So, I'm right, and you just can't bring yourself to admit it. Resorting to ad hominem, just like so many people who are confronting internal hypocrisy do in order to avoid reconciling their contradictory premises.
So, you're calling me all sorts of things for pointing out that the FAA is outside of its legal bounds on this, that the entire effort is pointless, etc. So, you are implying that you feel differently about that, in some way. Which way? Be specific. And reconcile your preference for some situation in keeping with what the FAA has done (which, since you're complaining about my opposition to it, must be the case), with your assertion that what the administration has done is "impossible" to actually enforce. If you think it's impossible to enforce but still think federally registering 9-ounce toy operators is a good idea, reconcile that, in detail. If you think it shouldn't have been put into place, then explain why you're bitching at me for saying the same thing. Try to avoid the lazy ad hominem, though, since it just makes you look juvenile.
There are all sorts of small foam park fliers and silly little quad toys that weigh far too little to be any security threat whatsoever, but which have owners who have now been swept up into this new public-facing database scheme. People flying inconsequential balsa-wood RC models they built 30 years ago will be breaking the law a week from now. The FAA's Huerta says that enforcement will include visits to flying clubs and encouragement for neighbors to contact law enforcement (they've provided local LEOs with cheat sheets explaining how to report unregistered hobbyists and how to get that info to the DoT for enforcement). Huerta said, in one of the related press conferences that they intend to go after "anything that flies."
If you are presuming that - despite what they are coming right out and saying repeatedly - they don't intend to enforce the 250g end of the spectrum of toys, why do you suppose they sat around for weeks in meetings with regulators, manufacturers, pilots associations, etc., and issued a rule that includes those toys, along with language saying how they did so because of the critical, life-threatening safety issues that they represent? If you think that's all nonsense that shouldn't be enforced, then why are you defending the administration for putting a kid with a 9-ounce RC toy in federal legal jeopardy?
100% of homicides SHOULD be dealt with. 100% of kids flying 9-ounce toys should NOT be dealt with. You understand this isn't about a rules governing what happens when someone causes an injury or property damage... this is about making the act of using that 9-ounce toy illegal (subject to both civil and federal criminal penalities) the moment you hover the toy one inch off of your back yard grass. You think the FAA won't bother themselves with grandpa's unregistered use of a 1-pound model he's been flying in circles at an AMA field for years... so why aren't you calling for the new executive order that criminalizes his hobby to be undone? Are you really a fan of wasting millions of dollars to set up an entire new registration and enforcement regime to address things that you think don't need to be enforced? Why?
Your argument is that we should wait for a tragedy to make rules to prevent a tragedy.
No, my argument is that telling a 13 year old girl that she has to have her name in a public-facing federal database in order to fly a 9-ounce pink plastic RC copter from a mall kiosk, or face a $20,000 fine will do exactly NOTHING to prevent a bad guy from doing all of the horrible murderous things that we're seeing done with RC toys. Oh, right - there are literally millions of them in the hands of people, with untold millions of flight hours on them, and we're not actually seeing any of that. But you're pretty sure that someone looking to do harm will step up and register their name with the feds, and then write their identifying information on the RC airplane they're going to use to deliberately hurt people? Are you really thinking this through?
The FAA is banned from regulating model aircraft if I recall.
Which is why the Obama administration just instituted their new RC aircraft owner registration system (you have to sign up by the 19th of this month, or face up to $20,000 in fines... and that includes operating any toy RC machine as small as just under 9 ounces/250g) through the Department Of Transportation instead of through the FAA. It's a sleazy maneuver that directly goes against the spirit of the law congress passed to prevent exactly such things from happening.
Hopefully you're not surprised that an administration that has been found repeatedly by federal courts to have overstepped separation of powers by issuing unconstitutional executive orders would be trying to once again work around the law?
Doesn't matter. Most people who fly RC planes for fun can't afford to fight the administration in court or risk that $20,000 fine. There are a couple of groups trying to take the matter to court, but that will drag out years. In the meantime, we have to play along with the illegal action by the administration.
