Radical extremist messages don't resonate with people who have a comfortable life. Every time the middle class gets pushed down, every time a full time job doesn't make ends meet, every time a simple medical problem costs several years income, the radical extremist messages come through a little louder and a little clearer.
Only if you're an idiot. In real life, it's the radical extremists who are responsible for poverty and misery in the Middle East. By preventing the stability and rule of law necessary to run a country in a way that allows an economy to actually grow, and by making the region extremely unattractive to investment from abroad, they guarantee the continuation of the very conditions you're complaining about. This is what they want. They're not being extremists because of those conditions, they're being extremists in order to perpetuate and even create those conditions. That's how the minority at the top of their food chain get to live they way they want: as medieval-style feudal warlords in a theocratic paradise of rule-by-the-sword. They like it. Their holy book demands it. Their culture is historically built around it.
Your western-style SJW mumbling would make them laugh their asses off.
Except that they're saying that the registration for new purchases has to take place at the time of the purchase, before the device is used.
Yes, they're issuing all sorts of muddled, self-contradictory nonsense surrounding this nonsensical and illegal (that is, counter to the 2012 FMRA law) requirement. It's a train wreck, and of course won't stop a single die-hard idiot (let along malicious operator) from doing anything dangerous.
50 year old balsa woods are MODELS. They have no camera, and are not Drones. The FAA has made NO requirement for them.
The FAA doesn't use the word "drone," ever. And yes, their new registration requirement DOES apply model helicopters, model airplanes, and multi-rotors. The presence of absence of a camera has nothing to do with anything. If you have a model airplane that flies, and it weighs more than 8.8 ounces, the FAA says you have to register it by February 19th or be subject to fines up to $20,000. They have, as people have asked questions, been explicitly clear that this new requirement includes any and all flying devices. As the FAA's directory said at the press conference, "If it flies, we're going after it."
The 2012 FMRA law talks about models, not drones. They are not the same thing and never have been.
Wow, you need to read up on this. The law talks about "models," and then goes into what constitutes a model. It has NOTHING to do with fixed wings, rotors of any number, cameras, etc. It has to do with being under 55 pounds, and used recreationally. Period. That's it. You're the one that's making a distinction between a model helicopter and a quad-copter... nobody else (from a government perspective) makes that distinction at all. It's not the form factor of the flying device, or existence of a camera - it's that you're using it recreationally, vs commercially. That's it.
Just as the US can regulate and outlaw machine guns without regulating semi-automatic guns, the US can regulate Drones without regulating Model airplanes.
When the "US" refers to "drones," they're usually talking about full-scale aircraft (like Predators, or Global Hawks, or Reapers, etc). Sure, the government can make distinctions. They just did. Their distinction is that if your model airplane weights less than 8.8 ounces, you won't have to register it. Otherwise, you will have to.
BTW, mega-churches exist because people want them. It's a bit presumptuous of you to claim that your town has been infested simply because a facility doesn't cater to your point of view.
Actually, they exist in our area because of a perverse loophole in zoning laws. Most are financed by third parties with a business interest in the proceeds from the church-run retail operations, and the bigger the facility, the more cash they make as a non-profit, paid out through very high salaries to key figures, and very high returns on the got-nothing-to-do-with-religion investors. Yes, people want them. Because they are very large recreational facilities that get to benefit from a tax dodge, and they are killing off attendance at the little mom-and-pop social institutions that we used to think of as churches.
It's not "presumptuous" of me to correctly relate the nature of these facilities and the way they interact with (or don't) the county, municipal, state and federal governments as they move millions and millions of dollars around while enjoying special zoning exemptions, tax avoidance, and all sorts of hiring and labor exemptions. These are large businesses that throw on the hair-think veneer of religiosity in order to avoid operating and real estate expenses that any other operation of that size would have to pay. Investors see that it's a good business model, and clone them until there's literally no room to do it any more.
Imagine the government mandated safety regulations, even though they cost money. It would be horrific. Kids wouldn't be allowed to ride around in the back of pickup trucks. Lead paint wouldn't be sold in stores. Radium would no longer light up our watch faces. Seat belts would be mandatory. Slashdot, we CAN'T let this happen!
