That's an interesting thing to think about. There is probably a lesson or two to be learned. I wonder if Apple is more prone to kill off projects BEFORE they launch publicly, if focus groups and such don't go well.
Google has another approach, somewhat. They throw stuff out there, often with the "Beta" marking in earlier years, then publicly acknowledge it didn't well, so they kill of the whole idea. Contrast with Microsoft's statement "Since launching Surface 3 over a year ago, we have seen strong demand and satisfaction amongst our customers". So strong that they're giving up on it.;)
Three very successful companies, three different approaches (at least Microsoft used to be very successful).
Apple and Microsoft have different relationships with their customer base, of course. Apple has fostered "fans" similar to a sports team would, people who really want to like their products. Microsoft has a customer base who wants the product to work seamlessly with the rest of their Microsoft-based environment, and to say the products are good because that justifies the fact that they spent their company's money buying the Microsoft product.
> it may not be increasing cost, but it's reducing the quality for the same cost, which is more-or-less equivalent.
It's NOT the same cost. On a phone (these are phone companies), it's providing approximately the same quality at much lower cost.
> If I could ask T-Mobile to compress and zero-rate all video streaming, both from big providers like Youtube and Netflix and from any random small server (or when streaming video from the phone to elsewhere, for that matter), then I would have no objection to it whatsoever.
Perhaps it is unfortunate that "any random small server" doesn't use the protocols, codecs, bit rates, etc that Youtube and Netflix agreed to. Maybe you can find a way to get everyone to agree on those particulars. Until then, it's used for video providers who use compatible settings.
Using the most well-known example, Binge On delivers 480p video using adaptive bit rate around 1 Mbps. Regular ( non-Binge) Youtube is about 4 Mbps normally, 8 Mbps at highest quality.
By using Binge On, you agree to lower quality video (which still looks fine on a 4" screen), and in exchange they exempt it from caps. They actual cost of transferring 1 Mbps is much lower than the cost of 4 Mbps or 8 Mbps. There's not an increased price to pay for, it's a cost-saving system.
18 U.S. Code  798 - Disclosure of classified information: (a) Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates... prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified informationâ" (1) concerning the nature, preparation, or use of any code, cipher, or cryptographic system of the United States or any foreign government;
You would have to know that it is a government secret.
Note nothing it in the statute says that removing the classification label makes it okay. If you know it is secret and you willfully communicate it to an authorized person, that's a felony.
The Secretary of State -could- declassify some State materials. She can't declassify any material from agencies outside DOS. But she didn't declassify it. It remained classified as it shared classified information with friends, and sent it in the clear over the internet to her house.
What you just tried to say might be interesting. Can you try writing it as sentences rather than words in seemingly random order with commas inserted at random? Then readers can know what you are trying to say.
Your arguments about the dye bag in the stolen money and person going to a sting drug house are better than the arguments that the court put forth in the opinion. The site was clearly labeled as a child porn site. Defendant requested the file labeled "six year fucked with a carrot.zip" or whatever ot was called. That zip file contained a dye bag.
Your other post, supporting the argument "computers can be eaily hacked, therefore the government is allowed to hack people's computers without a warrant" is ridiculous. I've worked in computer security a long time; before that I worked as a locksmith. You know what's even easier than hacking a computer? Picking a Home Depot lock. I can open most residential locks in seconds. Therefore you should expect someone to pick your lock, you have no reasonable expection of privacy in your own home?
Also this: > The fact that the FBI got a warrant... means that they didn't need a warrant.
The fact that they got a warrant means they didn't need one? The Consitution says they need one.
Obviously the emails containing top secret information wouldn't be subject to FOIA, and there are about a dozen other exceptions to FOIA, some of them quite broad.
* No, instructing her staff to remove the "Top Secret" marking from the document does NOT make the information no longer top secret. It only means she committed an ADDITIONAL crime.
Not that I agree with the ruling even a little bit, but...