Are there really that many drones kicking around that they are this much of an issue?
The rule (and its change) wasn't about "drones" - it was about any and all RC-controlled flying things. Balsa-wood models that grandpa has been flying around in circles in his back field for 40 years, for example. Hundreds of thousands of people have been flying RC aircraft for many decades. And no, it's never been an issue and still isn't. The FAA's random rule-generating system has nothing to do with reality.
Other than that, they have no reason to exist and should be shot down, no mater where they are.
So you're thinking that these machines, which people have been flying for decades - an activity enjoyed by millions of people over multiple generations, should all be shot down? Really?
If I find your car annoying or your mobile phone to be an intrusive image-capturing device, can I shoot at them? No? Why not?
The two key figures in that attack are already dead. The phone in question will shed light on whether or not their circle of friends, family, and overseas contacts were criminally involved in what happened. There's plenty of reasons to think that those to idiots didn't act in a vacuum.
They know he is a killer -- so why do they need his phone?
Really? You're that lacking in imagination, or that unfamiliar with the long history of Islamist murderers being in touch with each other and specific consulting figureheads, financiers, teachers, parts suppliers, etc?
"Only democrats spend tons of money" says area man with no grip on reality.
No, his point was that on things like this, Democrats only spend money (as opposed to actually getting things done right). The money gets spent, but the supposed purpose for which money is being taxed or borrowed and then spread around on the chartering and running of panels, focus groups, advisory boards, and programs as being mentioned in the OP... that amounts to nothing constructive. But it does add new bureaucrats and unfireable new federal employees to the picture, and grows the size and pointless intrusiveness of the government, so it's definitely just what Democrats seek to do.
Try disobeying an Executive Order. Then you'll realize that they are considered "law".
Unless they are challenged in court and found to be unconstitutionally out of bounds for the president to have issued in the first place. Obama has lost in court multiple times on that front so far.
How is using *my* electricity, risking *my* computer's integrity, distracting *my* attention for *your* profit not abusing *my* resources?
Because YOU are the one choosing to go consume the content that someone else risks time and money to create. Nobody is forcing you to go to Wired for your amusement. But you're looking to use a technical method to separate the content you want to see from the content that the person who's creating and hosting that content wants to include in what you're not paying them for in order to do pesky things like not go bankrupt as they meet payroll and keep producing the thing to which you feel entitled at no cost.
Just because they're prey to our special operators doesn't make them any less predators from the point of view of the thousands and thousands of people they are slaughtering in the name of rewinding to the dark ages. They're definitely predators, as their world view requires that sort of predation in order to exist.
I'm sure that groups like Boko Haram, ISIS and the rest would be surprised to hear they've been eliminated. They do a lot of preying while they're praying.
If you need examples, ask every victim of every revolution or warzone who suddenly had saw their rights disappear when the men with guns showed up.
Their rights didn't disappear, their rights were denied. Infringed. Interfered with.
Governments don't give rights. Governments impose limits on them, or protect against that happening. But they don't create them. Hopefully you're not confusing rights with entitlements like so many people do.
Yup, you still don't understand that having a right and having it successfully defended are not the same thing. Stop back by when you understand the difference.
You don't have any natural rights to be free from tigers or from gravity. But you DO have the natural expectation that another rational being will understand that if they attack you, they are waiving their own claim on living peacefully. That you don't grasp this is pretty amazing, really.
You'll find that your idea of "rights" disappears quite quickly as soon as any functioning society breaks down.
My "idea" of rights exists at any scale and under any circumstances. That's the entire point. Irrational people do indeed look to take advantage circumstances in which they feel willing to take the chance that their use of violence will go unchallenged because of unpleasant or unexpected circumstances. Which doesn't change the fact that they lose their claim to life when they deny you yours. That's the right you naturally have: to use (or have used on your behalf) the violence necessary to defend your life. Why? Because rational people don't kill other people except in self defense. Those who initiate the violence waive their rights to live in peace.
