back a few years ago when it looked like maybe there might be a wireless alternative to comcast time warner,
Might be? We've had wireless internet in this area for a decade now at least. I'd say there can be a wireless alternative, if only someone thought there would be profit in providing it.
And don't get me started on how useless the local uni has made the 2.4G band by blanketing campus in WiFi nodes. It's so bad that you can find places where you can't use a bluetooth headset and the headset is 6 inches from the device.
wifi sensitivity...I believe that these were bogus claims being backed by money from comcast, time warner etc.
It's fun to spread conspiracy theories, but don't discount the dumb factor and fear of the unknown. Comcast has nothing to gain from panic over wireless electric meters, yet there is a public backlash against them based on "wireless sensitivity" and "cancer" and "boogeyman".
We copy code without completely understanding the "how" all the time, it's called a "library"
And this is often why we wind up with complete nonsense output from a simple program. A large part of reusing code requires knowing when the assumptions that went into writing that code are valid and when they are not. It is hard to know when you shouldn't use a certain kind of sort algorithm if you don't know what that algorithm is and how it works. It is hard to know when not to use certain numerical functions if you don't know what they are.
That's why you learn what things are and how they work when you are in school, so that when you get into the real world you can make better choices and not so many mistakes.
To be fair, there are some courses that are core requirements for a large number of degrees, like Math 101, Chem 101, Physics 101, etc. There are so many people that need to take those courses every year that it only makes sense to have "classes" of several hundred people. I think the lecture hall used by Chem 101 held 300 people when I was an undergrad, and it was used for several sections per term.
Trying to have enough staff for such large classes would easily drive tuition up to where it was unaffordable. It was much cheaper to have one professor and a dozen TAs instead of a dozen professors.
Their parents and grandparents did lots of dumb shit. The difference is that society was more forgiving of mistakes then.
The difference is that the dumb shit they did wasn't long-term dumb shit like signing for a loan that takes 20 years to pay off to get a degree in something that nobody has jobs for. It was more like "spent $100 on a run-down jalopy with sawdust in the transmission".
I've got a boomer cousin with an American Studies degree, and he wound up being paid pretty well.
Old people did force tuition up. My son's college degree cost about four times what mine did in real dollars, from the same University.
If by "old people" you mean the state legislature that says "we will put in place a great retirement plan if you will put off getting a raise this year and to make up for the last few years of no raises", ok. (Oregon is stuck in that position: they told the unions "we will gladly pay you tomorrow for work you do today", and now that it is tomorrow they don't have the money. It's called "PERS", and it's a huge labor cost today as the people to whom those promises were paid start retiring.) And if "old people" means "an old university president who gives raises to himself and his administrator pals", ok. But "old people" in general? No.
It doesn't seem to be a case of easy money from student loans.
You're selling a product and someone is standing outside your store door giving people money to buy it. You don't raise prices both because you can and because the demand goes up, no. You don't hire more people to provide that service, so your labor costs don't go up. You're one in a billion.
What they were "sold" was the idea that they needed a degree for a good job.
For some jobs, yes. For many jobs, no. Nobody ever said that art history was a pathway to a ton of money.
They were offered loans, rather than jobs that could be made to cover tuition.
I'd be very interested in hearing about your student indentured servitude program for college students.
You don't need a gun when you've got information asymmetry and threats of an entire future working for you.
Information asymmetry? Is this a newspeak phrase for "makes bad decisions"? It isn't that hard to look at a piece of paper that says you are going to owe buttloads of money when you borrow money to get an art history degree, or feminist studies, or English lit, or whatever, and realize that you are going to owe buttloads of money for shot at a job that doesn't pay very well. It doesn't take much information to say "no, I can't afford that", unless you have decided before you sign on the dotted line that you aren't paying it back anyway.
And if you sign for that loan because you assume you will be given a good job when you graduate, well, that's an entitlement philosophy writ large. "I borrowed your money, you owe me a job." Not only did they assume they had a right to the education, they assumed the right to a good job after they got the education.
a minimum wage job has gotten people worse and worse of a living standard.