> Why should the content of what you download matter?
If I download a kernel from kernel.org, I would expect no malware. If I download illegal cracked warez, I would expect illegal malware. If I download a Windows update, I would expect spyware. If I download illegal child porn, I would expect illegal malware.
> Also, why should the country of origin matter?
If I download anything from China or Russia, I would be suprised if it didn't contain malware.
You seem to have missed a couple of sections in the opinion.
A key sentence is on page 3:
"Furthermore, the Court FINDS suppression unwarranted because the Government did not need a warrant in this case. Thus, any potential defects in the issuance of the warrant or in the warrant itself could not result in constitutional violations".
There's the court's ruling that the government does "not need a warrant" to hack your computer.
Then on page 47 see the section headed "Defendant Has No Reasonable Expectation of Privacy in His Computer", which STARTS with a bit about IP address, but then goes on to cover other information retrieved from the computer. The reasoning (excuse) given is that because your computer could be hacked, you have no reasonable expectation that it won't be. Per well-established precedent, no "reasonable expectation of privacy" means no fourth amendment protection.
On the other hand, the court ALSO pointed out that the hack did not occur until the defendant tried to download child porn. They didn't hack the machine as soon as it connected to the front page of the CP site; rather it was a trojan in the child porn download. The court says that when you download child porn from foreign countries, you should expect that you might get malware and your information might be exposed.
> There is no god. And no Santa or Easter Bunny either.
By around age six, most kids outgrow the cartoon image of Saint Nick as an old guy with a white beard who gives out presents. They gain a little more mature understanding of Saint Nick as someone who personified generosity.
Unfortunately, some people hold on to the same preschool, cartoonish image of God as an old guy with a white beard who gives out presents. Realizing that cartoons aren't real, they imagine they can deduce that God isn't real. Certainly the cartoonish conception of God that understood when you were two years old isn't real, just like cartoon Saint Nick.
We should be careful with any powerful new tool. Unintended consequences are likely.
We were created with two overpowering imperatives hardwired in. We have, built-in, an intense desire to a) live and b) mate. We were also built with a big brain for figuring out ways to do those two things. It seems that He/it/nature designed us to try to survive.
We were also, if you believe in the Bible, a bunch of tips on how to do these things wisely, also summarized as ten rules. Rhe rule about mating being "don't try to screw somebody else's wife" - that tends to cause trouble.
Nowhere do I see "thou shall not mess with DNA". I DO see the admonition to plan ahead before beginning any large project. I see the advice to have a solid backup plan. Nothing about DNA though. Interestingly, the New Testament DOES mention breeding horses with donkeys to make mules, an "unnatural" combination of DNA , and does not disapprove.
Android had two problems, fragmentation because different vendors made changes to Android, and lack of updates on some devices. To improve the situation, Google started putting more of Android into the Google Play Services app, which can be updated on older devices and can't be changed by vendors. Rather than relying on OEMs and carriers to provide OS updates, Google just updates the Google Play Services app. So a lot of "Android" isn't in the open source OS anymore, it's in this critical app. That has worked fairly well. However...
Just as it reduces the ability of OEMs to make undesirable changes to Android, it also makes them more dependent on Google. An OEM who wants to be able to fork Android can take the OS itself as open source, but they need to re-implement Google Play Services themselves.
> can't even pass Post Office naming bills without it becoming a full-blown crisis.
Maybe if Hillary becomes President we can name more post offices. In her eight years in the senate, she did manage to get a post office naming bill through, along with two other bills she sponsored. The others named a highway and a historical site. Although she didn't sponsor any other laws in those eight years, she did name those three things.
S. 3613: A bill to name a post office the "Major George Quamo Post Office Building."
S. 3145: A bill to designate a highway in New York as the Timothy J. Russert highway.
S. 1241: A bill to establish the Kate Mullany National Historic Site in the State of New York.
"American Exceptionalism" doesn't mean what you seem to think it does. It's not "American Betterism". Look it up some time if you're interested in knowing what the words you use mean.
