ttaboy Ivan. Or is it Boris. WE're getting pretty bored with y'all. Do they pay you with dollars or rubles?
I can always tell when people like you recognize I'm right about a basic fact, because the intellectually craven response specifically avoids ANY attempt to show I'm wrong on the matter (see: "High Treason," and pretty much any working definition you care to actually read, anywhere), and just goes instead for the lazy, juvenile ad hominem response of a cranky child. Thanks for demonstrating that I'm correct. Keep up the good work!
So what you're saying is that you have no idea what "high treason" actually means. Have you considered actually looking it up? It's actually written down in words you can probably understand! But I can understand why you would remain (or pretend to remain) deliberately ignorant of that, because it would take all the fun out of your phony outrage and obvious partisan hypocrisy.
Yes, but it is not common for senior advisors to be paid by Russia
You mean like when the Clinton family (NOT their money laundering foundation) collected half a million dollars in cash from a Russian bank immediately following then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's ushering through of a huge uranium deal that greatly benefited Putin and his industry cronies? That sort of "paid" is what you're talking about, right? Because that's a matter of record, as opposed to the complete lack of any evidence of Trump being in any sort of analogous relationship. To the point where even senior Democrat legislators are on the record saying there's no evidence of such.
But: "OMG secret communications!"... just, like the article mentions, is common with every presidential transition team. Why might the Trump team want to start conducting early policy back-and-forth over secure channels? Because the Obama administration was using the NSA and FBI surveillance for political purposes. Just this week we see that the Obama administration received a scathing smack-down from the FISA court about the abuses of that system, including the FBI disclosing NSA-collected information (without any warrant) to third parties.
We're not talking about her. We're talking about people like the GP who have their hypocrisy so proudly on display. WORSE than hypocrisy, because they're faking outrage over fiction, while always having been careful to pretend their preferred candidate never did the things they actually got caught doing.
Yeah, that's all nonsense. Because the 500 technical and creative people you see listed in the credits were all working for free, so any accounting that shows that as a cost is just totally fake.
I liked your link to part where he's selling things to the Russians. It was great how it compared the lack of any evidence of that to examples like Hillary Clinton ushering through a deal highly beneficial to Russian government and business interests, followed immediately by one of the banks involved writing her husband a half million dollar check for "speaking fees."
Most of the lefty press is doing its hardest to not report on this week's news that the FISA court issued a scathing rebuke of the Obama administration for a protracted, sustained, deliberate embrace of purposeful 4th amendment violations of untold thousands of US citizens, and the FBI's dissemination of NSA-collected information on these people, without legal cover from a court, to "third parties." The courts had told the Obama administration specifically what they needed to change in order to become constitutionally compliant, and the Obama administration completely blew them off. A lot of this intersects with the scope of special counsel Mueller's authority in his current look-around, so hopefully he'll follow the trail down those "third party" rabbit holes and find out who was putting that huge pile of data to work, how, and to what end and at whose request.
An adversary with whom we've shared various kinds of intelligence (bi-directionally) for decades. Every president since there WAS a USSR and since has shared intelligence with Russia. They've also all had their private White House photographer present, just as the visiting Russian dignitary often has a private photographer present even when the press isn't allowed in the room. We and the Russians both had a photographer in that room. The difference is that the Russian's guy was being misrepresented as solely working in the counterpart capacity to the official White House guy. The agreement was that the photos from the meeting wouldn't make it to the press right away. So, the Russians lied about that. Nothing too new, obviously. But your phony hand-wringing about what they discussed is just silly on the face of it, and you know it.
Apply your same argument to guns. Why do arms manufacturers not need to worry about people doing douchey things with their products?
First, because owning and carrying a tool to defend yourself is a constitutionally protected right. Flying hardware around in the national airspace is a different topic.
Secondly, this isn't something they're being forced to do. This is something they are CHOOSING to do, because they want to cut down on the risk of frivolous law suits. Gun manufacturers still, miraculously, maintain statute immunity from liability when someone criminally mis-uses their products. They are not immune from civil suits when, say, one of their products blows up because of a manufacturing flaw, and hurts somebody the gun wasn't meant to hurt. Guns are VERY well-understood, simple mechanical devices that utterly rely on human agency to actually hurt somebody. A semi- or even very-autonomous flying robot doing complex things in a fantastically complex legal, physical, communications, and regulatory environment has lots more exposure to deliberately misleading suits placed in front of deliberately dumbed-down juries.
