I couldn't help but notice that you keep quoting hobbyist prices for components designed for LOS control and small payload. Try researching some FAA approved control systems and plane assemblies and quote those prices so we can fully appreciate the real costs involved.
Don't hurt yourself climbing down from that soap box. Revenge is when it's personal. Justice is when the criminal system issues its sentence after all the evidence is reviewed with an impartial jury.
I like junk mail. It tells me that my mail courier came by. In addition it helps pay for the service. I simply just toss it in the trash or put it in my "fire starter" pile now that BBQ season is here.
You could just use electronic banking, go to their website an pay electronically, or auto pay. There are many options that doesn't require a service that reads your mail for you.
After invading her home, Clayton Lockett bound his teenage victim with duct tape, beat her repeatedly, kidnapped her and drove her to dusty country road, forced her to watch while he dug a shallow grave, and laughed as he shot her twice with a shotgun.
Sounds like he got what he deserved. I don't see a problem. Karma is a bitch.
Top 1% includes all households that made over $388,905/year and they paid 35.1% of the federal tax burden.
Top 5% includes all households that made over $167,728/year and they paid 56.5% of the federal tax burden.
Top 10% includes all households that made over $120,136/year and they paid 68.3% of the federal tax burden.
Using the exact same information that the Heritage Foundation used I can factually say:
64.9 % of all federal taxes were paid by households making less than $388,905/year.
43.5% of all federal taxes were paid by households making less than $167,728/year.
31.7% of all federal taxes were paid by households making less than $120,136/year.
My point being that Heritage Foundation used statistics to make a point that is not close to being factual. Their assertion that the rich pay the most taxes is most definitely false. The first clue should have been when they talked about percentage of income without actually showing the income bracket for each percentage.
Go read the actual Tax Stat reports at the IRS's Tax Stats and you will be surprised how small a percentage people who make over $800,000/year pay.
Don't get me wrong since I don't agree with nationalization or government buyouts, but I disagree with your assertion.
Government services work on behalf of its citizens while Corporations work on behalf of its stock holders. You do not have to pay for representation within the government, whereas your representation within a corporation is based on the percentage of shares you own. The point you are attempting to make isn't valid.
Let me get this straight --- you want to either nationalize or purchase (Verizon, Comcast, etc. are already publicly owned -- about $50 gets you a vote in what they do) the infrastructure so that governments can treat it like they treat roads?
You've confused publicly traded with publicly owned. Verizon, Comcast, etc. may sale their stocks to the public but it is privately owned by its stock holders and works on behalf of its owners and not the general public at large.
It looks like you fell for the old Republicans versus Democrats ruse. Like a college football rivalry, you don't pay attention to the details but instead root for the home team while yelling disparaging remarks about the other team. Using this way of thinking, you believe every stereotype given and you are in danger of endorsing or discrediting an legislative initiative based solely is it was sponsored by a republican or a democrat.
Republicans love taxes just as much as democrats. The main difference between the two parties could be boiled down to who pays the taxes and what the government spends the money on.
Republicans prefer that the working class pay the majority of the taxes and government spend its money on national defense and corporate subsidies.This redistributes the money from the working class to the wealthy via government contracts and outright corporate welfare. They justify this by using the "job creator" story. Unfortunately its been shown that most of the new employers are small businesses whose owners aren't in the wealthy class. The wealthy do spend money but trickle down economics doesn't take globalization in consideration and therefore most of the currency is exported in exchange for cheaper goods. The wealthy tend to be more libertarian since they are self sufficient and view regulations as a cost with little benefit.
Democrats differ slightly on taxation since they want the wealthy to pay their "fair share" of the tax burden and want to lessen the tax burden on the lowest income brackets. They favor government spending on social programs and enforcement of environmental, safety and financial regulations. This sort of redistributes the money from the wealthy to the working class. Since in theory the wealthy pay more taxes and the poor receive more government benefits. Also the working class benefit from safer and cleaner working conditions and from cleaner conditions at home with safer places to place their money.
A political system with a healthy political discourse usually moderates between the two extremes. Unfortunately the vocal participants within the US political system are mainly the extremists of both parties and the public who can't be troubled with listening to anything more than a sound bite are reduced to cheering for their favorite team.
I don't think this case was worth the risk of SCOTUS setting an accidental precedence. I'd like to think that SCOTUS was thinking along the same lines.
This is just one of the many bad side effects of an overly expansive notion of "intellectual property" and of corporate privelege in general.
You jumped to a pretty big conclusion there.
I think it's more applicable to say that this had more to do with Microsoft's ability to drag the case as long as possible and SCOTUS having little incentive to review a case that spans two decades with a dead product on one side and a dead corporation on the other.
