Sounds to me like the "system" worked as designed, except that Hillary didn't walk away with a clear margin of victory. Don't worry, there is no way Sanders is going to beat the Clinton machine at this game. There is no way some crazy white guy calling himself a socialist is going to best "the Hill" like the unknown junior senator from Illinois did 8 years ago..
Well, if you are a bitcoin miner and don't like this, think BIG...
Skip the power company and figure out a way to produce your own power... Surely your idea is going to pay off so find investors, build your own power infrastructure and be the master of ALL your costs...
Otherwise, pay the man what he's asking, move your operation to someplace with cheaper power or forget the whole idea..
I think the point was to try to avoid running the APU and the engines which are very inefficient, polluting, etc.
The APU is there for a reason and it's not going away in a modern airliner where AC and power is required to keep the passengers comfortable and happy, start the main engines, and serve as an emergency power supply in the not so unlikely even of a generator failure on the main engines. The jet fueled APU is going to stay, and likely has the capacity to run any electric motor thingy you can imagine might actually save the environment, and won't add unnecessary weight or fuel consumption to the aircraft. But this "Taxi on electric power" and building this into an airplane is a stupid idea anyway... Wana keep from starting the engines to Taxi? Hook up a battery powered tug and use that to drag the aircraft around.... It will be easier and safer..
The motors would probably not be geared at all, but mounted right inside the wheels themselves, or on the axle. Large stator with many poles, capable of working well at low (for an electric motor) speeds.
Reliable and lightweight motor/generator electronics already exist for electric cars.
Perhaps, but that nasty certification test where they run the aircraft fully loaded at take off speed then abort using only brakes is going to be a PITA to pass. Right now the biggest problem is the tires catching fire from all the heat from the brakes, now you want to add a bunch of wire, insulation, electronics and other junk to the wheel assembly which is already stuffed with brake rotors, pads, hubs and aircraft rubber? If you get the aircraft to actually stop during this test, you'd better bring a large fire extinguisher. (Oh wait, that's not allowed or you fail the test... )
Why bother carry batteries around? They are heavy and horribly inefficient. Just crank up the APU that runs on Jet A. You are going to need the APU to get the main engines started or run the air-conditioning system using bleed air, the power it produces to keep the lights and radios on anyway, just add a few HP for driving the traction motors in the wheels...
But wait.. That doesn't look new and shiny or appeal to the environmental crack heads who soon at anything labeled "green" so it won't give the airline any PR... Ok.. Go with the story..
BIG difference... As a liquid Jet A is pretty nearly inert, you have to vaporize it to make it burn well, either by spraying it into air or heating it until it boils. It doesn't explode as a liquid sitting in a tank, even if you throw in burning objects. It is REALLY hard to keep hydrogen in a liquid state because of the pressures and temperatures involved in it's storage. Hydrogen gas is highly explosive when mixed with some oxidizer and it's really hard to keep it from doing that. Jet A can be safely stored in vented tanks, where hydrogen is not easily kept from explosive forms and must be stored in closed systems.
Pure H20 is so corrosive you need special tubing for it. You sure this is a great idea?
Yet another reason this is a really BAD idea...
1. Hydrogen is an explosive risk when stored
2. Storing quantities of hydrogen sufficient to power anything requires either pressurization, very cold temperatures or both and the equipment to do this is pretty heavy if you wish to avoid the problem #1
3. Industrial sources of Hydrogen cause a LOT of CO2 emissions or are environmentally very unfriendly.
4. Fuel cells are pretty inefficient, so it takes a lot of fuel and oxidizer to obtain a specific amount of work.
5. Utilizing electric power to taxi an aircraft with will require the redesign of a number of aircraft systems, many of which are critical to safety and are subject to very specific regulations. If you use electric motors in the wheels, they will need to not impact the success of the abort takeoff at max weight with no fire test, which I find unlikely. Plus these systems will add a lot of weight in wiring and control electronics, which is the absolute opposite direction you go for designing an efficient aircraft.