Minimum wage has never been intended to provide a "living wage".
Don't condemn "young people" for not wanting to pay social security and health care for you greedy old bastards then.
Because social security and health care are as useless as a degree in art history paid for with $100,000 in student loans. Right. And another difference is that people have been forced to pay into social security for their entire working lives, so dumping it now would be a huge breach of promise and unethical in any sense.
They bought into the heavily advertised concept that you need a college degree for a good job.
No. The "heavily advertised" concept in that regard is that you need certain college degrees to get certain good jobs. Nobody has ever said that a degree in art history was the route to a good job, or feminist studies, or degrees in a lot of other liberal arts. The heavily advertised degrees are CS, engineering, etc.
What they actually bought into was the concept spread by their peers that a college degree was a right and thus someone else should help them pay for it. That's why they accept high levels of debt for student loans. If the concept was simply that "degree is needed for good job", then they'd not be expecting "free money" to pay for the degree.
They used that money to get degrees in things that wouldn't pay well because of changing demand
Oh, right. I just missed all the demand for art historians that dried up in the last couple of years, I guess.
I will condemn the older people who pushed younger people into thinking they needed college educations
A pretty small subset of "older people".
while forcing tuition up
Older people didn't force tuition up -- that's the fault of the money availability from student loans increasing both demand and ability to pay.
and letting minimum wage slide.
Well, there goes your argument about older people telling kids they needed a college degree for a good job then. Nobody ever told anyone that a minimum wage job was the expected outcome of a college degree, so the fact that minimum wage has not spiraled up is irrelevant. Minimum wage has not slid, ever. There is no time in history that minimum wage was reduced.
I find it hard to condemn someone who was sold a bill of goods and doesn't want to be paying for it for the next twenty years.
Whatever they were "sold" didn't come from older people, it came from their peers who decided that their rights needed public funding, and student loans were the closest to public funded college educations that they could get. And they weren't "sold", they walked into the loans of their own free will. Nobody held a gun to my head, nobody held a gun to theirs.
Part of the problem is that most U.S. universities do not give a solitary fuck what you major in, as long as you pay tuition. They couldn't care less that you can't find a job
Of course they don't care. It isn't their job to care. It's YOUR job to figure out what you want to study and make good choices.
Do you really think the Universities are supposed to hold your hand and guide you through life, and coerce you into studying something you don't want to so you'll be employable when you graduate?
unless they're one of those colleges that advertises what percent of their graduates are employed
Because those are TRADE SCHOOLS that exist to teach you a TRADE that will lead to employment, and how many grads get jobs is a selling point for them. They are not universities, or even really "schools of higher education".
Millennials are stuck with student loan debt because older people have fought to take funding away from higher education.
Millennials are stuck with student loan debt because they bought into the concept that a college education is a right and the student loan program was "free money" to get them something they deserved. They used that money to get degrees in things that would never pay a good wage because they felt entitled to a college degree and a living wage just for breathing. (UBI, $15 minimum wage, etc, anyone?)
Don't condemn the "older people" who don't want to pay for the useless educations of millennials any more than the millennials who don't feel compelled to pay back their student loans for the educations they now realize were useless.
To clarify, FTP's part of the web when it's accessed via a URI/URL.
Uhhh, no. The FTP server (and the entire FTP transaction on the wire) is no different whether the client is a web browser using a URI/URL or an FTP client from the command line.
Just because a "web browser" has been coopted into doing other things doesn't make everything it touches part of "the web". For example, it would be silly to call a local file on your computer part of the worldwide web ("the web") just because your browser understands the "file" scheme. That file is not part of the web, it is a file local to your system and cannot be accessed by anyone outside that local system.
Would you consider "about:config" to be part of "the web" because it is accessed via a Firefox web browser?
In that case, it's media served over the Internet from a hyperlink,
No, its location is identified by a URL, but it is still served from an FTP server. It isn't served by "a hyperlink".