You're confusing having a right with happening to have the power to defend it at some particular time. These are not the same thing.
Exactly, because in the jungle there are no rights
Oh, I get it now. You think that human beings aren't any different in their cognitive abilities, capacity for reason, and ability to think abstractly and communicate than are, say, tigers or lemurs.
I don't need it, but I need a government to tell others that.
No, you can tell them yourself, and if they are too irrational to digest the concept, and you're too weak to defend against violent, irrational people, then you need a government to help you protect your rights.
So you think that just because you decided to kill them, they didn't have the right to live? That's really your take on things?
If you initiate violence, you are giving up your OWN claim on your right to live. You have the right up until you infringe on someone else's. That's simple, rational stuff. If you can't use reason in your world view, then you are by definition looking at things irrationally. If you act irrationally, and it results in you doing something like killing those 9 people, then you have waived your own right to your life. Do you get that? You don't need a government to tell you that. But if you can't figure it out without a government telling you that, please do the rest of us a favor and don't do anything dangerous like voting.
Really? Then why does every single political leader - across the spectrum, including flaming lefty tyrants, eastern European strongmen, laid-back Scandinavian royalty and elected officials, mayors of cities, etc. - have armed protection at their disposal?
Why do police departments train in the use of arms? Why do militaries, even strictly defensive ones, understand the need to be able to use arms?
It's nice for you that you live in a fantasy world where there is no need for a 90-pound woman to ever defend herself against a man three times her size. Where is it, exactly, that you live that there are absolutely no violent people, no robberies, no rapes, no crimes that endanger lives? Please be specific, and if you would, please link to some reports that show your zero crime rate. Not that you will, of course, because you're full of it, and you know it.
What a load of shit. Without a government, you have no rights. Go live in a jungle sometime...
Wow, you really haven't thought this through, have you? You should.
So, you and another 100 people are in the jungle. 10 of you decide to get together in a group (you know, assembling) and chant something they think is important (you know... speaking). Who is giving them the perfectly natural behavioral elbow room to assemble and express themselves? The other 90 people who aren't even paying attention to them? The trees? No. These are perfect examples of "natural rights." If some of the other 90 people decide to get together and force those 10 people to no longer gather, or no longer speak their minds, they are infringing on their freedom to assemble and speak.
The US constitution recognizes this, and its first amendment explicitly says that the government can't infringe on that right. There's no place in the constitution that defines the right to assemble or speak... those are a given. They are self-evident, natural freedoms that can only be limited by other people or groups. Those 10 people don't need the other 90 to do anything in order for their group of 10 to be able to gather and speak. They can do that without any action or permission from anybody. If someone decides to take action shut them up, that's infringement of that right.
Without a government, a society, a rule of law, etc there is no such thing as 'rights'.
Nonsense. Without rule of law, there is no protection of rights. You really think that your right to speak comes from the government? You truly don't understand that it's the government's job to prevent other people (and those same government institutions) from forcibly shutting you up?
You're missing the point. Rights exist, naturally. They are not "given to you" by a government. A society may indeed gather together and write a constitution that decides that they will, as a group, choose to infringe on certain liberties (say, the liberty to ship goods without being taxed)... but that's the government infringing on rights (though with the approval of the legislature/citizens, as ratified in a constitution or other charter).
Whether or not there are conflicting interests doesn't change the fact that the rights don't originate with the government.
we will be at the point every robber in Canada will be armed with these and the government will have little choice but to give us the right to bear any arms
Governments don't give rights, they either protect them, or they infringe upon them. What you're looking for is the Canadian government ceasing to infringe on that right.
Slashdot Mirror
So, I'm right, and you just can't bring yourself to admit it. Resorting to ad hominem, just like so many people who are confronting internal hypocrisy do in order to avoid reconciling their contradictory premises.