6. It will be expensive to operate. You will have multiple fuel types to load, more complex systems to maintain, a heaver aircraft and less useful load. Complexity breeds inefficiency and cost, weight just makes you burn more fuel.
The only thing we can do is get rid of government.
Even the framers didn't like that idea and assigned the government specific (albeit limited) tasks, such as providing for a common defense. Of course there are the tree branches of government designed to maintain proper laws, enforce the law and interpret the law... One branch which seems hell bent on growing beyond all reasonable size and cost, one on writing just one more law to justify it's existence and one who's members have forgotten that their primary purpose is NOT to write law but apply the laws already written fairly.
and if you don't produce what the consumer wants you die
Fucking explain DRM then.
Digital Rights Management is not something the customer wants? I don't think you can really say that. I think it IS what the customer wants, given the other possible options.
Sure, you may not like it, but you put up with it because it gives you the ability to use digital content for a reasonable license fee. If DRM didn't exist, the license fees would be much higher because many would just "share" instead of "buying a license" to get the content. Remember all those "file sharing" services that got run out of business? (Say Napster, Groveshark etc,) Which gave way to "licensed" content from the likes of Apple and others. If you want content to continue to be developed, you have to pay the artists and producers of the content for their efforts.
So, unless you are happy with the content available in the public domain, I believe you really do want DRM because it lowers the cost of your license. Because, it's really DRM or no new stuff to enjoy. People want new content and are willing to pay the price and endure the inconvenience that DRM brings.
As a republican too, I can explain why they didn't secure the license for the font they paid to develop.... It's government stupidity silly.
You see, the government wastes money, and time in abundance while producing garbage because there is no real motivation to be efficient and quick or to fulfill the users' needs built into the system. This is unlike capitalism where being efficient and fast is considered a virtue and if you don't produce what the consumer wants you die.... Well, unless you are "to big to fail" or some group of progressives get the idea they have to bail you out....
But you knew that anyway....
Personally, I think that anything like this, fonts, software, data collections that the government pays to get developed should be made available to the general public by default. All contracts should have boilerplate language designed to ensure this. Only things related to national security and defense should be allowed to remain out of the public eye, but even those should be "FREE of license costs" forever.
2. Don't put anything on your device you wouldn't want to publish on line.
Apart from that, who cares? IF you do, you are either worried about stuff you shouldn't for health reasons, or stupid to put information into that portable computer you call a Smartphone/Tablet..
To think, I invented a way to do DF on a FHSS signals years ago... It's not hard, in theory, to accomplish if you think about how direction finding RF works and don't mind doing a bit of digitization upfront. Once you have the signals digitized, the biggest problem is bringing the compute resources necessary to do the calculations to find the signals in near real time, but once you find one, doing the radio location part pretty much falls out of the math... Maybe I'm a bit naïve, but something tells me if I can think of it, somebody else has likely done it.
Of course, realizing some obscure militia group is using FHSS would be difficult. Where the technology exists, commercial access to such technology is pretty limited and somewhat expensive. I seriously doubt some survivalists are going to have the money, time and expertise to make use of such systems, especially given the ubiquitous and universal nature of FRS equipment. The stuff they use is cheap, sold everywhere and effective enough for their purpose, given I seriously doubt they give a whit about OPSEC. They are not trying to be covert, but overt in their operations. They want their message to get out in their propaganda war, so who cares if the FEDS can buy a $10 radio and monitor what they are saying...
I depend on dead reckoning wherever I go navigating... Hand me that compass and a stop watch! That's all we needed when I was young and bare foot in the snow, going uphill, both ways.
Sextants are for sissies and unless you know what time it is, generally useless during the day.
You do realize that the current crop of missile based nuclear weapons are pretty much independent of the GPS system, having been developed BEFORE GPS was built by about a decade.
GPS launches started back in 1978 and it was a couple of years before we had enough satellites in orbit to be useful. So GPS came on line sometime after 1980.
