Certainly, people have become millionaires pushing environmental protection (take a look at their houses and methods of travel). I cannot think of a single person who has gotten rich pushing environmental destruction.
Yes I understand all this. MRI's and EKG's are used for monitoring and diagnosis. A prosthetic is not. If it doesn't work as advertised, it's pretty obvious. Still looking for the answer why.
The data seems to support the notion that consumers are better off subscribing to channels a la carte, but cable companies are of the opinion that 'the price of cable TV wouldn't change much if channels were served à la carte because content providers won't sell the most popular programs to cable companies unless the provider's other channels are also served up.'
Then cable will die.
When a company decides it is better to not provide value to it's customers, and there is now a plethora of other options, they will soon find themselves without customers.
That's silly. He doesn't have a Republican competitor any more. He's got 3 years left and can't run again. The only competitors I see for the President are reality, and the cold hard truth.
Is 300' above my backyard, airspace? Is a 3 pound flying electric platform with a camera attached, aviation? There is controversy here, and you are being deliberately obtuse about it.
My point is if there is not constitutional power granted to the federal government, congress cant just create it. Short of amending the constitution of course.
That is patently absurd. The argument that the FAA has no authority to regulate aviation that isn't interstate in nature implies an ability to differentiate that traffic, and it is NOT INHERENTLY SEPARATE. When I go flying around the pattern I'm using the same airspace used by someone who is arriving from or going to an airport in another state. ATC has no way to differentiate between traffic that is inter and intra state. That aircraft they see departing the local airport may be staying local, or it may be going somewhere in state, or it may be going two states away. They don't know.
The FAA regulates space around airports, because it is interstate. The FAA does not have authority to regulate airspace that is not interstate, like 300' above my backyard. It is ridiculous to claim they use the same airspace. How many times when you are flying have you had to compete with airspace with RC airplanes?
Either the FAA is going to have to start regulating RC airplanes, which is preposterous, or they are going to have to leave drones alone.
We are talking about private drones and rc airplanes, not commercial aviation. I come from a family of pilots, and have flown quite a bit in small aircraft, but I am not a pilot. We are not talking about mixing traffic, we are talking about traffic that is inherently separate. I have not ignored anything you have said. My point is that the case has not been made that small drone traffic infringes on national airspace or involves interstate commerce. In my mind you have not sufficiently made the argument that it does, and that the FAA has the power to regulate it. And so far it would appear that at least one judge agrees. Either the FAA is going to have to start regulating RC airplanes, which is preposterous, or they are going to have to leave drones alone.
Hey, don't get testy. I'm just saying the constitution grants some very specific powers to the federal government. The most relevant is that it has the power to regulate interstate commerce. I'm still trying to understand what gives the FAA the authority. You still have not presented that item, and you actually seem to be arguing that we should ignore the constitution. We've been doing a lot of ignoring the constitution lately, and I don't think it's been working out very well for us. I'm going to assume, because you created an exact language strawman, required me to prove a negative when in fact the default condition is that the State has no power unless it is granted, that you either don't know what gives them the authority, or that possibly they don't even have the authority. The ends do not justify the means. The 10th amendment clearly states that powers not granted to the federal government are reserved for the states or the people. Maybe the solution lies therein?
Slashdot Mirror
Certainly, people have become millionaires pushing environmental protection (take a look at their houses and methods of travel). I cannot think of a single person who has gotten rich pushing environmental destruction.
Yes I understand all this. MRI's and EKG's are used for monitoring and diagnosis. A prosthetic is not. If it doesn't work as advertised, it's pretty obvious. Still looking for the answer why.
...does the FDA have to approve a non-implanted prosthetic? Why are prosthetics so expensive?
An even better way to do it, is to find a place where it naturally flows downhill. That way you get a net gain in energy.
Why bother? It's not like anyone is actually required by law to leave when the visa or green card expires. Right?
The data seems to support the notion that consumers are better off subscribing to channels a la carte, but cable companies are of the opinion that 'the price of cable TV wouldn't change much if channels were served à la carte because content providers won't sell the most popular programs to cable companies unless the provider's other channels are also served up.'
Then cable will die.
When a company decides it is better to not provide value to it's customers, and there is now a plethora of other options, they will soon find themselves without customers.
I'm not ok with being blatantly lied to.
Your really don't know anything about this topic, do you?
It's not theory when it's fact that a story was made up to deflect culpability from denied security requests from the ambassador.
Actually I was referring to Mussolini more that the National Socialists. Progressives liked the economic system.
No they aren't. They are both totalitarian.
Communism yes, Fascism even more. Progressives commonly supported and were intrigued by Fascism in the 20's and 30's.
What riot? The ambassador was walking around outside an hour before the assault.
How about a kite 300' above my backyard? Is that a violation of FAA rules?
That's silly. He doesn't have a Republican competitor any more. He's got 3 years left and can't run again. The only competitors I see for the President are reality, and the cold hard truth.
OK, I'll bite. Who is the administration's main competitor?
Is 300' above my backyard, airspace? Is a 3 pound flying electric platform with a camera attached, aviation? There is controversy here, and you are being deliberately obtuse about it.
Main competitor? Canada?
My point is if there is not constitutional power granted to the federal government, congress cant just create it. Short of amending the constitution of course.
Ok replace the FAA with congress or the federal government in general.
What makes you think this administration is liberal? I don't see their actions pointing in that direction at all.
That is patently absurd. The argument that the FAA has no authority to regulate aviation that isn't interstate in nature implies an ability to differentiate that traffic, and it is NOT INHERENTLY SEPARATE. When I go flying around the pattern I'm using the same airspace used by someone who is arriving from or going to an airport in another state. ATC has no way to differentiate between traffic that is inter and intra state. That aircraft they see departing the local airport may be staying local, or it may be going somewhere in state, or it may be going two states away. They don't know.
The FAA regulates space around airports, because it is interstate. The FAA does not have authority to regulate airspace that is not interstate, like 300' above my backyard. It is ridiculous to claim they use the same airspace. How many times when you are flying have you had to compete with airspace with RC airplanes?
Either the FAA is going to have to start regulating RC airplanes, which is preposterous, or they are going to have to leave drones alone.
And who is creating straw men?
Not I, because a judge found the same thing. I'm sorry but the caselaw is in agreement with me. http://arstechnica.com/tech-po...
We are talking about private drones and rc airplanes, not commercial aviation. I come from a family of pilots, and have flown quite a bit in small aircraft, but I am not a pilot. We are not talking about mixing traffic, we are talking about traffic that is inherently separate. I have not ignored anything you have said. My point is that the case has not been made that small drone traffic infringes on national airspace or involves interstate commerce. In my mind you have not sufficiently made the argument that it does, and that the FAA has the power to regulate it. And so far it would appear that at least one judge agrees. Either the FAA is going to have to start regulating RC airplanes, which is preposterous, or they are going to have to leave drones alone.
Hey, don't get testy. I'm just saying the constitution grants some very specific powers to the federal government. The most relevant is that it has the power to regulate interstate commerce. I'm still trying to understand what gives the FAA the authority. You still have not presented that item, and you actually seem to be arguing that we should ignore the constitution. We've been doing a lot of ignoring the constitution lately, and I don't think it's been working out very well for us. I'm going to assume, because you created an exact language strawman, required me to prove a negative when in fact the default condition is that the State has no power unless it is granted, that you either don't know what gives them the authority, or that possibly they don't even have the authority. The ends do not justify the means. The 10th amendment clearly states that powers not granted to the federal government are reserved for the states or the people. Maybe the solution lies therein?
That's an interesting point. I would quibble further and say they have the ability to do so, but not the power or authority.