Way to miss the point. You should be thinking more like, "You can't start the ignition in your construction company pickup truck unless it detects an approved baby seat installed whenever an under-60-pound mammal is present in the cab." So, no, you can't drive around on the construction site with your Labrador Retriever in the truck with you.
Obviously your town hasn't yet been infested with mega-churches. Those have at least one gymnasium. It's just down the hall from the coffee bar, past the giant child-care facility, and around the corner from the logo-wear t-shirt kiosk, the artisan bakery, and the acupuncture practice. Jesus isn't the savior anymore, he's the CEO of a retail empire.
The 2012 FMRA law prohibits the FAA from burdening recreational users of model aircraft with any further reguation. There's plenty of debate about whether the administration's recent end-around of using the DoT to push the new Suzy Must Register Her 9-Ounce Pink Plastic Copter In A Public-Facing Federal Database is already a direct and willful violation of that law (to be determined in court).
So unless we're talking about people wanting to race their FPV quads right next to an airport, there's really nothing driving hobbyists indoors. Especially since going indoors doesn't exempt them from that dubious new registration program anyway: if it flies by remote control and it weighs more than half a pound, it has to be registered before it ever flies if it's purchased new, or otherwise by February 19th. So grandpa needs to get busy with that garage full of 50-year-old balsa wood models, lest he become liable for a $20,000 civil fine (and that's before the criminal penalties, possibly including jail time).
Sure, those 1-inch-wide micro-quads are under the weight limit. They're also more or less no fun at all, compared to the real thing.
Consider the new federal mandate that new cars have backup cameras (that's in place, coming soon to all cars, and their price tags). Imagine that new mandate meant that with the new feature of a backup camera, the government decided that for your own safety, you were no longer allowed to roll down your windows or more your head out of some restraint that would take your eyes off of the forward view. Whatever. Point being: imagine a mandate for a new layer of technology that makes the previous simpler methods no longer viable. Some people wouldn't want a car that they can no longer put in reverse if a damaged sensor on the rear bumper tells the car's computer that it shouldn't be allowed to back up. Yes, it's an analogy. Relax about the details.
Imagine a car you can't start without it properly reading your fingerprints or you having your magic coded ring on you. Losing consciousness with severe chest pain and need a casual acquaintance to hop in the driver's seat of your smart-ignition car and hustle you to the hospital? Too bad. Want your friend to run to your desk drawer to grab and possibly use your smart-safety firearm in an emergency? Or use it yourself with a burned or wet fingertip, your gloves on, etc? Too bad.
None of that would matter except for laws in some places that say that as soon as one of these "smart" guns is made available for sale, no other type of gun can ever be sold again.
So? Violent crime conducted without a gun is less harmful than that with. Getting rid of guns would mean fewer people killed by violent crime, even as the rate of violent crime reduces because of other factors.
Oh, I see. So you're all about the numbers. Well then, why not go after things that are FAR, FAR more likely to be involved in violent death? Like, cars operated by teenagers? Or, where are the "executive actions" aimed at the more than hundred thousand people who die unnecessarily every year because of simple errors and sloppy work in hospitals every year?
If you ARE fixated on, for example, rifles that have "military-looking" features on them (black plastic! OMG!) so that they fall into the meaningless but media-favorite category "assault rifle," then why aren't you focused on knives? Because people use knives to kill their murder victims thousands of more times every year than they do with any sort of rifle, or shotgun or any long gun.
If you really are of the "if it saves only one life..." type, then you need to re-evaluate your priorities and focus on the things that would really save more lives. Like, say, keeping the known felons who actually do most of the criminal killing behind bars.