The LGM-30 Block 3 is our current land based ICBM and it went into service a decade before in about 1970, but really is a refinement of a 1962 missile. It is guided by an inertial navigation system and is totally independent of outside input while in flight, so it doesn't need to use GPS.
The current Navy missile is the Trident 3 (USM-96) which uses a guidance system that is both inertial and refines its guidance using astronomical observations in flight. It was developed in the late 70s, but does NOT use GPS during flight for guidance. It too predates a working GPS constellation by at least a decade.
If the Russians are messing with GPS in hopes of disrupting our nuclear capability, they are a lot more stupid than I ever imagined... The reality is that GPS is not used for positioning information for any kind of nuclear weapon delivery system and it's not used as an exclusive positioning source for any critical military application. This is mainly because the system is already known to be vulnerable to upset and jamming, so alternatives have been considered, alternate equipment obtained, personnel trained in how NOT to depend on GPS.
Way to miss the point... At issue is the definition of "terrorist" and what you have offered doesn't seem to be evenly applied here.
The Occupy stuff was NOT (for the most part) terrorist related, it was civil disobedience. It was illegal and they actually occupied government spaces and buildings and refused to leave until their grievances where addressed. They even damaged property in some cases. There have been other examples of civil disobedience in the past, riots even, which apart from being armed, looked almost exactly like what's happening now.
Adding firearms into the mix is what I'm guessing your issue here is. That somehow, having firearms and calling yourself a militia when occupying government property makes the crime about terrorism and not just civil disobedience. However, I don't see that being armed while protesting is actually enough to cross into being terrorists, especially given that they are in a remote and isolated area and didn't have to engage in an armed assault to take the building they are now refusing to leave. Being armed obviously makes the crimes more serious, but to declare them terrorists implies that there is intent to terrorize, make the public afraid by implication or overt actions. I don't see that kind of intent, and being armed isn't enough evidence to prove such intent.
But that's where we happen to be at this point... If they start threatening to leave their little remote campsite to do violent acts to others, or actually DO such actions, THEN we can call them terrorists, of the domestic kind.. Right now, they are just armed idiots who think anybody cares enough about some remote park building that they can actually cause the authorities to release some folks .
LOL, offended that I get ticked off at people who won't own up to their responsibilities? Sheshs, you must live a tormented life.
Ok Pot, meet kettle..
those chanting 'eat less exercise more' seem poised to work to destroy anything that stands in the way of that mantra. That pisses me off.
Which is what I say... "Want to loose weight? Eat less and exercise more, lather, rinse and repeat until effective."
So you are mad at me because I don't buy the "I cannot help myself" excuse? That I get ticked off at your self deception is some how a personal affront to you? Nobody is force feeding you, at least I hope not, and it seems you have control of your hands if you are typing stuff on Slashdot... You might have a "I'm mentally ill" argument in which case I pity you, but chances are pretty good you are in 100% control of what you eat and I'm right. Sorry if I don't suffer fools to continue in self destructive personal deceptions and tend to get ticked when the truth makes them mad, but it's called actually caring enough that I won't lie to you or let you continue to lie to yourself. IF that's not fair, best you get mental help... But we digress...
The armature radio models are legal for sale in the US. Just be careful because not all retailers have the US version and will honor the warranty. I cannot say about the FRS version, I don't have one.
Yes, they have committed multiple felonies, but I don't see being terrorists in that list myself..
(and yes, occupying a building with firearms is a violent action)
I never knew that bringing my firearm into my house was a violent action and made me a terrorist. Man I've even contacted my congressman vie E-mail while armed (my loaded handgun in it's holster) sitting on my couch... OK, OK... You've proven to be a leftist wing-nut now, unless you care to walk back what you just said and perhaps refine what you really mean.