But the main point is that DJI has chosen to make this a feature of the newest firmware and software. A gun manufacturer has a couple hundred years of straightforward court cases to point to showing that other than product failure, they (as manufacturers) aren't responsible for someone deciding to murder somebody. Just like Ford isn't responsible for drunk drivers or somebody who decides to run down their ex-husband in a parking lot.
There are plenty of people who deliberately operate their DJI gear on older firmware and alongside an older app on their phone/tablet... with that device in "airplane" mode to avoid any internet awareness. Of course that also costs you all sorts of nice mapping features and other goodies, but it just comes down to your priorities.
Yeah, OK, you're trolling. But for those who don't recognize that... we use "bricked" to describe the brick-like usefulness of a device that has been rendered not only unusable but generally un-fixable by its user.
That's not what "brick" means. And the summary's assertion that people will have to sign up by next week doesn't even survive the rest of the summary, where it's made clear that the issue only comes up if you decide to change the firmware and companion app you're using. If you don't change them, there's NO CHANGE. If you DO change them, they want to pair the user of the device with a known account. Because they need to CYA should somebody do something especially douchey with one of their flying robots.
OK, so it's not a mass-market product. But their mirrorless camera bodies, in the A7 and new A9 manifestations, should be making Canon and Nikon a little nervous right now.
The phrase IS used that way, when the person making assertions is so incorrectly framing the issue that not only are the specific assertions incorrect, but they're not even incorrect about that thing the foolish person thinks they're making a point about. This is self-evident from simply reading that post. Which you know, but would rather not admit because it would mean agreeing with me. That's fine. We both know I'm right, the only difference is you're not willing to talk about it directly.
Hilarious. An entity built around ripping off other people's work is worried that someone ripping off someone else's work might make ripping off people's work look bad.
Wow, that's sure some insightful commentary on the specific issues I mentioned. Your keen insight is really constructive! I really appreciate how you're demonstrating your understanding of how Obama's man Huerta at the FAA had to use and end-around and use the DoT as a regulatory authority to get around the word of a plainly written law. Your grasp of the details make your personal ad hominem worth listening to.
Ooops! Silly me, you have no idea what's actually going on here, and are just acting like a child. Carry on! Your complete lack of understanding about why issues like this - which go directly to separation of powers and the integrity of the constitution - is nicely on display.
Why would we have a rash of something that we didn't have BEFORE the FAA started collecting their $5, but when we already had literally millions of these devices flying around, and untold millions of hours of airtime without any such thing happening? Please explain.
A court decision, based on a regulation promulgated under Obama, is now the responsibility of Trump ? Oh my...
No, the LAW, passed by congress in 2012 is the law. Period. The Obama administration decided to violate that law by conjuring up a pointless new regulatory limitation and fine threat outside the bounds of that law. The court just decided that the Obama administration's over-reach needed to be smacked down, as it deserved to be. That doesn't suddenly make the Trump administration newly responsible for anything. The law said that the FAA could act as if it had responsibility or authority in this area, and that's still the case. Obama grabbed executive power where he was not allowed, and now that power grab had been undone. How does that involve Trump? Be specific.
So the fact that people have been calling them models for decades, that's meaningless? YOU know what the word means, all of the people who've been building and flying model aircraft for decades know what it means. The FAA knows what it means, and congress, who wrote the law that the Obama administration violated, know what it means.
No. There were already millions of these units flying around with untold millions of flight hours on them before the FAA decided to collect their $5 for every toy sold. And the number of collisions with aircraft that even broke somebody's NOSE? Run down the list, I dare you. While you're at it, compare that to the number of people who've died playing soccer, or who've been hit and killed by another skier on the slopes. Go ahead, do some comparing.
Ah, never actually done anything on your own, have you? Didn't think so. Your cartoon villain impression of what it means to be self employed would be funny if it weren't so childishly toxic. Grow up.
Not really. The FLIGHTS aren't any different at all. Unless a 107 holder explicitly seeks and gets authorization to fly where he's not normally allowed to, the commercial user doesn't get to do anything the hobby user gets to. The number of people who seek and get authorization to fly a small quadcopter at, say, an airport or over a prison are exceedingly small.
The fact that an individual machine that weights about the same as a stick of butter must registered for one person, but not for the other, is still capricious and silly.
Slashdot Mirror
ttaboy Ivan. Or is it Boris. WE're getting pretty bored with y'all. Do they pay you with dollars or rubles?