5.1 Create pages that are 120% of the window size so you can never see the entire page, ever.
10.1 Load 5k of "plain old HTML" to display what can be done with 200 bytes of plain old text.
12.1 Use CSS to configure a link to change to strike-through text when there is a mouse-over, making the link look like it is broken or invalid.
12.2 Use underline font on random words so they look like active links.
12.3 Turn random words into active links to pages to define the random words.
6.3 Fill your page, which is a site to download a bit of useful software, with DOWNLOAD buttons that actually download useless cruft, and put the actual download button all the way at the bottom.
Aside from the original web (which included things like FTP)
The original web did not include FTP. It was several years before web browsers understood the ftp: scheme, and it appears that at least firefox has no idea what a gopher: scheme is (a protocol that was, at one time, more prevalent than http.) Just because FTP was an internet protocol doesn't mean it was "on the web".
No, it isn't. It's a fine markup language. When it becomes crap is when page designers think it is a publishing language and think that their view of how their HTML should be rendered is the only way their HTML should be rendered.
and is the THIRD time the web has been re-invented.
I'm pretty sure that HTML was there at the beginning. I remember writing web pages for the CERN server in HTML. HTML5 is perhaps the fifth redesign, trying to turn a good markup language into something it wasn't meant to be.
Here's a demonstration of how HTML is not understood at all: the CBS television program "Scorpion" uses the string "</scorpion>", which everyone who knows better understands is the END of a section of type "Scorpion". But they use it at the beginning of the show, and at every commercial break. Is the show over before it starts? It seems not; the comedy continues for the full hour.
To me, "the web" is the physical infrastructure that allows communication using the internet protocol (with IP addresses like 8.8.8.8 that can be resolved using nameservers) and port numbers.
No. That's the Internet (or internet, if you prefer.) The Web is one thing transported on the Internet. Email, FTP, and a host of other services are also part of The Internet, but they are not The Web.
This ideal wouldn't have lasted long before the radio bandwidth got clogged and had to be regulated.
Amateur radio started after governments came into existence, and in fact, exists only because regulations define it.
What's the pre-dominant application on the web today? The web browser.
Tautology.
When did the web browser came into existence? 1995.
NCSA Mosaic was released to the public in 1993. The CERN web server was released in 1991, and while I don't find a reference to the browser date, there needs to be a browser if the server has any use.
What year did the unwashed masses discover the web? 1995.
I have no idea what action you are crediting this to, but Eternal September was in 1993 when AOL brought them to USENET. I believe AOL also had web access for its users, but I never used them.
What application did the unwashed masses use to access the web? The web browser.
Another tautology. What is your point? Anything a web browser does is part of the web? No, FTP and SMB are not part of the web; yet you can use FTP or SMB (and many other) access protocols through most modern web clients. Anything that you get through a web server is part of the web? Another tautology.
so how are you coming to the conclusion that my opinion is in error
You didn't express an opinion, you made a statement of fact. This is about encryption and backdoors. No, it isn't.
setting a legal precedent by getting a smaller company to do as I say would be a great and powerful first step towards geting a Judge to force a larger company (like Apple) to do as I say.
I don't know anything about mil grade stuff (that would be encrypted, at least I hope so),
There was a story a year or so ago about drone targets detecting drone attacks by tuning in on the drone video, so what used to be in the clear is now, indeed, encrypted. But not civilian.
You wrote: "Trump has made many attempts to silence speech he doesn't like, like kicking major news organizations out of the White House press corps,"
Since kicking a reporter out of a press conference is not in any way an attempt at silencing him, then your example fails. Your example fails, and Trump is dumb because he knows something you don't?
Your technological ignorance is showing. In order to 'home in' on a radio signal you need to triangulate on it, you can't do that from a single position.
Your technological ignorance is showing. In order to home in on a radio signal you need to know what direction it is coming from. You go that direction, and when the signal is now coming from behind you, you just passed over it.