Be careful, because if you live by the sward, you are going to die by it too. Carefully consider things like the Occupy protests and unpermitted protest marches or even riots because the line you draw for one thing has to legally apply to all things equally or you are really just objecting to the politics of the issue and are not interested in the legalities. (Which, by the way, is a common problem for some of us who choose to react based on emotion, which is a personality trait more common on the left end of the political spectrum than the right, and something I find dreadfully annoying.)
I have two HT's, an FT-6 and a Boefang. I've had the FT-6 about 5 years and the other for about 5 months. Where the Boefang has limited features and limited number of memories, it's as good as the $500 radio at it's business of transmitting and receiving. Of course it's not water proof and it's not a machined metal body like my expensive rig, but I can by 10 Boefang's for the price of the FT-6 and throw a broken one away. Haven't had to do that yet, and I don't expect it's going to be necessary anytime soon, but I also don't expect the Boefang to remain operational for 5 years, but if it makes it past the warranty term, I'll be money ahead.
Ok, add vandalism and destruction of public property in excess of $1,000 to that list of charges...
Still NOT termism in that they are not threatening to harm bystanders, have done no violence to the general public or put anybody but themselves and law enforcement in possible harms way.
Come on, they are literally in the middle of nowhere occupying a government owned facility that was unoccupied when they arrived. They are miles away from the general public and pose no threat to anybody but law enforcement. They are not threatening to leave, only to stay.
Yes, they have committed multiple felonies, but I don't see being terrorists in that list myself.. Now if they took an occupied federal building in a busy downtown area, shot a few people who passed by "just because" and where making threats to do harm to the general public, you'd have a great case. However, out in the middle of nowhere, occupying an unoccupied building and refusing to leave is not so clear cut.
Slashdot Mirror
Sounds to me like the "system" worked as designed, except that Hillary didn't walk away with a clear margin of victory. Don't worry, there is no way Sanders is going to beat the Clinton machine at this game. There is no way some crazy white guy calling himself a socialist is going to best "the Hill" like the unknown junior senator from Illinois did 8 years ago..
6 coin flips and all for one person, I am going to call B.S.!
Calling Bernie Sanders? How's that going to help?
Play the futures market as well as Hillary, can arrange to have a perfect 6 out of 6 in a simple coin toss contest..
Can I see that coin again?
Well, if you are a bitcoin miner and don't like this, think BIG...
Skip the power company and figure out a way to produce your own power... Surely your idea is going to pay off so find investors, build your own power infrastructure and be the master of ALL your costs...
Otherwise, pay the man what he's asking, move your operation to someplace with cheaper power or forget the whole idea..
I think the point was to try to avoid running the APU and the engines which are very inefficient, polluting, etc.
The APU is there for a reason and it's not going away in a modern airliner where AC and power is required to keep the passengers comfortable and happy, start the main engines, and serve as an emergency power supply in the not so unlikely even of a generator failure on the main engines. The jet fueled APU is going to stay, and likely has the capacity to run any electric motor thingy you can imagine might actually save the environment, and won't add unnecessary weight or fuel consumption to the aircraft. But this "Taxi on electric power" and building this into an airplane is a stupid idea anyway... Wana keep from starting the engines to Taxi? Hook up a battery powered tug and use that to drag the aircraft around.... It will be easier and safer..
The motors would probably not be geared at all, but mounted right inside the wheels themselves, or on the axle. Large stator with many poles, capable of working well at low (for an electric motor) speeds. Reliable and lightweight motor/generator electronics already exist for electric cars.
Perhaps, but that nasty certification test where they run the aircraft fully loaded at take off speed then abort using only brakes is going to be a PITA to pass. Right now the biggest problem is the tires catching fire from all the heat from the brakes, now you want to add a bunch of wire, insulation, electronics and other junk to the wheel assembly which is already stuffed with brake rotors, pads, hubs and aircraft rubber? If you get the aircraft to actually stop during this test, you'd better bring a large fire extinguisher. (Oh wait, that's not allowed or you fail the test... )
Why bother carry batteries around? They are heavy and horribly inefficient. Just crank up the APU that runs on Jet A. You are going to need the APU to get the main engines started or run the air-conditioning system using bleed air, the power it produces to keep the lights and radios on anyway, just add a few HP for driving the traction motors in the wheels...