As for your "violent crime without a gun is less harmful" nonsense, keep in mind that the "mass shooting" statistics frequently bandied about include ANY time that more than three people are at least wounded during a single event. So when some gang member drives by a street corner in Chicago and lets loose with a.22 at a group of rivals, and three people get minor flesh wounds or even a scratch, we have a "mass shooting" statistic. But when, as we see in places where guns are severely restricted or completely banned, we get incidents where - for example - a violent guy walks into a school with a knife and kills several kids in moments (Japan, where multiple killings with knives are distressingly not unheard of), it's just a case of very effectively lethal mental health problems combined with a deadly instrument, so sad, very unfortunate... and the focus correctly goes to mental health where it belongs in the first place. But that gang member who tries (and fails) to kill a bunch of people he wants to see dead? Gun violence! We must control guns!
Which straw man? The one that's telling the truth?
When you buy a gun, you assert on the federal paperwork that you're not under psychiatric care, on meds - the usual stuff. It doesn't ask if you are suicidal or thinking of hurting someone. You understand that, right? So Obama wants doctors to report psychiatric care/medication to the FBI pre-emptively. So that when a person is thinking of a purchase, it's no longer the honor system when they're filling out the paperwork. Their doctor's government reporting will prevent the background check from going through. Your doctor is now going to be involved in prior restraint and loss of a constitutionally protected right without due process. Thanks, Mr. Obama! At least you're consistent.
But it used to be an option? Because violent crime of all kinds, including that conducted with a firearm is way down. Down over 40% since the 1990's, even as millions and millions more people have purchased guns. It's almost as if owning guns generally doesn't actually cause people to commit violent crimes. Funny about that.
I didn't say the IRS was partisan. I said that the sprawling, un-supervisable, unaccountable nature of huge government bureaucracies like the one found at the IRS are unable to prevent people like Lois Lerner from bringing her highly partisan baggage to bear on her supposedly neutral role in her agency.
That being said, the director of that agency IS a political appointee, and the current one has been in fact conducting himself in a highly partisan way in order to shield the agency's upper management from the fallout that comes from allowing the agency's power to interfere with elections. That agency provided a very partisan payload of personal tax data to the White House as opposition research was being done. Who got fired at either end of that process, for breaking the law in that way? Nobody at the White House, and nobody at the IRS.
Your casual dismissal of that sort of thing says plenty about your own politics, especially since you consider calling that sort of corruption what it is to be simply being on a bandwagon. As you say, duly noted. We know where you stand.
Run of the mill embezzlement by someone placed in just the right spot to get away with it. But you know what? It's nothing compared to the Lois Lerner mess. This thief took advantage of IRS access to steal some cash. Lerner et al took advantage of IRS control to influence public discourse and a looming election.
The tax code is incomprehensibly complex and burdensome. That's trouble all by itself. But because it plays out in the sprawling, no-accountability federal big government landscape, it provides fertile ground for everything from thievery (a la the linked-to story) to partisan shenanigans (a la Lerner-related issues).
The drive to make government always bigger, always more complex, and always more insulated from consequence - that costs each of us real, serious money that produces nothing. We do need a tax enforcement agency. But we don't need it to be responsible for such mind-bogglingly byzantine complexity that it can't even keep an eye on its own people's ongoing criminal enterprises and partisan betrayals of trust.
That is a good question. But it's irrelevant, in that we've already seen examples of email she kept on her server that DID have born-classified payloads at the time she received it. Never mind that she let her personally employed foundation subordinates sift through it later, or that she put copies of it on thumb drives for her not-cleared lawyer to also keep in his own offices. Truly, any other person would be out of a job and looking for an easy-going thing to confess to, months or years ago.
Truly. Don't underestimate the "some people just want to watch the world burn" types. Groups like Boko Haram exist to destroy things they think are "too western," and are happy to slaughter whole towns full of people just to keep their profile up. As Islamic fundamentalism spreads through Africa, large and long-term projects like this - fragile things with a huge attack surface - will become favorite targets of the medieval-minded theocracy crowd.
They can censor anything they want to, or not censor anything they want to.
True. And a good thing, too. It's their business, and they can run it the way they like. If I think they're idiots, that's fine. Because they're welcome to think I'm an idiot too, and I'd like to preserve the right to run my businesses the way I want to.
This isn't a 'Free Speech' issue, so all the anti-SJW's can go back to their homes, nothing more to see here.