I can always tell when people like you recognize I'm right about a basic fact, because the intellectually craven response specifically avoids ANY attempt to show I'm wrong on the matter (see: "High Treason," and pretty much any working definition you care to actually read, anywhere), and just goes instead for the lazy, juvenile ad hominem response of a cranky child. Thanks for demonstrating that I'm correct. Keep up the good work!
So what you're saying is that you have no idea what "high treason" actually means. Have you considered actually looking it up? It's actually written down in words you can probably understand! But I can understand why you would remain (or pretend to remain) deliberately ignorant of that, because it would take all the fun out of your phony outrage and obvious partisan hypocrisy.
Yes, but it is not common for senior advisors to be paid by Russia
You mean like when the Clinton family (NOT their money laundering foundation) collected half a million dollars in cash from a Russian bank immediately following then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's ushering through of a huge uranium deal that greatly benefited Putin and his industry cronies? That sort of "paid" is what you're talking about, right? Because that's a matter of record, as opposed to the complete lack of any evidence of Trump being in any sort of analogous relationship. To the point where even senior Democrat legislators are on the record saying there's no evidence of such.
... just, like the article mentions, is common with every presidential transition team. Why might the Trump team want to start conducting early policy back-and-forth over secure channels? Because the Obama administration was using the NSA and FBI surveillance for political purposes. Just this week we see that the Obama administration received a scathing smack-down from the FISA court about the abuses of that system, including the FBI disclosing NSA-collected information (without any warrant) to third parties.
But: "OMG secret communications!"
We're not talking about her. We're talking about people like the GP who have their hypocrisy so proudly on display. WORSE than hypocrisy, because they're faking outrage over fiction, while always having been careful to pretend their preferred candidate never did the things they actually got caught doing.
Yeah, that's all nonsense. Because the 500 technical and creative people you see listed in the credits were all working for free, so any accounting that shows that as a cost is just totally fake.
I liked your link to part where he's selling things to the Russians. It was great how it compared the lack of any evidence of that to examples like Hillary Clinton ushering through a deal highly beneficial to Russian government and business interests, followed immediately by one of the banks involved writing her husband a half million dollar check for "speaking fees."
Hey, look! Somebody gets it! Thanks for not being one of these people who's pretending they don't understand that basic fact. That IS the point.
Most of the lefty press is doing its hardest to not report on this week's news that the FISA court issued a scathing rebuke of the Obama administration for a protracted, sustained, deliberate embrace of purposeful 4th amendment violations of untold thousands of US citizens, and the FBI's dissemination of NSA-collected information on these people, without legal cover from a court, to "third parties." The courts had told the Obama administration specifically what they needed to change in order to become constitutionally compliant, and the Obama administration completely blew them off. A lot of this intersects with the scope of special counsel Mueller's authority in his current look-around, so hopefully he'll follow the trail down those "third party" rabbit holes and find out who was putting that huge pile of data to work, how, and to what end and at whose request.
Yup. But it IS very widely used. Though hopefully it's only very, very rarely exposed to the internet.
Privately to an adversary.
An adversary with whom we've shared various kinds of intelligence (bi-directionally) for decades. Every president since there WAS a USSR and since has shared intelligence with Russia. They've also all had their private White House photographer present, just as the visiting Russian dignitary often has a private photographer present even when the press isn't allowed in the room. We and the Russians both had a photographer in that room. The difference is that the Russian's guy was being misrepresented as solely working in the counterpart capacity to the official White House guy. The agreement was that the photos from the meeting wouldn't make it to the press right away. So, the Russians lied about that. Nothing too new, obviously. But your phony hand-wringing about what they discussed is just silly on the face of it, and you know it.
Apply your same argument to guns. Why do arms manufacturers not need to worry about people doing douchey things with their products?
First, because owning and carrying a tool to defend yourself is a constitutionally protected right. Flying hardware around in the national airspace is a different topic.
Secondly, this isn't something they're being forced to do. This is something they are CHOOSING to do, because they want to cut down on the risk of frivolous law suits. Gun manufacturers still, miraculously, maintain statute immunity from liability when someone criminally mis-uses their products. They are not immune from civil suits when, say, one of their products blows up because of a manufacturing flaw, and hurts somebody the gun wasn't meant to hurt. Guns are VERY well-understood, simple mechanical devices that utterly rely on human agency to actually hurt somebody. A semi- or even very-autonomous flying robot doing complex things in a fantastically complex legal, physical, communications, and regulatory environment has lots more exposure to deliberately misleading suits placed in front of deliberately dumbed-down juries.