But wait.. That doesn't look new and shiny or appeal to the environmental crack heads who soon at anything labeled "green" so it won't give the airline any PR... Ok.. Go with the story..
BIG difference... As a liquid Jet A is pretty nearly inert, you have to vaporize it to make it burn well, either by spraying it into air or heating it until it boils. It doesn't explode as a liquid sitting in a tank, even if you throw in burning objects. It is REALLY hard to keep hydrogen in a liquid state because of the pressures and temperatures involved in it's storage. Hydrogen gas is highly explosive when mixed with some oxidizer and it's really hard to keep it from doing that. Jet A can be safely stored in vented tanks, where hydrogen is not easily kept from explosive forms and must be stored in closed systems.
Pure H20 is so corrosive you need special tubing for it. You sure this is a great idea?
Yet another reason this is a really BAD idea...
1. Hydrogen is an explosive risk when stored
2. Storing quantities of hydrogen sufficient to power anything requires either pressurization, very cold temperatures or both and the equipment to do this is pretty heavy if you wish to avoid the problem #1
3. Industrial sources of Hydrogen cause a LOT of CO2 emissions or are environmentally very unfriendly.
4. Fuel cells are pretty inefficient, so it takes a lot of fuel and oxidizer to obtain a specific amount of work.
5. Utilizing electric power to taxi an aircraft with will require the redesign of a number of aircraft systems, many of which are critical to safety and are subject to very specific regulations. If you use electric motors in the wheels, they will need to not impact the success of the abort takeoff at max weight with no fire test, which I find unlikely. Plus these systems will add a lot of weight in wiring and control electronics, which is the absolute opposite direction you go for designing an efficient aircraft.
6. It will be expensive to operate. You will have multiple fuel types to load, more complex systems to maintain, a heaver aircraft and less useful load. Complexity breeds inefficiency and cost, weight just makes you burn more fuel.
7. H2O is corrosive...
and I feel better about myself when I drink it...
Why bother? All you need is some Portland cement, black/grey backgrounds and a really bright light. I'm sure the Chinese can come up with that stuff.
The only thing we can do is get rid of government.
Even the framers didn't like that idea and assigned the government specific (albeit limited) tasks, such as providing for a common defense. Of course there are the tree branches of government designed to maintain proper laws, enforce the law and interpret the law... One branch which seems hell bent on growing beyond all reasonable size and cost, one on writing just one more law to justify it's existence and one who's members have forgotten that their primary purpose is NOT to write law but apply the laws already written fairly.
and if you don't produce what the consumer wants you die Fucking explain DRM then.
Digital Rights Management is not something the customer wants? I don't think you can really say that. I think it IS what the customer wants, given the other possible options.
Sure, you may not like it, but you put up with it because it gives you the ability to use digital content for a reasonable license fee. If DRM didn't exist, the license fees would be much higher because many would just "share" instead of "buying a license" to get the content. Remember all those "file sharing" services that got run out of business? (Say Napster, Groveshark etc,) Which gave way to "licensed" content from the likes of Apple and others. If you want content to continue to be developed, you have to pay the artists and producers of the content for their efforts.
So, unless you are happy with the content available in the public domain, I believe you really do want DRM because it lowers the cost of your license. Because, it's really DRM or no new stuff to enjoy. People want new content and are willing to pay the price and endure the inconvenience that DRM brings.
As a republican too, I can explain why they didn't secure the license for the font they paid to develop.... It's government stupidity silly.
You see, the government wastes money, and time in abundance while producing garbage because there is no real motivation to be efficient and quick or to fulfill the users' needs built into the system. This is unlike capitalism where being efficient and fast is considered a virtue and if you don't produce what the consumer wants you die.... Well, unless you are "to big to fail" or some group of progressives get the idea they have to bail you out....