Alas, you're wrong on the important part here. The low-information special snowflake crowd will see this is a moral victory. It reinforces their tender little toddler-like world view, and emboldens them to be more blind to SJW hypocrisy, and seek more of this sort of thing in the public sector. And unfortunately a lot of them vote, and let their twisted world view influence actual public policy. Pointing out the toxicity of orthodox political correctness is always important.
Of course, he also had no choice but to remove them because Iraq refused to grant an extension to US troop presence (believe it revolved around criminal immunity for troops).
It's not because Iraq refused to sign an status of forces agreement, it's because Obama refused to grow a spine and negotiate one - which gave him the weasel room needed to do his partial troop withdrawal as needed to pander to his low-information political supporters. He could easily have negotiated an SOF and kept a couple of operating airbases with supporting troops as needed. But he chose not to for purely partisan political reasons, and we see the results.
Other than the fact that the FAA is closing down model airplane clubs in the absence of any actual regulation being in place, and is threatening people with tens of thousands of dollars in fines for not registering a 9-ounce toy airplane despite the fact that the 2012 FMRA law prohibits the FAA from doing exactly what it just did. Just another example of the executive branch deliberately ignoring laws they don't like. Again.
It is worth pointing out that ham radio operators must already contend with this issue via the FCC license search database.
The difference is that the tinfoil-hat-wearing crank down the street won't be going on a fishing expedition for Alien Influenced Drone Operators living on their street, and coming across the mandatory federal registration info for the 13 year old girl who got a 9-ounce pink plastic toy store copter for her birthday.
Slashdot Mirror
Radical extremist messages don't resonate with people who have a comfortable life. Every time the middle class gets pushed down, every time a full time job doesn't make ends meet, every time a simple medical problem costs several years income, the radical extremist messages come through a little louder and a little clearer.
Only if you're an idiot. In real life, it's the radical extremists who are responsible for poverty and misery in the Middle East. By preventing the stability and rule of law necessary to run a country in a way that allows an economy to actually grow, and by making the region extremely unattractive to investment from abroad, they guarantee the continuation of the very conditions you're complaining about. This is what they want. They're not being extremists because of those conditions, they're being extremists in order to perpetuate and even create those conditions. That's how the minority at the top of their food chain get to live they way they want: as medieval-style feudal warlords in a theocratic paradise of rule-by-the-sword. They like it. Their holy book demands it. Their culture is historically built around it.
Your western-style SJW mumbling would make them laugh their asses off.
We'll find out in the next 11 days
You mean x11 days. Ba-da-bing!
Except that they're saying that the registration for new purchases has to take place at the time of the purchase, before the device is used.
Yes, they're issuing all sorts of muddled, self-contradictory nonsense surrounding this nonsensical and illegal (that is, counter to the 2012 FMRA law) requirement. It's a train wreck, and of course won't stop a single die-hard idiot (let along malicious operator) from doing anything dangerous.
50 year old balsa woods are MODELS. They have no camera, and are not Drones. The FAA has made NO requirement for them.
The FAA doesn't use the word "drone," ever. And yes, their new registration requirement DOES apply model helicopters, model airplanes, and multi-rotors. The presence of absence of a camera has nothing to do with anything. If you have a model airplane that flies, and it weighs more than 8.8 ounces, the FAA says you have to register it by February 19th or be subject to fines up to $20,000. They have, as people have asked questions, been explicitly clear that this new requirement includes any and all flying devices. As the FAA's directory said at the press conference, "If it flies, we're going after it."
The 2012 FMRA law talks about models, not drones. They are not the same thing and never have been.
Wow, you need to read up on this. The law talks about "models," and then goes into what constitutes a model. It has NOTHING to do with fixed wings, rotors of any number, cameras, etc. It has to do with being under 55 pounds, and used recreationally. Period. That's it. You're the one that's making a distinction between a model helicopter and a quad-copter ... nobody else (from a government perspective) makes that distinction at all. It's not the form factor of the flying device, or existence of a camera - it's that you're using it recreationally, vs commercially. That's it.
Just as the US can regulate and outlaw machine guns without regulating semi-automatic guns, the US can regulate Drones without regulating Model airplanes.