In brief summary, it's the idea that the US has a special responsibility to act in accordance with the principles of freedom and democracy because it was founded not as an ethnic group, but based on those principles.
> are the packages going to be water proof? How much is the added cost to make it not only delivered whenever the weather allows it, but also to ensure that the package itself can withstand the elements) no more cardboard).
Plastic Bag
> What about winter weather, when it's blustery, snowing hard
You may have noticed the airport doesn't get shut down all that more often than the streets do. We're not talking about little toy drones that can barely carry a Go-Pro, these are big ones.
Politicians are much smarter than the rest of us. The things they do and say only appear stupid to you because you're not an intellectual elite like they are. They are doing what's best for you, dear child.
On a different but somewhat related note, Hillary for President - she's been part of the elite political class since 1977!
I pretty much agree with everything you said. You seem like you might be interesting to talk to, so I'm going to express the opposing view on one point and I'd like to get your response.
> I have to say, denying someone from purchasing a gun based on a secret list seems 'kinda... you know... wrong?
My first reaction, my gut feeling, is the same as yours. HOWEVER, which of these portions is clearly a bad idea?:
a) Counter-terrorism authorities maintain a list of people for whom they have reason to suspect possible terrorist plans or idealogy, a list of probably dangerous people. (Well under 0.01% of citizens, indicating evidence to suspect).
b) Refrain from publishing that list publicly, so terrorists-in-training don't know for sure if they're on the list.
c) Refrain from selling firearms to these people without further review.
I don't like the general idea of a secret list affecting Constitutional rights. I'm not sure which of a, b, or c I strongly object to, though. Your thoughts?
Nothing is proceeding. A minority faction of the minority party (Democrats) decided they didn't like the compromise bill, so they shut down the House entirely.
The bipartisan bill that the speaker planned to take to vote would prevent the ~10,00 citizens** and 90,000 foreigners on the terrorism "no-fly"* list from buying firearms without approval, and allow them to appeal the denial in court.
Rather than accomplish SOMETHING that's maybe somewhat reasonable, these 60 or so Democrats decided to shut down Congress until they get their way and ban scary looking guns.
* The "no-fly" list doesn't stop people from flying. It means they can't fly into or out of the country.
** The US has about 300 million citizens, meaning that on in 30,000 is on the list.
Criminals think that they are unlucky when they get caught. They'll tell you "I got unlucky this time; I've shoplifted a hundred times before and never been caught." The second sentence is of course untrue - they WERE caught, just now. The fact is, if you make a habit of shoplifting, you'll be caught shoplifting sometimes. If you don't shoplift, you won't be caught shoplifting. The "luck" is only WHEN the shoplifter is caught. If you're in the habit of shoplifting, you probably have a court date ahead of you - no luck about it.
Further, the same people who think that way about shoplifting also think the same way about driving with an expired license, ditching school or work, etc. It's not LUCK when you're once again skipping school to drive over to the store in your unisured car to do some shoplifting and you get caught doing one of these things.
On the other hand, if you make it a habit to try to be helpful to people around you, eventually you'll be helpful to someone who can offer you a good job, or an important introduction or some other "lucky" thing. If you make it a habit to forego Starbuck's and Netflix in order to save back 10%-15% of your income, you'll luckily be prepared to take advantage of other opportunities that come your way.
We each make a hundred decisions every day. Get up now or hit snooze and hope to get to work on time? Eat a healthy breakfast or a cinnamon roll? Get the wrinkles out of your shirt or go to work looking like you don't care? Cut the person off on the way to work or slow down and let them go by? Hold the door for someone on the way into the building or not? Smile at the receptionist or not? Pleasant chit chat in the elevator or stare at the wall? I've made seven or eight decisions which could affect my career before I get to my desk each morning.