The hypocrisy is that the party currently occupying the White House has gone to extraordinary efforts to apply big data analytics to identify and exploit the very differences (race, income, ethnicity, education, etc.) that this article decries in order to maximize their political gain in elections.
You mean like the conservatives did in the south by using census data and neighborhood surveys to determine where to gerrymander the district lines to insure their continued dominance?
Save your false indignation... there's enough of that on Fox News.
The FDA proposes tracing the source of all ingredients and livestock feed which causes in an industry, that's currently taking advantage of little regulation on the sale of their by-products, to start issuing press releases on how this is somehow the end of the world as we know it.
Let's negotiate a sensible method of satisfying FDA's concerns and allow the agency to get a handle on processed food safety. I would not be surprised if this is simply someone balking at the thought of paperwork.
You don't notice a difference between "The Obama administration has prosecuted journalists and leakers at a far higher rate than before" and "The Obama administration has prosecuted 8 leakers"? None of the eight were journalists.
The Obama administration has prosecuted journalists and leakers at a far higher rate than before.
Resorting to hyperbole to make a point? Let's look at the facts, The espionage act was used eight times:
Thomas Drake -Allegedly retained classified information about the NSA's program of wiretapping without warrants. Charges were dropped in exchange for a guilty plea to a misdemeanor charge of mishandling government information
Shamai Leibowitz - Charged for "knowingly and willfully disclosing to an unauthorized person five FBI documents classified at the 'secret' level that contained classified information concerning the communication intelligence activities of the United States.
Stephen Jin-Woo Kim - For leaking information about how much the US knows about North Korea's nuclear program.
Chelsea Manning - Disclosed classified documents to WikiLeaks.
Jeffery Sterling - Disclosed what the US knew about Iran's nuclear program.
John Kiriakou - Former CIA agent disclosed the identity of CIA agent working in the CIA interrogation program.
James Hitselberger - Charged with retaining classified information and shipping it back to Stanford University which contained "sensitive information about troop positions, gaps in U.S. intelligence and commanders' travel plans."
Edward Snowden - disclosed the existence of U.S. government surveillance programs to The Guardian and The Washington Post.
I disagree. Cite authority figures if you want, but their mere opinions will not change my opinion.
You are entitled to your opinion. I however disagree.
Now who's talking about personal desires? You seem to be suggesting that freedom doesn't matter, and what the constitution actually says doesn't matter.
I said no such thing. I like the constitution and think it should be interpreted correctly. All I said is that not everything you mentioned can be considered a freedom. You however want to create a fiction that I'm somehow against all freedom or the constitution in order to build some preposterous argument.
Judges' interpretations can (and have been wrong), and saying otherwise is paradoxical and an appeal to authority. I disagree with the judges.
You may not agree with a judge's ruling but they are better qualified than the both of us. I am not saying they are infallible but the system exists for a very good reason. In addition we have an appellate system in place so more than one judge can look at the issue.
What I personally want people to do is irrelevant, but I do want people to have certain freedoms, even if I disagree with their actual actions. You are no different, and saying that certain things are not "human rights" doesn't make you objectively correct, but nor would me saying that they are human rights.
This looks like one of those preposterous arguments I was talking about earlier.
Copyright infringes upon fundamental private property rights and free speech rights (which I consider a fundamental right), so it's intolerable. Patents infringe upon the former, so they're intolerable. Both create artificial scarcity and government-enforced monopolies for certain people, which I also find intolerable.
You may want to revisit what constitutes free speech. Your ability to disregard copyright and distribute something isn't what most would consider protected free speech. However, I do find the longevity of copyrights objectionable.
Patents on the other hand is not as clear cut as copyright. There is nothing wrong with patents in general, but like a firearm (which is the original subject btw) it can be used to infringe someone else's right. Examples include a farmer's right being infringed by a corporation because patented genetically modified crop growing nearby tainted his goods, or a business being sued into non-existence because another business obtained a patent on a very obvious business method. I blame the patent office for incompetence more than I blame the existence of patents.
You know what else isn't a "human right"? Safety at the expense of freedom. In a country that is *really* "the land of the free and the home of the brave," we would not so haphazardly sacrifice freedom for safety like a pack of worthless cowards. Freedom has risks, and they're worth it.
The United States was never meant to be a land where IonOtter can do as he pleases. The US was founded on providing fundamental freedoms while insuring that those freedoms will be protected from aggressors. I do not agree with the heavy handiness of the patriot act, but an overwhelming majority of congressmen responded to the fears of their constituents and passed it. I personally believe it outlasted its usefulness. In fact, I didn't like its passage.
Too bad the party that vehemently defends an interpretation of the 2nd amendment doesn't feel as strongly about the rest of the amendments.
Singling out freedom of speech doesn't make the rest of your list worthy of being a "freedom".