Triangulation is just one way of doing it. When you have a vehicle that can move directly towards the signal, you don't need to triangulate.
It is rare for those who are English native speakers or are very familiar with the language to have the similar feeling toward the word "my" as she does.
It is not rare at all, especially on modern college campuses. There are departments of Diversity and Inclusion and such that would be happy to give your entire college staff and students hour long seminars on insensitive speech and hidden sexism and such. Just let them catch you referring to "my wife" and you'll get two barrels -- you don't own that person, and what if that person happens to be male?
It's not much different than the native English speakers who cannot fathom that a pronoun can have multiple meanings and apply to multiple genders. Or pretend that they cannot fathom it, so they can pretend to be victims when they see the word "he" applied to a non-specific antecedent. "But what about women?" Or often, "what about womym?"
Colbert didn't call Trump gay, he called him a cock holster. In other words, he didn't attack what he 'is,' but what he 'does.'
The problem is, it isn't "what he does". It's an act that is performed by people who have a certain "what he is" quality, with the direct implication that Trump "is" something he's not based on something that he doesn't actually "does". Yes, saying that Trump performs gay sex is calling him gay.
Consider how you'd feel about someone who refers to "watermelon eaters" in a derogatory way. You'd get the message from that, I assume. You'd laugh your ass off if I tried using the excuse that I was only talking about "what they do" and not "what they are".
Trump has made many attempts to silence speech he doesn't like, like kicking major news organizations out of the White House press corps,
You do realize that kicking a reporter out of the White House does absolutely nothing to silence him, don't you? In fact, it gets more people to listen to him because now he's a victim. You can't buy results like that.
He undertstands that the system stops him from doing it,
A system that has been in place since at least 1934 and has nothing to do with Trump.
Slashdot Mirror
back a few years ago when it looked like maybe there might be a wireless alternative to comcast time warner,
Might be? We've had wireless internet in this area for a decade now at least. I'd say there can be a wireless alternative, if only someone thought there would be profit in providing it.
And don't get me started on how useless the local uni has made the 2.4G band by blanketing campus in WiFi nodes. It's so bad that you can find places where you can't use a bluetooth headset and the headset is 6 inches from the device.
wifi sensitivity...I believe that these were bogus claims being backed by money from comcast, time warner etc.
It's fun to spread conspiracy theories, but don't discount the dumb factor and fear of the unknown. Comcast has nothing to gain from panic over wireless electric meters, yet there is a public backlash against them based on "wireless sensitivity" and "cancer" and "boogeyman".
We copy code without completely understanding the "how" all the time, it's called a "library"
And this is often why we wind up with complete nonsense output from a simple program. A large part of reusing code requires knowing when the assumptions that went into writing that code are valid and when they are not. It is hard to know when you shouldn't use a certain kind of sort algorithm if you don't know what that algorithm is and how it works. It is hard to know when not to use certain numerical functions if you don't know what they are.
That's why you learn what things are and how they work when you are in school, so that when you get into the real world you can make better choices and not so many mistakes.
Welcome to industrialized "education" for money.
To be fair, there are some courses that are core requirements for a large number of degrees, like Math 101, Chem 101, Physics 101, etc. There are so many people that need to take those courses every year that it only makes sense to have "classes" of several hundred people. I think the lecture hall used by Chem 101 held 300 people when I was an undergrad, and it was used for several sections per term.
Trying to have enough staff for such large classes would easily drive tuition up to where it was unaffordable. It was much cheaper to have one professor and a dozen TAs instead of a dozen professors.
CS101 certainly fits that mold.
Their parents and grandparents did lots of dumb shit. The difference is that society was more forgiving of mistakes then.
The difference is that the dumb shit they did wasn't long-term dumb shit like signing for a loan that takes 20 years to pay off to get a degree in something that nobody has jobs for. It was more like "spent $100 on a run-down jalopy with sawdust in the transmission".
I've got a boomer cousin with an American Studies degree, and he wound up being paid pretty well.
That's nice. Anecdotal evidence is so convincing.