My habits, good and bad, mostly determine my outcomes. If I make a habit of flipping all other drivers, the only luck is whether eventually one of those drivers turns out to be my new boss or a random stranger with road rage, or maybe a sheriff. It'll eventually turn out bad somehow.
I totally agree. I quite disappointed that he's taken the path he has. Quite disappointed that he's the "R" nominee (much to the chagrin the R leadership) also. His publicity antics are an embarrassment.
Prior to the campaign, I saw him as an effective executive who hires really good people and works well with them, and someone who is very good at understanding the other party's position and getting a mutually agreeable deal done. Many months ago, I had hoped he might be able to help break the deadlock in Congress because he has been a very effective negotiator. He's had a lot of facepalm moments since then.
My state is solidly Republican, so my vote couldn't possibly affect whether Hillary or Trump wins.
However, in this election the Libertarian candidate is polling higher than ever. Both major parties have to notice this and think about adopting some libertarian views next time. I can encourage this by voting Libertarian. No, the Libertarian won't get elected this time, but the Republicans and Democrats WILL notice "gee, a lot of voters like libertarian policies. Maybe we should think about offering those voters some of what they want."
>> Watch the press not talk about it, as they focus on > Trump saying something stupid... again...
That's Trump's playbook. He spent way less than most candidates, and got much more coverage. One of his books has a chapter about publicity. It can be summarized as "be outrageous, the press is always looking for a story that's not boring." It's LITERALLY his playbook, available on Amazon.
Other FAA regulations, for other purposes, refer to heavily populated areas. For instance, that term is used for ultralights, which I fly. The new commercial drone regulation is:
Small unmanned aircraft may not operate over any persons
not directly participating in the operation
The commercial drone regulation mentions neither crowds nor heavily populated areas. You are forbidden to fly over "any persons". Indeed, that's even more clear than "people" - one person is an "any person".
Slashdot Mirror
That's an interesting thing to think about. There is probably a lesson or two to be learned. I wonder if Apple is more prone to kill off projects BEFORE they launch publicly, if focus groups and such don't go well.
Google has another approach, somewhat. They throw stuff out there, often with the "Beta" marking in earlier years, then publicly acknowledge it didn't well, so they kill of the whole idea. Contrast with Microsoft's statement "Since launching Surface 3 over a year ago, we have seen strong demand and satisfaction amongst our customers". So strong that they're giving up on it. ;)
Three very successful companies, three different approaches (at least Microsoft used to be very successful).
Apple and Microsoft have different relationships with their customer base, of course. Apple has fostered "fans" similar to a sports team would, people who really want to like their products. Microsoft has a customer base who wants the product to work seamlessly with the rest of their Microsoft-based environment, and to say the products are good because that justifies the fact that they spent their company's money buying the Microsoft product.
> it may not be increasing cost, but it's reducing the quality for the same cost, which is more-or-less equivalent.
It's NOT the same cost. On a phone (these are phone companies), it's providing approximately the same quality at much lower cost.
> If I could ask T-Mobile to compress and zero-rate all video streaming, both from big providers like Youtube and Netflix and from any random small server (or when streaming video from the phone to elsewhere, for that matter), then I would have no objection to it whatsoever.
Perhaps it is unfortunate that "any random small server" doesn't use the protocols, codecs, bit rates, etc that Youtube and Netflix agreed to. Maybe you can find a way to get everyone to agree on those particulars. Until then, it's used for video providers who use compatible settings.
Using the most well-known example, Binge On delivers 480p video using adaptive bit rate around 1 Mbps. Regular ( non-Binge) Youtube is about 4 Mbps normally, 8 Mbps at highest quality.
By using Binge On, you agree to lower quality video (which still looks fine on a 4" screen), and in exchange they exempt it from caps. They actual cost of transferring 1 Mbps is much lower than the cost of 4 Mbps or 8 Mbps. There's not an increased price to pay for, it's a cost-saving system.