But you knew that anyway....
Personally, I think that anything like this, fonts, software, data collections that the government pays to get developed should be made available to the general public by default. All contracts should have boilerplate language designed to ensure this. Only things related to national security and defense should be allowed to remain out of the public eye, but even those should be "FREE of license costs" forever.
Two things...
1. VPN your network connection.
2. Don't put anything on your device you wouldn't want to publish on line.
Apart from that, who cares? IF you do, you are either worried about stuff you shouldn't for health reasons, or stupid to put information into that portable computer you call a Smartphone/Tablet..
To think, I invented a way to do DF on a FHSS signals years ago... It's not hard, in theory, to accomplish if you think about how direction finding RF works and don't mind doing a bit of digitization upfront. Once you have the signals digitized, the biggest problem is bringing the compute resources necessary to do the calculations to find the signals in near real time, but once you find one, doing the radio location part pretty much falls out of the math... Maybe I'm a bit naïve, but something tells me if I can think of it, somebody else has likely done it.
Of course, realizing some obscure militia group is using FHSS would be difficult. Where the technology exists, commercial access to such technology is pretty limited and somewhat expensive. I seriously doubt some survivalists are going to have the money, time and expertise to make use of such systems, especially given the ubiquitous and universal nature of FRS equipment. The stuff they use is cheap, sold everywhere and effective enough for their purpose, given I seriously doubt they give a whit about OPSEC. They are not trying to be covert, but overt in their operations. They want their message to get out in their propaganda war, so who cares if the FEDS can buy a $10 radio and monitor what they are saying...
I depend on dead reckoning wherever I go navigating... Hand me that compass and a stop watch! That's all we needed when I was young and bare foot in the snow, going uphill, both ways.
Sextants are for sissies and unless you know what time it is, generally useless during the day.
Why is there moss on the other side of that tree?
You are funny, in a deranged sort of way...
You do realize that the current crop of missile based nuclear weapons are pretty much independent of the GPS system, having been developed BEFORE GPS was built by about a decade.
GPS launches started back in 1978 and it was a couple of years before we had enough satellites in orbit to be useful. So GPS came on line sometime after 1980.
The LGM-30 Block 3 is our current land based ICBM and it went into service a decade before in about 1970, but really is a refinement of a 1962 missile. It is guided by an inertial navigation system and is totally independent of outside input while in flight, so it doesn't need to use GPS.
The current Navy missile is the Trident 3 (USM-96) which uses a guidance system that is both inertial and refines its guidance using astronomical observations in flight. It was developed in the late 70s, but does NOT use GPS during flight for guidance. It too predates a working GPS constellation by at least a decade.
If the Russians are messing with GPS in hopes of disrupting our nuclear capability, they are a lot more stupid than I ever imagined... The reality is that GPS is not used for positioning information for any kind of nuclear weapon delivery system and it's not used as an exclusive positioning source for any critical military application. This is mainly because the system is already known to be vulnerable to upset and jamming, so alternatives have been considered, alternate equipment obtained, personnel trained in how NOT to depend on GPS.
We disagree on this I guess, no need to continue... We stopped with any constructive additions a few posts back anyway..
In true FIDONET (precursor to the internet) fashion: Flame ON! Cuz, we is well done...
Way to miss the point... At issue is the definition of "terrorist" and what you have offered doesn't seem to be evenly applied here.
The Occupy stuff was NOT (for the most part) terrorist related, it was civil disobedience. It was illegal and they actually occupied government spaces and buildings and refused to leave until their grievances where addressed. They even damaged property in some cases. There have been other examples of civil disobedience in the past, riots even, which apart from being armed, looked almost exactly like what's happening now.