So, you're calling me all sorts of things for pointing out that the FAA is outside of its legal bounds on this, that the entire effort is pointless, etc. So, you are implying that you feel differently about that, in some way. Which way? Be specific. And reconcile your preference for some situation in keeping with what the FAA has done (which, since you're complaining about my opposition to it, must be the case), with your assertion that what the administration has done is "impossible" to actually enforce. If you think it's impossible to enforce but still think federally registering 9-ounce toy operators is a good idea, reconcile that, in detail. If you think it shouldn't have been put into place, then explain why you're bitching at me for saying the same thing. Try to avoid the lazy ad hominem, though, since it just makes you look juvenile.
You are presuming an enforcement that's not only insane, but impossible.
So you are in favor of passing new rules that you consider to be impossible to enforce? Why do you support that? Please be specific.
There are all sorts of small foam park fliers and silly little quad toys that weigh far too little to be any security threat whatsoever, but which have owners who have now been swept up into this new public-facing database scheme. People flying inconsequential balsa-wood RC models they built 30 years ago will be breaking the law a week from now. The FAA's Huerta says that enforcement will include visits to flying clubs and encouragement for neighbors to contact law enforcement (they've provided local LEOs with cheat sheets explaining how to report unregistered hobbyists and how to get that info to the DoT for enforcement). Huerta said, in one of the related press conferences that they intend to go after "anything that flies."
... this is about making the act of using that 9-ounce toy illegal (subject to both civil and federal criminal penalities) the moment you hover the toy one inch off of your back yard grass. You think the FAA won't bother themselves with grandpa's unregistered use of a 1-pound model he's been flying in circles at an AMA field for years ... so why aren't you calling for the new executive order that criminalizes his hobby to be undone? Are you really a fan of wasting millions of dollars to set up an entire new registration and enforcement regime to address things that you think don't need to be enforced? Why?
If you are presuming that - despite what they are coming right out and saying repeatedly - they don't intend to enforce the 250g end of the spectrum of toys, why do you suppose they sat around for weeks in meetings with regulators, manufacturers, pilots associations, etc., and issued a rule that includes those toys, along with language saying how they did so because of the critical, life-threatening safety issues that they represent? If you think that's all nonsense that shouldn't be enforced, then why are you defending the administration for putting a kid with a 9-ounce RC toy in federal legal jeopardy?
100% of homicides SHOULD be dealt with. 100% of kids flying 9-ounce toys should NOT be dealt with. You understand this isn't about a rules governing what happens when someone causes an injury or property damage
Your argument is that we should wait for a tragedy to make rules to prevent a tragedy.
No, my argument is that telling a 13 year old girl that she has to have her name in a public-facing federal database in order to fly a 9-ounce pink plastic RC copter from a mall kiosk, or face a $20,000 fine will do exactly NOTHING to prevent a bad guy from doing all of the horrible murderous things that we're seeing done with RC toys. Oh, right - there are literally millions of them in the hands of people, with untold millions of flight hours on them, and we're not actually seeing any of that. But you're pretty sure that someone looking to do harm will step up and register their name with the feds, and then write their identifying information on the RC airplane they're going to use to deliberately hurt people? Are you really thinking this through?
The FAA is banned from regulating model aircraft if I recall.
Which is why the Obama administration just instituted their new RC aircraft owner registration system (you have to sign up by the 19th of this month, or face up to $20,000 in fines ... and that includes operating any toy RC machine as small as just under 9 ounces/250g) through the Department Of Transportation instead of through the FAA. It's a sleazy maneuver that directly goes against the spirit of the law congress passed to prevent exactly such things from happening.
Hopefully you're not surprised that an administration that has been found repeatedly by federal courts to have overstepped separation of powers by issuing unconstitutional executive orders would be trying to once again work around the law?