18 U.S. Code  798 - Disclosure of classified information: ...
(a) Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates
prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified informationâ"
(1) concerning the nature, preparation, or use of any code, cipher, or cryptographic system of the United States or any foreign government;
You would have to know that it is a government secret.
Note nothing it in the statute says that removing the classification label makes it okay. If you know it is secret and you willfully communicate it to an authorized person, that's a felony.
The Secretary of State -could- declassify some State materials. She can't declassify any material from agencies outside DOS. But she didn't declassify it. It remained classified as it shared classified information with friends, and sent it in the clear over the internet to her house.
What you just tried to say might be interesting. Can you try writing it as sentences rather than words in seemingly random order with commas inserted at random? Then readers can know what you are trying to say.
Your arguments about the dye bag in the stolen money and person going to a sting drug house are better than the arguments that the court put forth in the opinion. The site was clearly labeled as a child porn site. Defendant requested the file labeled "six year fucked with a carrot.zip" or whatever ot was called. That zip file contained a dye bag.
Your other post, supporting the argument "computers can be eaily hacked, therefore the government is allowed to hack people's computers without a warrant" is ridiculous. I've worked in computer security a long time; before that I worked as a locksmith. You know what's even easier than hacking a computer? Picking a Home Depot lock. I can open most residential locks in seconds. Therefore you should expect someone to pick your lock, you have no reasonable expection of privacy in your own home?
Also this: ... means that they didn't need a warrant.
> The fact that the FBI got a warrant
The fact that they got a warrant means they didn't need one? The Consitution says they need one.
Obviously the emails containing top secret information wouldn't be subject to FOIA, and there are about a dozen other exceptions to FOIA, some of them quite broad.
* No, instructing her staff to remove the "Top Secret" marking from the document does NOT make the information no longer top secret. It only means she committed an ADDITIONAL crime.
Not that I agree with the ruling even a little bit, but ...
> Why should the content of what you download matter?
If I download a kernel from kernel.org, I would expect no malware. If I download illegal cracked warez, I would expect illegal malware. If I download a Windows update, I would expect spyware. If I download illegal child porn, I would expect illegal malware.
> Also, why should the country of origin matter?
If I download anything from China or Russia, I would be suprised if it didn't contain malware.
You seem to have missed a couple of sections in the opinion.
A key sentence is on page 3:
"Furthermore, the Court FINDS suppression unwarranted because the Government did not need a warrant in this case. Thus, any potential defects in the issuance of the warrant or in the warrant itself could not result in constitutional violations".
There's the court's ruling that the government does "not need a warrant" to hack your computer.
Then on page 47 see the section headed "Defendant Has No Reasonable Expectation of Privacy in His Computer", which STARTS with a bit about IP address, but then goes on to cover other information retrieved from the computer. The reasoning (excuse) given is that because your computer could be hacked, you have no reasonable expectation that it won't be. Per well-established precedent, no "reasonable expectation of privacy" means no fourth amendment protection.
On the other hand, the court ALSO pointed out that the hack did not occur until the defendant tried to download child porn. They didn't hack the machine as soon as it connected to the front page of the CP site; rather it was a trojan in the child porn download. The court says that when you download child porn from foreign countries, you should expect that you might get malware and your information might be exposed.
> There is no god. And no Santa or Easter Bunny either.
By around age six, most kids outgrow the cartoon image of Saint Nick as an old guy with a white beard who gives out presents. They gain a little more mature understanding of Saint Nick as someone who personified generosity.
Unfortunately, some people hold on to the same preschool, cartoonish image of God as an old guy with a white beard who gives out presents. Realizing that cartoons aren't real, they imagine they can deduce that God isn't real. Certainly the cartoonish conception of God that understood when you were two years old isn't real, just like cartoon Saint Nick.
We should be careful with any powerful new tool. Unintended consequences are likely.
