would have forced him down in short order.

  46. Don't Fly Drones Over D.C. by ememisya · · Score: 1

    *some dude flies a drone over D.C.* Wasn't this story in the Bible?

  47. It was a damned PROTEST by whitroth · · Score: 1

    and most slashdotters, like most of the media, don't want to look.

    However, tell me another way to get national attention to a protest if you're not Rupert Murdoch, or one of the Koch Bros. "Money equals free speech" means that if you ain''t a multimillionaire, and don' t have the right friends, your "free speech rights" are utterly meaningless.

    Let me also note that the 22yr old who committed suicide on the Capitol steps was also protesting, asking Congress to tax the 1%.

    Maybe these guys are doing it wrong. Maybe they needed to go to the Capitol steps, go into full lotus position, and burn themselves to death, and maybe *then* their protest would get attention. It certainly did during 'Nam, when the Buddhist monks did it....

                      mark

  48. It's been done before... by richieb · · Score: 1
    --
    ...richie - It is a good day to code.
  49. Re:overpriviliged disgruntled white guy in a light by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

    If only there were some meaning to that date which would explain why such stunts are more common on that date.

  50. You've watched waaaaay to much 24 by Uberbah · · Score: 1

    yes, he's a nonviolent person, but we don't know that

    Of course we knew that. If he had nefarious intentions, he wouldn't have warned your beloved authorities in advance or flown a 200 lbs capacity gyrocopter.

    It's time to put away the plastic sheets and stop wetting the bed on command for the national insecurity state, the greatest pork project in the history of the world. Your couch is more likely to kill you than a terrorist, so stop hiding under the bed and throwing your rights away anytime someone knocks on the door.

  51. can i just lie? by tagput · · Score: 1

    so... in order to bomb the white house all one has to do is call ahead, say it's a publicity stunt, then break their promise.