Old people did force tuition up. My son's college degree cost about four times what mine did in real dollars, from the same University.
If by "old people" you mean the state legislature that says "we will put in place a great retirement plan if you will put off getting a raise this year and to make up for the last few years of no raises", ok. (Oregon is stuck in that position: they told the unions "we will gladly pay you tomorrow for work you do today", and now that it is tomorrow they don't have the money. It's called "PERS", and it's a huge labor cost today as the people to whom those promises were paid start retiring.) And if "old people" means "an old university president who gives raises to himself and his administrator pals", ok. But "old people" in general? No.
It doesn't seem to be a case of easy money from student loans.
You're selling a product and someone is standing outside your store door giving people money to buy it. You don't raise prices both because you can and because the demand goes up, no. You don't hire more people to provide that service, so your labor costs don't go up. You're one in a billion.
What they were "sold" was the idea that they needed a degree for a good job.
For some jobs, yes. For many jobs, no. Nobody ever said that art history was a pathway to a ton of money.
They were offered loans, rather than jobs that could be made to cover tuition.
I'd be very interested in hearing about your student indentured servitude program for college students.
You don't need a gun when you've got information asymmetry and threats of an entire future working for you.
Information asymmetry? Is this a newspeak phrase for "makes bad decisions"? It isn't that hard to look at a piece of paper that says you are going to owe buttloads of money when you borrow money to get an art history degree, or feminist studies, or English lit, or whatever, and realize that you are going to owe buttloads of money for shot at a job that doesn't pay very well. It doesn't take much information to say "no, I can't afford that", unless you have decided before you sign on the dotted line that you aren't paying it back anyway.
And if you sign for that loan because you assume you will be given a good job when you graduate, well, that's an entitlement philosophy writ large. "I borrowed your money, you owe me a job." Not only did they assume they had a right to the education, they assumed the right to a good job after they got the education.
a minimum wage job has gotten people worse and worse of a living standard.
Minimum wage has never been intended to provide a "living wage".
Don't condemn "young people" for not wanting to pay social security and health care for you greedy old bastards then.
Because social security and health care are as useless as a degree in art history paid for with $100,000 in student loans. Right. And another difference is that people have been forced to pay into social security for their entire working lives, so dumping it now would be a huge breach of promise and unethical in any sense.
Who was it that fucked those up?
FDR, a very long time before I was born.
They bought into the heavily advertised concept that you need a college degree for a good job.
No. The "heavily advertised" concept in that regard is that you need certain college degrees to get certain good jobs. Nobody has ever said that a degree in art history was the route to a good job, or feminist studies, or degrees in a lot of other liberal arts. The heavily advertised degrees are CS, engineering, etc.
What they actually bought into was the concept spread by their peers that a college degree was a right and thus someone else should help them pay for it. That's why they accept high levels of debt for student loans. If the concept was simply that "degree is needed for good job", then they'd not be expecting "free money" to pay for the degree.
They used that money to get degrees in things that wouldn't pay well because of changing demand
Oh, right. I just missed all the demand for art historians that dried up in the last couple of years, I guess.
I will condemn the older people who pushed younger people into thinking they needed college educations
A pretty small subset of "older people".
while forcing tuition up
Older people didn't force tuition up -- that's the fault of the money availability from student loans increasing both demand and ability to pay.
and letting minimum wage slide.
Well, there goes your argument about older people telling kids they needed a college degree for a good job then. Nobody ever told anyone that a minimum wage job was the expected outcome of a college degree, so the fact that minimum wage has not spiraled up is irrelevant. Minimum wage has not slid, ever. There is no time in history that minimum wage was reduced.
I find it hard to condemn someone who was sold a bill of goods and doesn't want to be paying for it for the next twenty years.
Whatever they were "sold" didn't come from older people, it came from their peers who decided that their rights needed public funding, and student loans were the closest to public funded college educations that they could get. And they weren't "sold", they walked into the loans of their own free will. Nobody held a gun to my head, nobody held a gun to theirs.