We were created with two overpowering imperatives hardwired in. We have, built-in, an intense desire to a) live and b) mate. We were also built with a big brain for figuring out ways to do those two things. It seems that He/it/nature designed us to try to survive.
We were also, if you believe in the Bible, a bunch of tips on how to do these things wisely, also summarized as ten rules. Rhe rule about mating being "don't try to screw somebody else's wife" - that tends to cause trouble.
Nowhere do I see "thou shall not mess with DNA". I DO see the admonition to plan ahead before beginning any large project. I see the advice to have a solid backup plan. Nothing about DNA though. Interestingly, the New Testament DOES mention breeding horses with donkeys to make mules, an "unnatural" combination of DNA , and does not disapprove.
Android had two problems, fragmentation because different vendors made changes to Android, and lack of updates on some devices. To improve the situation, Google started putting more of Android into the Google Play Services app, which can be updated on older devices and can't be changed by vendors. Rather than relying on OEMs and carriers to provide OS updates, Google just updates the Google Play Services app. So a lot of "Android" isn't in the open source OS anymore, it's in this critical app. That has worked fairly well. However ...
Just as it reduces the ability of OEMs to make undesirable changes to Android, it also makes them more dependent on Google. An OEM who wants to be able to fork Android can take the OS itself as open source, but they need to re-implement Google Play Services themselves.
> can't even pass Post Office naming bills without it becoming a full-blown crisis.
Maybe if Hillary becomes President we can name more post offices. In her eight years in the senate, she did manage to get a post office naming bill through, along with two other bills she sponsored. The others named a highway and a historical site. Although she didn't sponsor any other laws in those eight years, she did name those three things.
S. 3613: A bill to name a post office the "Major George Quamo Post Office Building."
S. 3145: A bill to designate a highway in New York as the Timothy J. Russert highway.
S. 1241: A bill to establish the Kate Mullany National Historic Site in the State of New York.
"American Exceptionalism" doesn't mean what you seem to think it does. It's not "American Betterism". Look it up some time if you're interested in knowing what the words you use mean.
In brief summary, it's the idea that the US has a special responsibility to act in accordance with the principles of freedom and democracy because it was founded not as an ethnic group, but based on those principles.
> are the packages going to be water proof? How much is the added cost to make it not only delivered whenever the weather allows it, but also to ensure that the package itself can withstand the elements) no more cardboard).
Plastic Bag
> What about winter weather, when it's blustery, snowing hard
You may have noticed the airport doesn't get shut down all that more often than the streets do. We're not talking about little toy drones that can barely carry a Go-Pro, these are big ones.
Politicians are much smarter than the rest of us. The things they do and say only appear stupid to you because you're not an intellectual elite like they are. They are doing what's best for you, dear child.
On a different but somewhat related note, Hillary for President - she's been part of the elite political class since 1977!
I pretty much agree with everything you said. You seem like you might be interesting to talk to, so I'm going to express the opposing view on one point and I'd like to get your response.
> I have to say, denying someone from purchasing a gun based on a secret list seems 'kinda... you know... wrong?
My first reaction, my gut feeling, is the same as yours. HOWEVER, which of these portions is clearly a bad idea?:
a) Counter-terrorism authorities maintain a list of people for whom they have reason to suspect possible terrorist plans or idealogy, a list of probably dangerous people. (Well under 0.01% of citizens, indicating evidence to suspect).
b) Refrain from publishing that list publicly, so terrorists-in-training don't know for sure if they're on the list.
c) Refrain from selling firearms to these people without further review.
I don't like the general idea of a secret list affecting Constitutional rights. I'm not sure which of a, b, or c I strongly object to, though. Your thoughts?
Nothing is proceeding. A minority faction of the minority party (Democrats) decided they didn't like the compromise bill, so they shut down the House entirely.