Doesn't matter. Most people who fly RC planes for fun can't afford to fight the administration in court or risk that $20,000 fine. There are a couple of groups trying to take the matter to court, but that will drag out years. In the meantime, we have to play along with the illegal action by the administration.
Are there really that many drones kicking around that they are this much of an issue?
The rule (and its change) wasn't about "drones" - it was about any and all RC-controlled flying things. Balsa-wood models that grandpa has been flying around in circles in his back field for 40 years, for example. Hundreds of thousands of people have been flying RC aircraft for many decades. And no, it's never been an issue and still isn't. The FAA's random rule-generating system has nothing to do with reality.
Other than that, they have no reason to exist and should be shot down, no mater where they are.
So you're thinking that these machines, which people have been flying for decades - an activity enjoyed by millions of people over multiple generations, should all be shot down? Really?
If I find your car annoying or your mobile phone to be an intrusive image-capturing device, can I shoot at them? No? Why not?
So go to the NSA. Isn't that why they are tracking calls, messages and all that?
Meta data about who called who when doesn't contain the content of text messages, the photos or other files stored on the phone, etc.
The two key figures in that attack are already dead. The phone in question will shed light on whether or not their circle of friends, family, and overseas contacts were criminally involved in what happened. There's plenty of reasons to think that those to idiots didn't act in a vacuum.
They know he is a killer -- so why do they need his phone?
Really? You're that lacking in imagination, or that unfamiliar with the long history of Islamist murderers being in touch with each other and specific consulting figureheads, financiers, teachers, parts suppliers, etc?
Most of those cases were brought by well funded organizations acting on behalf of large constituencies. They exist exactly for this purpose.
"Only democrats spend tons of money" says area man with no grip on reality.
No, his point was that on things like this, Democrats only spend money (as opposed to actually getting things done right). The money gets spent, but the supposed purpose for which money is being taxed or borrowed and then spread around on the chartering and running of panels, focus groups, advisory boards, and programs as being mentioned in the OP ... that amounts to nothing constructive. But it does add new bureaucrats and unfireable new federal employees to the picture, and grows the size and pointless intrusiveness of the government, so it's definitely just what Democrats seek to do.
Try disobeying an Executive Order. Then you'll realize that they are considered "law".
Unless they are challenged in court and found to be unconstitutionally out of bounds for the president to have issued in the first place. Obama has lost in court multiple times on that front so far.
How is using *my* electricity, risking *my* computer's integrity, distracting *my* attention for *your* profit not abusing *my* resources?
Because YOU are the one choosing to go consume the content that someone else risks time and money to create. Nobody is forcing you to go to Wired for your amusement. But you're looking to use a technical method to separate the content you want to see from the content that the person who's creating and hosting that content wants to include in what you're not paying them for in order to do pesky things like not go bankrupt as they meet payroll and keep producing the thing to which you feel entitled at no cost.
What are you, 12? Yeah, I thought so.
Just because they're prey to our special operators doesn't make them any less predators from the point of view of the thousands and thousands of people they are slaughtering in the name of rewinding to the dark ages. They're definitely predators, as their world view requires that sort of predation in order to exist.
We've eliminated predators
I'm sure that groups like Boko Haram, ISIS and the rest would be surprised to hear they've been eliminated. They do a lot of preying while they're praying.
If you need examples, ask every victim of every revolution or warzone who suddenly had saw their rights disappear when the men with guns showed up.
Their rights didn't disappear, their rights were denied. Infringed. Interfered with.
Governments don't give rights. Governments impose limits on them, or protect against that happening. But they don't create them. Hopefully you're not confusing rights with entitlements like so many people do.
Yup, you still don't understand that having a right and having it successfully defended are not the same thing. Stop back by when you understand the difference.
You'll find that your idea of "rights" disappears quite quickly as soon as any functioning society breaks down.