When the "US" refers to "drones," they're usually talking about full-scale aircraft (like Predators, or Global Hawks, or Reapers, etc). Sure, the government can make distinctions. They just did. Their distinction is that if your model airplane weights less than 8.8 ounces, you won't have to register it. Otherwise, you will have to.
BTW, mega-churches exist because people want them. It's a bit presumptuous of you to claim that your town has been infested simply because a facility doesn't cater to your point of view.
Actually, they exist in our area because of a perverse loophole in zoning laws. Most are financed by third parties with a business interest in the proceeds from the church-run retail operations, and the bigger the facility, the more cash they make as a non-profit, paid out through very high salaries to key figures, and very high returns on the got-nothing-to-do-with-religion investors. Yes, people want them. Because they are very large recreational facilities that get to benefit from a tax dodge, and they are killing off attendance at the little mom-and-pop social institutions that we used to think of as churches.
It's not "presumptuous" of me to correctly relate the nature of these facilities and the way they interact with (or don't) the county, municipal, state and federal governments as they move millions and millions of dollars around while enjoying special zoning exemptions, tax avoidance, and all sorts of hiring and labor exemptions. These are large businesses that throw on the hair-think veneer of religiosity in order to avoid operating and real estate expenses that any other operation of that size would have to pay. Investors see that it's a good business model, and clone them until there's literally no room to do it any more.
Imagine the government mandated safety regulations, even though they cost money. It would be horrific. Kids wouldn't be allowed to ride around in the back of pickup trucks. Lead paint wouldn't be sold in stores. Radium would no longer light up our watch faces. Seat belts would be mandatory. Slashdot, we CAN'T let this happen!
Way to miss the point. You should be thinking more like, "You can't start the ignition in your construction company pickup truck unless it detects an approved baby seat installed whenever an under-60-pound mammal is present in the cab." So, no, you can't drive around on the construction site with your Labrador Retriever in the truck with you.
Oh yeah sure, lots of churches have gymnasiums.
Obviously your town hasn't yet been infested with mega-churches. Those have at least one gymnasium. It's just down the hall from the coffee bar, past the giant child-care facility, and around the corner from the logo-wear t-shirt kiosk, the artisan bakery, and the acupuncture practice. Jesus isn't the savior anymore, he's the CEO of a retail empire.
The 2012 FMRA law prohibits the FAA from burdening recreational users of model aircraft with any further reguation. There's plenty of debate about whether the administration's recent end-around of using the DoT to push the new Suzy Must Register Her 9-Ounce Pink Plastic Copter In A Public-Facing Federal Database is already a direct and willful violation of that law (to be determined in court).
So unless we're talking about people wanting to race their FPV quads right next to an airport, there's really nothing driving hobbyists indoors. Especially since going indoors doesn't exempt them from that dubious new registration program anyway: if it flies by remote control and it weighs more than half a pound, it has to be registered before it ever flies if it's purchased new, or otherwise by February 19th. So grandpa needs to get busy with that garage full of 50-year-old balsa wood models, lest he become liable for a $20,000 civil fine (and that's before the criminal penalties, possibly including jail time).
Sure, those 1-inch-wide micro-quads are under the weight limit. They're also more or less no fun at all, compared to the real thing.
Consider the new federal mandate that new cars have backup cameras (that's in place, coming soon to all cars, and their price tags). Imagine that new mandate meant that with the new feature of a backup camera, the government decided that for your own safety, you were no longer allowed to roll down your windows or more your head out of some restraint that would take your eyes off of the forward view. Whatever. Point being: imagine a mandate for a new layer of technology that makes the previous simpler methods no longer viable. Some people wouldn't want a car that they can no longer put in reverse if a damaged sensor on the rear bumper tells the car's computer that it shouldn't be allowed to back up. Yes, it's an analogy. Relax about the details.
Imagine a car you can't start without it properly reading your fingerprints or you having your magic coded ring on you. Losing consciousness with severe chest pain and need a casual acquaintance to hop in the driver's seat of your smart-ignition car and hustle you to the hospital? Too bad. Want your friend to run to your desk drawer to grab and possibly use your smart-safety firearm in an emergency? Or use it yourself with a burned or wet fingertip, your gloves on, etc? Too bad.