The bipartisan bill that the speaker planned to take to vote would prevent the ~10,00 citizens** and 90,000 foreigners on the terrorism "no-fly"* list from buying firearms without approval, and allow them to appeal the denial in court.
Rather than accomplish SOMETHING that's maybe somewhat reasonable, these 60 or so Democrats decided to shut down Congress until they get their way and ban scary looking guns.
* The "no-fly" list doesn't stop people from flying. It means they can't fly into or out of the country.
** The US has about 300 million citizens, meaning that on in 30,000 is on the list.
Criminals think that they are unlucky when they get caught. They'll tell you "I got unlucky this time; I've shoplifted a hundred times before and never been caught." The second sentence is of course untrue - they WERE caught, just now. The fact is, if you make a habit of shoplifting, you'll be caught shoplifting sometimes. If you don't shoplift, you won't be caught shoplifting. The "luck" is only WHEN the shoplifter is caught. If you're in the habit of shoplifting, you probably have a court date ahead of you - no luck about it.
Further, the same people who think that way about shoplifting also think the same way about driving with an expired license, ditching school or work, etc. It's not LUCK when you're once again skipping school to drive over to the store in your unisured car to do some shoplifting and you get caught doing one of these things.
On the other hand, if you make it a habit to try to be helpful to people around you, eventually you'll be helpful to someone who can offer you a good job, or an important introduction or some other "lucky" thing. If you make it a habit to forego Starbuck's and Netflix in order to save back 10%-15% of your income, you'll luckily be prepared to take advantage of other opportunities that come your way.
We each make a hundred decisions every day. Get up now or hit snooze and hope to get to work on time? Eat a healthy breakfast or a cinnamon roll? Get the wrinkles out of your shirt or go to work looking like you don't care? Cut the person off on the way to work or slow down and let them go by? Hold the door for someone on the way into the building or not? Smile at the receptionist or not? Pleasant chit chat in the elevator or stare at the wall? I've made seven or eight decisions which could affect my career before I get to my desk each morning.
My habits, good and bad, mostly determine my outcomes. If I make a habit of flipping all other drivers, the only luck is whether eventually one of those drivers turns out to be my new boss or a random stranger with road rage, or maybe a sheriff. It'll eventually turn out bad somehow.
I totally agree. I quite disappointed that he's taken the path he has. Quite disappointed that he's the "R" nominee (much to the chagrin the R leadership) also. His publicity antics are an embarrassment.
Prior to the campaign, I saw him as an effective executive who hires really good people and works well with them, and someone who is very good at understanding the other party's position and getting a mutually agreeable deal done. Many months ago, I had hoped he might be able to help break the deadlock in Congress because he has been a very effective negotiator. He's had a lot of facepalm moments since then.
My state is solidly Republican, so my vote couldn't possibly affect whether Hillary or Trump wins.
However, in this election the Libertarian candidate is polling higher than ever. Both major parties have to notice this and think about adopting some libertarian views next time. I can encourage this by voting Libertarian. No, the Libertarian won't get elected this time, but the Republicans and Democrats WILL notice "gee, a lot of voters like libertarian policies. Maybe we should think about offering those voters some of what they want."
>> Watch the press not talk about it, as they focus on ... again ...
> Trump saying something stupid
That's Trump's playbook. He spent way less than most candidates, and got much more coverage. One of his books has a chapter about publicity. It can be summarized as "be outrageous, the press is always looking for a story that's not boring." It's LITERALLY his playbook, available on Amazon.
I guess they changed it. When I logged in, the first password was FuckBernie. An internal password was ClintonsDNC
Other FAA regulations, for other purposes, refer to heavily populated areas. For instance, that term is used for ultralights, which I fly. The new commercial drone regulation is:
Small unmanned aircraft may not operate over any persons
not directly participating in the operation
The commercial drone regulation mentions neither crowds nor heavily populated areas. You are forbidden to fly over "any persons". Indeed, that's even more clear than "people" - one person is an "any person".