My "idea" of rights exists at any scale and under any circumstances. That's the entire point. Irrational people do indeed look to take advantage circumstances in which they feel willing to take the chance that their use of violence will go unchallenged because of unpleasant or unexpected circumstances. Which doesn't change the fact that they lose their claim to life when they deny you yours. That's the right you naturally have: to use (or have used on your behalf) the violence necessary to defend your life. Why? Because rational people don't kill other people except in self defense. Those who initiate the violence waive their rights to live in peace.
You're confusing having a right with happening to have the power to defend it at some particular time. These are not the same thing.
Exactly, because in the jungle there are no rights
Oh, I get it now. You think that human beings aren't any different in their cognitive abilities, capacity for reason, and ability to think abstractly and communicate than are, say, tigers or lemurs.
I don't need it, but I need a government to tell others that.
No, you can tell them yourself, and if they are too irrational to digest the concept, and you're too weak to defend against violent, irrational people, then you need a government to help you protect your rights.
So you think that just because you decided to kill them, they didn't have the right to live? That's really your take on things?
If you initiate violence, you are giving up your OWN claim on your right to live. You have the right up until you infringe on someone else's. That's simple, rational stuff. If you can't use reason in your world view, then you are by definition looking at things irrationally. If you act irrationally, and it results in you doing something like killing those 9 people, then you have waived your own right to your life. Do you get that? You don't need a government to tell you that. But if you can't figure it out without a government telling you that, please do the rest of us a favor and don't do anything dangerous like voting.
In a modern society arms are useless.
Really? Then why does every single political leader - across the spectrum, including flaming lefty tyrants, eastern European strongmen, laid-back Scandinavian royalty and elected officials, mayors of cities, etc. - have armed protection at their disposal?
Why do police departments train in the use of arms? Why do militaries, even strictly defensive ones, understand the need to be able to use arms?
It's nice for you that you live in a fantasy world where there is no need for a 90-pound woman to ever defend herself against a man three times her size. Where is it, exactly, that you live that there are absolutely no violent people, no robberies, no rapes, no crimes that endanger lives? Please be specific, and if you would, please link to some reports that show your zero crime rate. Not that you will, of course, because you're full of it, and you know it.
What a load of shit. Without a government, you have no rights. Go live in a jungle sometime...
Wow, you really haven't thought this through, have you? You should.
... speaking). Who is giving them the perfectly natural behavioral elbow room to assemble and express themselves? The other 90 people who aren't even paying attention to them? The trees? No. These are perfect examples of "natural rights." If some of the other 90 people decide to get together and force those 10 people to no longer gather, or no longer speak their minds, they are infringing on their freedom to assemble and speak.
... those are a given. They are self-evident, natural freedoms that can only be limited by other people or groups. Those 10 people don't need the other 90 to do anything in order for their group of 10 to be able to gather and speak. They can do that without any action or permission from anybody. If someone decides to take action shut them up, that's infringement of that right.
So, you and another 100 people are in the jungle. 10 of you decide to get together in a group (you know, assembling) and chant something they think is important (you know
The US constitution recognizes this, and its first amendment explicitly says that the government can't infringe on that right. There's no place in the constitution that defines the right to assemble or speak
Without a government, a society, a rule of law, etc there is no such thing as 'rights'.
Nonsense. Without rule of law, there is no protection of rights. You really think that your right to speak comes from the government? You truly don't understand that it's the government's job to prevent other people (and those same government institutions) from forcibly shutting you up?
You're missing the point. Rights exist, naturally. They are not "given to you" by a government. A society may indeed gather together and write a constitution that decides that they will, as a group, choose to infringe on certain liberties (say, the liberty to ship goods without being taxed) ... but that's the government infringing on rights (though with the approval of the legislature/citizens, as ratified in a constitution or other charter).
Whether or not there are conflicting interests doesn't change the fact that the rights don't originate with the government.
we will be at the point every robber in Canada will be armed with these and the government will have little choice but to give us the right to bear any arms
Governments don't give rights, they either protect them, or they infringe upon them. What you're looking for is the Canadian government ceasing to infringe on that right.