Part of the problem is that most U.S. universities do not give a solitary fuck what you major in, as long as you pay tuition. They couldn't care less that you can't find a job
Of course they don't care. It isn't their job to care. It's YOUR job to figure out what you want to study and make good choices.
Do you really think the Universities are supposed to hold your hand and guide you through life, and coerce you into studying something you don't want to so you'll be employable when you graduate?
unless they're one of those colleges that advertises what percent of their graduates are employed
Because those are TRADE SCHOOLS that exist to teach you a TRADE that will lead to employment, and how many grads get jobs is a selling point for them. They are not universities, or even really "schools of higher education".
Millennials are stuck with student loan debt because older people have fought to take funding away from higher education.
Millennials are stuck with student loan debt because they bought into the concept that a college education is a right and the student loan program was "free money" to get them something they deserved. They used that money to get degrees in things that would never pay a good wage because they felt entitled to a college degree and a living wage just for breathing. (UBI, $15 minimum wage, etc, anyone?)
Don't condemn the "older people" who don't want to pay for the useless educations of millennials any more than the millennials who don't feel compelled to pay back their student loans for the educations they now realize were useless.
To clarify, FTP's part of the web when it's accessed via a URI/URL.
Uhhh, no. The FTP server (and the entire FTP transaction on the wire) is no different whether the client is a web browser using a URI/URL or an FTP client from the command line.
Just because a "web browser" has been coopted into doing other things doesn't make everything it touches part of "the web". For example, it would be silly to call a local file on your computer part of the worldwide web ("the web") just because your browser understands the "file" scheme. That file is not part of the web, it is a file local to your system and cannot be accessed by anyone outside that local system.
Would you consider "about:config" to be part of "the web" because it is accessed via a Firefox web browser?
In that case, it's media served over the Internet from a hyperlink,
No, its location is identified by a URL, but it is still served from an FTP server. It isn't served by "a hyperlink".
10.1 Load 5k of "plain old HTML" to display what can be done with 200 bytes of plain old text.
12.1 Use CSS to configure a link to change to strike-through text when there is a mouse-over, making the link look like it is broken or invalid.
12.2 Use underline font on random words so they look like active links.
12.3 Turn random words into active links to pages to define the random words.
6.3 Fill your page, which is a site to download a bit of useful software, with DOWNLOAD buttons that actually download useless cruft, and put the actual download button all the way at the bottom.
Aside from the original web (which included things like FTP)
The original web did not include FTP. It was several years before web browsers understood the ftp: scheme, and it appears that at least firefox has no idea what a gopher: scheme is (a protocol that was, at one time, more prevalent than http.) Just because FTP was an internet protocol doesn't mean it was "on the web".
No it isn't -- HTML is crap
No, it isn't. It's a fine markup language. When it becomes crap is when page designers think it is a publishing language and think that their view of how their HTML should be rendered is the only way their HTML should be rendered.
and is the THIRD time the web has been re-invented.
I'm pretty sure that HTML was there at the beginning. I remember writing web pages for the CERN server in HTML. HTML5 is perhaps the fifth redesign, trying to turn a good markup language into something it wasn't meant to be.
Here's a demonstration of how HTML is not understood at all: the CBS television program "Scorpion" uses the string "</scorpion>", which everyone who knows better understands is the END of a section of type "Scorpion". But they use it at the beginning of the show, and at every commercial break. Is the show over before it starts? It seems not; the comedy continues for the full hour.
To me, "the web" is the physical infrastructure that allows communication using the internet protocol (with IP addresses like 8.8.8.8 that can be resolved using nameservers) and port numbers.
No. That's the Internet (or internet, if you prefer.) The Web is one thing transported on the Internet. Email, FTP, and a host of other services are also part of The Internet, but they are not The Web.
This ideal wouldn't have lasted long before the radio bandwidth got clogged and had to be regulated.
Amateur radio started after governments came into existence, and in fact, exists only because regulations define it.
What's the pre-dominant application on the web today? The web browser.
