JasonFruit

Skepticism is appropriate when there's no evidence, in general. No opinion on this matter.

A lot of ultralights use an airfoil that is pretty informal, as there are fewer ribs, and the fabric billows a bit. I don't know if that's the case here.

This seems like someone set out to be outraged and succeeded. Is it surprising that, if you put no limits on where Google places ads, some of the places they end up have politics you don't agree with, and others are probably low-quality ad views? If the most they have to complain about in a completely untargeted ad campaign is that #1 is a dying media company, #2 is an unclear category, and they disagree with the politics of numbers 5, 24, 58, and 61, I'd say they came through pretty well.

Google has problems, but this article doesn't really communicate any of them.

On the other hand, what do you expect them to do, not train officers on that stuff so they don't get an antagonistic view of the public? That's like not having pilots read accident reports so they don't get spooked about losing power on takeoff; it's a real threat, so they should be prepared.

I agree that antagonism between police and public is a big problem, but I'm not sure what the solution is to the particular problem you point out.

I think for me, it was because he was about my age, and acting in the smarmy teacher's-pet way that I knew I tended to put on myself. Add on top that the writing was like the Mary-Sue fantasy of a "gifted student" in a small pond, and I had plenty of reasons to cringe at myself reflected in Wesley Crusher.

Wil Wheaton, on the other hand, sounds like a pretty decent guy.

Unfortunately, it's not the law of the land --- it's a judicial opinion, written in water and subject to change without notice. (Which is how judicial opinion should be; this is just a good opinion that ought to be codified by the legislature.)

I cannot believe it is necessary to be so persnickety about it that it causes you stress and bitterness. Give your siblings a day to grab anything they want, then rent a dumpster and a wheelbarrow and go to town. Throw away everything you can force yourself to, one room a day. Dad's dead, he won't care. If it takes nine months, you're doing it wrong.

Just because it will probably be worse now doesn't mean it wasn't bad then. Then I lost my house and struggled to scrape through financially. We learned from that experience and are better prepared to weather this round. It may be a blessing for many that 2008 was so recent, and this recession has trumpeted its approach for a while: maybe they've used the time to prepare.

One thing I think American governments need to do better, if they're going to be in charge of indestructible projects, is creating an informed electorate. Much of what is in this answer is new information to me, and I'm pretty sure I'm not unusual in that way. That still doesn't fix the problem that politicians don't understand these tradeoffs, but if they could be brought to that understanding and encouraged to communicate it clearly, it would at least direct public pressure the right direction to some extent.

> about 9/10 times when Google removes an app it's because it is actually doing some very shady spyware type stuff

If Google removes apps for invalid reasons 1/10 the time, that's a big window for abuse.

It subordinates the person to the office.

Yes, the eyes and the shape of the brow are totally different. It's interesting that the uniform of nobility, like that of a soldier or a fast-food worker, deemphasizes individuality.

Is it rude that you suggested that FaceTime calls are so unimportant it's expected you'll be distracting yourself with other activities while they're going on? If not, why not?

Not today, FBI, not today.

Should we be able to chart a consistent course on issues where there is no broad agreement among the people? Should the government involve itself in such issues at all, rather than leaving highly controversial purposes to be accomplished by voluntary means?

> We need bureaucracies that can be evaluated on efficiency in performance to mission.

That implies that there's broad agreement on a) the mission of various government agencies, and b) the desirability of the mission or even the agency. There are large subsets of the American population that question the desirability and disagree about the mission of the ATF, DEA, INS, CIA, FBI, and several other agencies. Electing and appointing people who are good at accomplishing those missions is not enough to satisfy many Americans.

This is the solution: not only does it manage demand, it reduces initial and maintenance costs and decreases destruction of natural lands. I couldn't come up with as good and natural a response to this problem.

Your figures are clearly correct. I accepted what an article said without checking into it myself. Thanks for doing the work I should have done.

Corrected for inflation, John D. Rockefeller is probably the richest American ever.

What makes you think NATO nations wouldn't do such a thing, if there were a conventional war between them and Russia? War is essentially irrational, and it causes governments and the general population to desire ends that can only be pursued by harmful, immoral means. What makes NATO immune to this?

That should probably be done as a precaution for all aircraft. It's a win for everyone.

If that's the case, shouldn't the controller be a Certificated Remote Pilot under Part 107 rules?

I may honestly be misremembering, because I use Brave, whose behavior usually follows Chrome. At any rate, it's typical of the "Can we? You sure? You sure? You sure? OK, thanks!" anti-pattern we all hate.

I see what you are saying. Glad we agree. That attitude sets people who could make common cause at each other's throats instead.

Your attitude is completely wrong in the same way the ACLU has gone wrong. Defending speech _as a right_ means defending it for everyone in all cases, most especially when it is unpopular. Otherwise you're not acting as a defense of free speech, but as an amplifier of speech you agree with. You become the Committee In Favor Of Speech We Like, which is pretty worthless.

It's kind of like when a website begs for permission to use your location over and over even though you say no every time, until you screw up and say yes — and then you never hear about it again. These ideas arise over and over until one makes it through, and then we have lost that bit of liberty for good.

I meant the word 'grognard'. Many of us are greybeards still fighting the last war.

I anticipated being able to agree with you more than I do. Long lines, GC, yes, the rest, no.

I think it's perfect: soldiers of the old guard. I think many of us who love Emacs fall into that category.

My point is that when Foone posts are shared here, someone always follows up with The Official Rules for Interacting With Foone. Others neither expect nor get such treatment. What's different about Foone?