Adding firearms into the mix is what I'm guessing your issue here is. That somehow, having firearms and calling yourself a militia when occupying government property makes the crime about terrorism and not just civil disobedience. However, I don't see that being armed while protesting is actually enough to cross into being terrorists, especially given that they are in a remote and isolated area and didn't have to engage in an armed assault to take the building they are now refusing to leave. Being armed obviously makes the crimes more serious, but to declare them terrorists implies that there is intent to terrorize, make the public afraid by implication or overt actions. I don't see that kind of intent, and being armed isn't enough evidence to prove such intent.
But that's where we happen to be at this point... If they start threatening to leave their little remote campsite to do violent acts to others, or actually DO such actions, THEN we can call them terrorists, of the domestic kind.. Right now, they are just armed idiots who think anybody cares enough about some remote park building that they can actually cause the authorities to release some folks .
LOL, offended that I get ticked off at people who won't own up to their responsibilities? Sheshs, you must live a tormented life.
Ok Pot, meet kettle..
those chanting 'eat less exercise more' seem poised to work to destroy anything that stands in the way of that mantra. That pisses me off.
Which is what I say... "Want to loose weight? Eat less and exercise more, lather, rinse and repeat until effective."
So you are mad at me because I don't buy the "I cannot help myself" excuse? That I get ticked off at your self deception is some how a personal affront to you? Nobody is force feeding you, at least I hope not, and it seems you have control of your hands if you are typing stuff on Slashdot... You might have a "I'm mentally ill" argument in which case I pity you, but chances are pretty good you are in 100% control of what you eat and I'm right. Sorry if I don't suffer fools to continue in self destructive personal deceptions and tend to get ticked when the truth makes them mad, but it's called actually caring enough that I won't lie to you or let you continue to lie to yourself. IF that's not fair, best you get mental help... But we digress...
The armature radio models are legal for sale in the US. Just be careful because not all retailers have the US version and will honor the warranty. I cannot say about the FRS version, I don't have one.
Yes, they have committed multiple felonies, but I don't see being terrorists in that list myself..
(and yes, occupying a building with firearms is a violent action)
I never knew that bringing my firearm into my house was a violent action and made me a terrorist. Man I've even contacted my congressman vie E-mail while armed (my loaded handgun in it's holster) sitting on my couch... OK, OK... You've proven to be a leftist wing-nut now, unless you care to walk back what you just said and perhaps refine what you really mean.
Be careful, because if you live by the sward, you are going to die by it too. Carefully consider things like the Occupy protests and unpermitted protest marches or even riots because the line you draw for one thing has to legally apply to all things equally or you are really just objecting to the politics of the issue and are not interested in the legalities. (Which, by the way, is a common problem for some of us who choose to react based on emotion, which is a personality trait more common on the left end of the political spectrum than the right, and something I find dreadfully annoying.)
I concur..
I have two HT's, an FT-6 and a Boefang. I've had the FT-6 about 5 years and the other for about 5 months. Where the Boefang has limited features and limited number of memories, it's as good as the $500 radio at it's business of transmitting and receiving. Of course it's not water proof and it's not a machined metal body like my expensive rig, but I can by 10 Boefang's for the price of the FT-6 and throw a broken one away. Haven't had to do that yet, and I don't expect it's going to be necessary anytime soon, but I also don't expect the Boefang to remain operational for 5 years, but if it makes it past the warranty term, I'll be money ahead.
Ok, add vandalism and destruction of public property in excess of $1,000 to that list of charges...
Still NOT termism in that they are not threatening to harm bystanders, have done no violence to the general public or put anybody but themselves and law enforcement in possible harms way.
Come on, they are literally in the middle of nowhere occupying a government owned facility that was unoccupied when they arrived. They are miles away from the general public and pose no threat to anybody but law enforcement. They are not threatening to leave, only to stay.
Yes, they have committed multiple felonies, but I don't see being terrorists in that list myself.. Now if they took an occupied federal building in a busy downtown area, shot a few people who passed by "just because" and where making threats to do harm to the general public, you'd have a great case. However, out in the middle of nowhere, occupying an unoccupied building and refusing to leave is not so clear cut.