But the main point is that DJI has chosen to make this a feature of the newest firmware and software. A gun manufacturer has a couple hundred years of straightforward court cases to point to showing that other than product failure, they (as manufacturers) aren't responsible for someone deciding to murder somebody. Just like Ford isn't responsible for drunk drivers or somebody who decides to run down their ex-husband in a parking lot.
There are plenty of people who deliberately operate their DJI gear on older firmware and alongside an older app on their phone/tablet ... with that device in "airplane" mode to avoid any internet awareness. Of course that also costs you all sorts of nice mapping features and other goodies, but it just comes down to your priorities.
Yeah, OK, you're trolling. But for those who don't recognize that ... we use "bricked" to describe the brick-like usefulness of a device that has been rendered not only unusable but generally un-fixable by its user.
That's not what "brick" means. And the summary's assertion that people will have to sign up by next week doesn't even survive the rest of the summary, where it's made clear that the issue only comes up if you decide to change the firmware and companion app you're using. If you don't change them, there's NO CHANGE. If you DO change them, they want to pair the user of the device with a known account. Because they need to CYA should somebody do something especially douchey with one of their flying robots.
OK, so it's not a mass-market product. But their mirrorless camera bodies, in the A7 and new A9 manifestations, should be making Canon and Nikon a little nervous right now.
The phrase IS used that way, when the person making assertions is so incorrectly framing the issue that not only are the specific assertions incorrect, but they're not even incorrect about that thing the foolish person thinks they're making a point about. This is self-evident from simply reading that post. Which you know, but would rather not admit because it would mean agreeing with me. That's fine. We both know I'm right, the only difference is you're not willing to talk about it directly.
The answer is obvious, health insurance companies get rich by charging you for treatment. Smoking makes them huge piles of cash.
This, as they say, is so wrong it's not even wrong.
Hilarious. An entity built around ripping off other people's work is worried that someone ripping off someone else's work might make ripping off people's work look bad.
Wow, that's sure some insightful commentary on the specific issues I mentioned. Your keen insight is really constructive! I really appreciate how you're demonstrating your understanding of how Obama's man Huerta at the FAA had to use and end-around and use the DoT as a regulatory authority to get around the word of a plainly written law. Your grasp of the details make your personal ad hominem worth listening to.
Ooops! Silly me, you have no idea what's actually going on here, and are just acting like a child. Carry on! Your complete lack of understanding about why issues like this - which go directly to separation of powers and the integrity of the constitution - is nicely on display.
Why would we have a rash of something that we didn't have BEFORE the FAA started collecting their $5, but when we already had literally millions of these devices flying around, and untold millions of hours of airtime without any such thing happening? Please explain.
A court decision, based on a regulation promulgated under Obama, is now the responsibility of Trump ? Oh my...
No, the LAW, passed by congress in 2012 is the law. Period. The Obama administration decided to violate that law by conjuring up a pointless new regulatory limitation and fine threat outside the bounds of that law. The court just decided that the Obama administration's over-reach needed to be smacked down, as it deserved to be. That doesn't suddenly make the Trump administration newly responsible for anything. The law said that the FAA could act as if it had responsibility or authority in this area, and that's still the case. Obama grabbed executive power where he was not allowed, and now that power grab had been undone. How does that involve Trump? Be specific.
So the fact that people have been calling them models for decades, that's meaningless? YOU know what the word means, all of the people who've been building and flying model aircraft for decades know what it means. The FAA knows what it means, and congress, who wrote the law that the Obama administration violated, know what it means.
No. There were already millions of these units flying around with untold millions of flight hours on them before the FAA decided to collect their $5 for every toy sold. And the number of collisions with aircraft that even broke somebody's NOSE? Run down the list, I dare you. While you're at it, compare that to the number of people who've died playing soccer, or who've been hit and killed by another skier on the slopes. Go ahead, do some comparing.
Ah, never actually done anything on your own, have you? Didn't think so. Your cartoon villain impression of what it means to be self employed would be funny if it weren't so childishly toxic. Grow up.
Not really. The FLIGHTS aren't any different at all. Unless a 107 holder explicitly seeks and gets authorization to fly where he's not normally allowed to, the commercial user doesn't get to do anything the hobby user gets to. The number of people who seek and get authorization to fly a small quadcopter at, say, an airport or over a prison are exceedingly small.
The fact that an individual machine that weights about the same as a stick of butter must registered for one person, but not for the other, is still capricious and silly.