The ability to defend oneself is a human right. The ability to purchase anything to further the goal of self preservation not so much. The courts have already established that regulations are warranted and constitutional. I can see their point, you don't want an arms race in self preservation especially since what could be used for self preservation could also be used to harm someone else.
Freedom from copyrights and patents is not a human right but you (and most of slashdot) may find it desirable.
Slashdot Mirror
I couldn't help but notice that you keep quoting hobbyist prices for components designed for LOS control and small payload. Try researching some FAA approved control systems and plane assemblies and quote those prices so we can fully appreciate the real costs involved.
Don't hurt yourself climbing down from that soap box. Revenge is when it's personal. Justice is when the criminal system issues its sentence after all the evidence is reviewed with an impartial jury.
Actually I'm just happy that justice was served. I'm just not that broken up by the complications during the execution of the sentence he was given.
I like junk mail. It tells me that my mail courier came by. In addition it helps pay for the service. I simply just toss it in the trash or put it in my "fire starter" pile now that BBQ season is here.
You could just use electronic banking, go to their website an pay electronically, or auto pay. There are many options that doesn't require a service that reads your mail for you.
After invading her home, Clayton Lockett bound his teenage victim with duct tape, beat her repeatedly, kidnapped her and drove her to dusty country road, forced her to watch while he dug a shallow grave, and laughed as he shot her twice with a shotgun.
Sounds like he got what he deserved. I don't see a problem. Karma is a bitch.
I don't think you really want to believe what the Heritage Foundation is telling you.
Their premise is that the rich pay the majority of the federal tax, so let's really look at the numbers to make sure if their premise is correct.
According to the Federal Income Tax Data from 2011. The top 10% paid 68.3% of all the federal taxes. So far so good...
What makes up the top 10%? The Tax Foundation was nice enough to tabulate this report.
Top 1% includes all households that made over $388,905/year and they paid 35.1% of the federal tax burden.
Top 5% includes all households that made over $167,728/year and they paid 56.5% of the federal tax burden.
Top 10% includes all households that made over $120,136/year and they paid 68.3% of the federal tax burden.
Using the exact same information that the Heritage Foundation used I can factually say:
64.9 % of all federal taxes were paid by households making less than $388,905/year.
43.5% of all federal taxes were paid by households making less than $167,728/year.
31.7% of all federal taxes were paid by households making less than $120,136/year.
My point being that Heritage Foundation used statistics to make a point that is not close to being factual. Their assertion that the rich pay the most taxes is most definitely false. The first clue should have been when they talked about percentage of income without actually showing the income bracket for each percentage.
Go read the actual Tax Stat reports at the IRS's Tax Stats and you will be surprised how small a percentage people who make over $800,000/year pay.
Don't get me wrong since I don't agree with nationalization or government buyouts, but I disagree with your assertion.
Government services work on behalf of its citizens while Corporations work on behalf of its stock holders. You do not have to pay for representation within the government, whereas your representation within a corporation is based on the percentage of shares you own. The point you are attempting to make isn't valid.
You've confused publicly traded with publicly owned. Verizon, Comcast, etc. may sale their stocks to the public but it is privately owned by its stock holders and works on behalf of its owners and not the general public at large.
I'm for net neutrality but "To Save the Internet We Need To Own the Means of Distribution" is a little over the top.
The Internet has grown despite of restrictions from ISPs since day one.
It looks like you fell for the old Republicans versus Democrats ruse. Like a college football rivalry, you don't pay attention to the details but instead root for the home team while yelling disparaging remarks about the other team. Using this way of thinking, you believe every stereotype given and you are in danger of endorsing or discrediting an legislative initiative based solely is it was sponsored by a republican or a democrat.
Republicans love taxes just as much as democrats. The main difference between the two parties could be boiled down to who pays the taxes and what the government spends the money on.
Republicans prefer that the working class pay the majority of the taxes and government spend its money on national defense and corporate subsidies.This redistributes the money from the working class to the wealthy via government contracts and outright corporate welfare. They justify this by using the "job creator" story. Unfortunately its been shown that most of the new employers are small businesses whose owners aren't in the wealthy class. The wealthy do spend money but trickle down economics doesn't take globalization in consideration and therefore most of the currency is exported in exchange for cheaper goods. The wealthy tend to be more libertarian since they are self sufficient and view regulations as a cost with little benefit.
Democrats differ slightly on taxation since they want the wealthy to pay their "fair share" of the tax burden and want to lessen the tax burden on the lowest income brackets. They favor government spending on social programs and enforcement of environmental, safety and financial regulations. This sort of redistributes the money from the wealthy to the working class. Since in theory the wealthy pay more taxes and the poor receive more government benefits. Also the working class benefit from safer and cleaner working conditions and from cleaner conditions at home with safer places to place their money.