Tautology.
When did the web browser came into existence? 1995.
NCSA Mosaic was released to the public in 1993. The CERN web server was released in 1991, and while I don't find a reference to the browser date, there needs to be a browser if the server has any use.
What year did the unwashed masses discover the web? 1995.
I have no idea what action you are crediting this to, but Eternal September was in 1993 when AOL brought them to USENET. I believe AOL also had web access for its users, but I never used them.
What application did the unwashed masses use to access the web? The web browser.
Another tautology. What is your point? Anything a web browser does is part of the web? No, FTP and SMB are not part of the web; yet you can use FTP or SMB (and many other) access protocols through most modern web clients. Anything that you get through a web server is part of the web? Another tautology.
In five minutes with Google search I learned that drone control signals are digitally encrypted,
And I found otherwise.
so how are you coming to the conclusion that my opinion is in error
You didn't express an opinion, you made a statement of fact. This is about encryption and backdoors. No, it isn't.
setting a legal precedent by getting a smaller company to do as I say would be a great and powerful first step towards geting a Judge to force a larger company (like Apple) to do as I say.
They don't have to do as you say.
I stand by what I said before: this is actually an attack on encryption in general.
Since it has nothing to do with encryption, no, it is not an attack on encryption.
Get drone manufacturers to put backdoors in their drone control signal encryption,
Who needs a backdoor?
I don't know anything about mil grade stuff (that would be encrypted, at least I hope so),
There was a story a year or so ago about drone targets detecting drone attacks by tuning in on the drone video, so what used to be in the clear is now, indeed, encrypted. But not civilian.
Since kicking a reporter out of a press conference is not in any way an attempt at silencing him, then your example fails. Your example fails, and Trump is dumb because he knows something you don't?
Your technological ignorance is showing. In order to 'home in' on a radio signal you need to triangulate on it, you can't do that from a single position.
Your technological ignorance is showing. In order to home in on a radio signal you need to know what direction it is coming from. You go that direction, and when the signal is now coming from behind you, you just passed over it.
Triangulation is just one way of doing it. When you have a vehicle that can move directly towards the signal, you don't need to triangulate.
So far as I know, drone control signals are encrypted;
So then, you don't know.
That just shows that Trump is dumb.
Trump wasn't the one claiming that kicking a reporter out of a press conference was an attempt at silencing him.
It is rare for those who are English native speakers or are very familiar with the language to have the similar feeling toward the word "my" as she does.
It is not rare at all, especially on modern college campuses. There are departments of Diversity and Inclusion and such that would be happy to give your entire college staff and students hour long seminars on insensitive speech and hidden sexism and such. Just let them catch you referring to "my wife" and you'll get two barrels -- you don't own that person, and what if that person happens to be male?
It's not much different than the native English speakers who cannot fathom that a pronoun can have multiple meanings and apply to multiple genders. Or pretend that they cannot fathom it, so they can pretend to be victims when they see the word "he" applied to a non-specific antecedent. "But what about women?" Or often, "what about womym?"
Colbert didn't call Trump gay, he called him a cock holster. In other words, he didn't attack what he 'is,' but what he 'does.'
The problem is, it isn't "what he does". It's an act that is performed by people who have a certain "what he is" quality, with the direct implication that Trump "is" something he's not based on something that he doesn't actually "does". Yes, saying that Trump performs gay sex is calling him gay.
Consider how you'd feel about someone who refers to "watermelon eaters" in a derogatory way. You'd get the message from that, I assume. You'd laugh your ass off if I tried using the excuse that I was only talking about "what they do" and not "what they are".
Trump has made many attempts to silence speech he doesn't like, like kicking major news organizations out of the White House press corps,
You do realize that kicking a reporter out of the White House does absolutely nothing to silence him, don't you? In fact, it gets more people to listen to him because now he's a victim. You can't buy results like that.
He undertstands that the system stops him from doing it,
A system that has been in place since at least 1934 and has nothing to do with Trump.