None of that would matter except for laws in some places that say that as soon as one of these "smart" guns is made available for sale, no other type of gun can ever be sold again.
Does it also work against Cessna's?
Against Cessna's what?
It's about military-classifications used domestically, not about armor thickness.
OK. And, which specific feature of a "military" truck is it that makes the law enforcement person riding around in it a criminal? Please be specific.
Police use military equipment and armored vehicles to selectively enforce laws around the US, the slope slipped a looong time ago
Do you understand how silly you sound?
How much metal is a vehicle allowed to have before you consider it illegal for a police department to use? Please be specific.
So? Violent crime conducted without a gun is less harmful than that with. Getting rid of guns would mean fewer people killed by violent crime, even as the rate of violent crime reduces because of other factors.
Oh, I see. So you're all about the numbers. Well then, why not go after things that are FAR, FAR more likely to be involved in violent death? Like, cars operated by teenagers? Or, where are the "executive actions" aimed at the more than hundred thousand people who die unnecessarily every year because of simple errors and sloppy work in hospitals every year?
.22 at a group of rivals, and three people get minor flesh wounds or even a scratch, we have a "mass shooting" statistic. But when, as we see in places where guns are severely restricted or completely banned, we get incidents where - for example - a violent guy walks into a school with a knife and kills several kids in moments (Japan, where multiple killings with knives are distressingly not unheard of), it's just a case of very effectively lethal mental health problems combined with a deadly instrument, so sad, very unfortunate ... and the focus correctly goes to mental health where it belongs in the first place. But that gang member who tries (and fails) to kill a bunch of people he wants to see dead? Gun violence! We must control guns!
If you ARE fixated on, for example, rifles that have "military-looking" features on them (black plastic! OMG!) so that they fall into the meaningless but media-favorite category "assault rifle," then why aren't you focused on knives? Because people use knives to kill their murder victims thousands of more times every year than they do with any sort of rifle, or shotgun or any long gun.
If you really are of the "if it saves only one life..." type, then you need to re-evaluate your priorities and focus on the things that would really save more lives. Like, say, keeping the known felons who actually do most of the criminal killing behind bars.
As for your "violent crime without a gun is less harmful" nonsense, keep in mind that the "mass shooting" statistics frequently bandied about include ANY time that more than three people are at least wounded during a single event. So when some gang member drives by a street corner in Chicago and lets loose with a
(especially if there is a long setup period for final method chosen or final method is not "clean")
Do you really think that someone shooting themselves to death is in any way "clean?" Have you ever so much as shot a squirrel to make stew?
Go set your straw man on fire...
Which straw man? The one that's telling the truth?
When you buy a gun, you assert on the federal paperwork that you're not under psychiatric care, on meds - the usual stuff. It doesn't ask if you are suicidal or thinking of hurting someone. You understand that, right? So Obama wants doctors to report psychiatric care/medication to the FBI pre-emptively. So that when a person is thinking of a purchase, it's no longer the honor system when they're filling out the paperwork. Their doctor's government reporting will prevent the background check from going through. Your doctor is now going to be involved in prior restraint and loss of a constitutionally protected right without due process. Thanks, Mr. Obama! At least you're consistent.
Because "nothing" is no longer an option.
But it used to be an option? Because violent crime of all kinds, including that conducted with a firearm is way down. Down over 40% since the 1990's, even as millions and millions more people have purchased guns. It's almost as if owning guns generally doesn't actually cause people to commit violent crimes. Funny about that.
I didn't say the IRS was partisan. I said that the sprawling, un-supervisable, unaccountable nature of huge government bureaucracies like the one found at the IRS are unable to prevent people like Lois Lerner from bringing her highly partisan baggage to bear on her supposedly neutral role in her agency.