A political system with a healthy political discourse usually moderates between the two extremes. Unfortunately the vocal participants within the US political system are mainly the extremists of both parties and the public who can't be troubled with listening to anything more than a sound bite are reduced to cheering for their favorite team.
Dragging out a case is not new.
I don't think this case was worth the risk of SCOTUS setting an accidental precedence. I'd like to think that SCOTUS was thinking along the same lines.
You jumped to a pretty big conclusion there.
I think it's more applicable to say that this had more to do with Microsoft's ability to drag the case as long as possible and SCOTUS having little incentive to review a case that spans two decades with a dead product on one side and a dead corporation on the other.
You mean like the conservatives did in the south by using census data and neighborhood surveys to determine where to gerrymander the district lines to insure their continued dominance?
Save your false indignation... there's enough of that on Fox News.
Apache struts announced another general availability release that has the fix on April 24th.
This is why you shouldn't read a blog post when the source material is just as easy to read.
If you own an Apple computer capable of running OS X then you have all that is required.
The FDA proposes tracing the source of all ingredients and livestock feed which causes in an industry, that's currently taking advantage of little regulation on the sale of their by-products, to start issuing press releases on how this is somehow the end of the world as we know it.
Let's negotiate a sensible method of satisfying FDA's concerns and allow the agency to get a handle on processed food safety. I would not be surprised if this is simply someone balking at the thought of paperwork.
You don't notice a difference between "The Obama administration has prosecuted journalists and leakers at a far higher rate than before" and "The Obama administration has prosecuted 8 leakers"? None of the eight were journalists.
Resorting to hyperbole to make a point? Let's look at the facts, The espionage act was used eight times:
Thomas Drake -Allegedly retained classified information about the NSA's program of wiretapping without warrants. Charges were dropped in exchange for a guilty plea to a misdemeanor charge of mishandling government information
Shamai Leibowitz - Charged for "knowingly and willfully disclosing to an unauthorized person five FBI documents classified at the 'secret' level that contained classified information concerning the communication intelligence activities of the United States.
Stephen Jin-Woo Kim - For leaking information about how much the US knows about North Korea's nuclear program.
Chelsea Manning - Disclosed classified documents to WikiLeaks.
Jeffery Sterling - Disclosed what the US knew about Iran's nuclear program.
John Kiriakou - Former CIA agent disclosed the identity of CIA agent working in the CIA interrogation program.
James Hitselberger - Charged with retaining classified information and shipping it back to Stanford University which contained "sensitive information about troop positions, gaps in U.S. intelligence and commanders' travel plans."
Edward Snowden - disclosed the existence of U.S. government surveillance programs to The Guardian and The Washington Post.
You don't have to script a lie you've been using constantly. Practice makes perfect.
That's Twitter's job! Just ask Mozilla.
You are entitled to your opinion. I however disagree.
I said no such thing. I like the constitution and think it should be interpreted correctly. All I said is that not everything you mentioned can be considered a freedom. You however want to create a fiction that I'm somehow against all freedom or the constitution in order to build some preposterous argument.
You may not agree with a judge's ruling but they are better qualified than the both of us. I am not saying they are infallible but the system exists for a very good reason. In addition we have an appellate system in place so more than one judge can look at the issue.
This looks like one of those preposterous arguments I was talking about earlier.
You may want to revisit what constitutes free speech. Your ability to disregard copyright and distribute something isn't what most would consider protected free speech. However, I do find the longevity of copyrights objectionable.
Patents on the other hand is not as clear cut as copyright. There is nothing wrong with patents in general, but like a firearm (which is the original subject btw) it can be used to infringe someone else's right. Examples include a farmer's right being infringed by a corporation because patented genetically modified crop growing nearby tainted his goods, or a business being sued into non-existence because another business obtained a patent on a very obvious business method. I blame the patent office for incompetence more than I blame the existence of patents.
The United States was never meant to be a land where IonOtter can do as he pleases. The US was founded on providing fundamental freedoms while insuring that those freedoms will be protected from aggressors. I do not agree with the heavy handiness of the patriot act, but an overwhelming majority of congressmen responded to the fears of their constituents and passed it. I personally believe it outlasted its usefulness. In fact, I didn't like its passage.
Too bad the party that vehemently defends an interpretation of the 2nd amendment doesn't feel as strongly about the rest of the amendments.
Singling out freedom of speech doesn't make the rest of your list worthy of being a "freedom".
The ability to defend oneself is a human right. The ability to purchase anything to further the goal of self preservation not so much. The courts have already established that regulations are warranted and constitutional. I can see their point, you don't want an arms race in self preservation especially since what could be used for self preservation could also be used to harm someone else.
Freedom from copyrights and patents is not a human right but you (and most of slashdot) may find it desirable.
We could be like the UK and propose that "no confidence" is automatic when congress fails to pass a budget.
Except for the very first part of the second amendment reads: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary..."