That being said, the director of that agency IS a political appointee, and the current one has been in fact conducting himself in a highly partisan way in order to shield the agency's upper management from the fallout that comes from allowing the agency's power to interfere with elections. That agency provided a very partisan payload of personal tax data to the White House as opposition research was being done. Who got fired at either end of that process, for breaking the law in that way? Nobody at the White House, and nobody at the IRS.
Your casual dismissal of that sort of thing says plenty about your own politics, especially since you consider calling that sort of corruption what it is to be simply being on a bandwagon. As you say, duly noted. We know where you stand.
Run of the mill embezzlement by someone placed in just the right spot to get away with it. But you know what? It's nothing compared to the Lois Lerner mess. This thief took advantage of IRS access to steal some cash. Lerner et al took advantage of IRS control to influence public discourse and a looming election.
The tax code is incomprehensibly complex and burdensome. That's trouble all by itself. But because it plays out in the sprawling, no-accountability federal big government landscape, it provides fertile ground for everything from thievery (a la the linked-to story) to partisan shenanigans (a la Lerner-related issues).
The drive to make government always bigger, always more complex, and always more insulated from consequence - that costs each of us real, serious money that produces nothing. We do need a tax enforcement agency. But we don't need it to be responsible for such mind-bogglingly byzantine complexity that it can't even keep an eye on its own people's ongoing criminal enterprises and partisan betrayals of trust.
That is a good question. But it's irrelevant, in that we've already seen examples of email she kept on her server that DID have born-classified payloads at the time she received it. Never mind that she let her personally employed foundation subordinates sift through it later, or that she put copies of it on thumb drives for her not-cleared lawyer to also keep in his own offices. Truly, any other person would be out of a job and looking for an easy-going thing to confess to, months or years ago.
Truly. Don't underestimate the "some people just want to watch the world burn" types. Groups like Boko Haram exist to destroy things they think are "too western," and are happy to slaughter whole towns full of people just to keep their profile up. As Islamic fundamentalism spreads through Africa, large and long-term projects like this - fragile things with a huge attack surface - will become favorite targets of the medieval-minded theocracy crowd.
Well, they do have a fiduciary duty to shareholders, which is pretty close to the same thing.
And Linux desktops show content and applications in windows, so it and Windows are pretty close to the same thing.
They can censor anything they want to, or not censor anything they want to.
True. And a good thing, too. It's their business, and they can run it the way they like. If I think they're idiots, that's fine. Because they're welcome to think I'm an idiot too, and I'd like to preserve the right to run my businesses the way I want to.
This isn't a 'Free Speech' issue, so all the anti-SJW's can go back to their homes, nothing more to see here.
Alas, you're wrong on the important part here. The low-information special snowflake crowd will see this is a moral victory. It reinforces their tender little toddler-like world view, and emboldens them to be more blind to SJW hypocrisy, and seek more of this sort of thing in the public sector. And unfortunately a lot of them vote, and let their twisted world view influence actual public policy. Pointing out the toxicity of orthodox political correctness is always important.
Of course, he also had no choice but to remove them because Iraq refused to grant an extension to US troop presence (believe it revolved around criminal immunity for troops).
It's not because Iraq refused to sign an status of forces agreement, it's because Obama refused to grow a spine and negotiate one - which gave him the weasel room needed to do his partial troop withdrawal as needed to pander to his low-information political supporters. He could easily have negotiated an SOF and kept a couple of operating airbases with supporting troops as needed. But he chose not to for purely partisan political reasons, and we see the results.
There is little to complain about...
Other than the fact that the FAA is closing down model airplane clubs in the absence of any actual regulation being in place, and is threatening people with tens of thousands of dollars in fines for not registering a 9-ounce toy airplane despite the fact that the 2012 FMRA law prohibits the FAA from doing exactly what it just did. Just another example of the executive branch deliberately ignoring laws they don't like. Again.
There's plenty to complain about.
It is worth pointing out that ham radio operators must already contend with this issue via the FCC license search database.
The difference is that the tinfoil-hat-wearing crank down the street won't be going on a fishing expedition for Alien Influenced Drone Operators living on their street, and coming across the mandatory federal registration info for the 13 year old girl who got a 9-ounce pink plastic toy store copter for her birthday.