Our city council voted 5-0 to install more. A unanimous vote which includes democrats who ran on disrupting a council that had the same members for decades.
The medical and financial predators targeting elderly makes me wonder how to constrain it. The law doesn’t really help, short of having a court determine there’s some level of incapacity.
In theory the law doesn’t require victim cooperation. In practice, I’ve found local prosecutors won’t touch a case with an uncooperative victim. And most victims don’t cooperate whether out of humiliation or rejection pf the very idea they can be scammed. Because to them all scams are obvious, and only morons are scammed. They consistently lack imagination for the sophistication and manipulation component of scams, thinking it’s all about obviousness.
I’m sure it’s not only a case of “save the children”. Saving grandma’s retirement accounts is also important. The internet is a cesspool.
Federal court orders (judicial branch) are enforced by federal law enforcement such as marshals, FBI, ATF, and so on (executive branch).
If the executive branch is lawless, then there’s selective enforcement. We are seeing the emergence of the dual state. Authoritarianism that follows the law sometimes so it sorta looks legitimate but sometimes isn’t at all legitimate.
America Is Watching the Rise of a Dual State (theatlantic.com)
Hold on. That ballroom is ostensibly funded by private investors including Apple, AMD, Amazon, Microsoft, Meta, Google, Nvidia, Palantir, Booz Allen Lockheed Martin, Zoom, Coinbase, Ripple ...
Therefore the customers of these companies are contributing some of their hard earned money to help these companies grovel to a would-be dictator, and build his precious ballroom.
I'm not a big fan of the general strike idea whereby people forego income to send a message. Why not stop spending money with these companies for some period of time? I think telling these companies to go fuck themselves will put more money in everyday people's pockets than not showing up for work.
Apple consumers would be on more ethical grounds paying a tariff than what Tim Cook has committed them to. He showed up at the White House on Saturday well after the reporting that the government had murdered a law abiding citizen, while that government protected the assailants, and smeared the victims.
It's disgusting. I find him disgusting. I find all of these companies disgusting.
Yeah, the higher departure stress due to greater fuel weight at takeoff was mentioned in this video.
I'm now curious about the engineering of the displaced threshold. This is a portion of the runway that aircraft can taxi onto and use for takeoff but not for landing. I thought (assumed) that the landing was harder on the runway surface than takeoffs, hence the displaced threshold wasn't designed for that force.
The displaced threshold could also be used to ensure obstacle and terrain clearance on landing - simply disallow that portion from being used in order to create an offset from the obstacle. But I don't know whether this is a very common reason for displaced threshold usage.
--
Video also mentions https://skybrary.aero/ which I'd not heard of previously. Looks neat. I'll have to check it out.
FAA has asserted jurisdiction below 500' for a long time: balloons and kites since 1963, ultralights since 1982.
FAA certainly asserts regulatory authority over aircraft below 500', everything does takeoffs and landings of some sort, but ground operations are also subject to regulation.
Historically, the FAA had zero interest/jurisdiction in most hobbyist aircraft below 500 feet, they would not even bother entertaining such as it was not relevant to their opperations.
Helicopters, planes, and quadcopters could be flown freely under general guidance, with no actual enforcing regulations.
These were largely not seen as something the FAA had jurisdiction over, nor did the FAA express any interest. It was widely accepted that fields away from an airport and at low altitude were outside of controlled airspace.
Then come affordable drones and suddenly the FAA attempts to exert full regulation over the space.
To answer your question, roughly 2012 is when this started.
>Historically, the FAA had zero interest/jurisdiction in most hobbyist aircraft below 500 feet, they would not even bother entertaining such as it was not relevant to their opperations.
This is not correct. See 14 CFR 101, 103, and 105. There's a long history of the FAA concerning itself with hobbyists flying model aircraft, moored, and unmanned balloon, rockets, kites, parachutes, and ultralights. I mentioned this, you glossed over it. Their histories predate 2012.
>Helicopters, planes, and quadcopters could be flown freely under general guidance, with no actual enforcing regulations.
Helicopters and airplanes have been regulated under 14 CFR 91 for a very long time, and were regulated by the CAA (the Civil Aeronautical Authority, precursor to FAA), and their operations are certainly regulated below 500'. And it is definitely enforced.
If you're referring to the years long regulatory lag for drones/sUAS before the The FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 which also gave us 49 USC 44809 "Exception for limited recreational operations of unmanned aircraft" - ummm, well all I can say is welcome to aviation. It's been significantly regulated the whole time, and just because some folks were not aware of this fact, doesn't mean it wasn't.
Maybe check out The Great Waldo Pepper with Robert Redford though. That begins in a genuinely unregulated era.
There's no uncertainty. Republicans now openly assert the 2nd amendment belongs to supporters and defenders of the regime, and no one else.
The movement opposes equality because equality stands opposed to their need for hierarchy. It is a domination and submission movement. It boasts about its application of double standards. Double standards are not logical fallacies, when they use them they are virtues. To enjoy for themselves what they deny to others is a display of dominance.
Related, six days ago. Since then, the FBI agent who indicated a civil rights investigation into the shooting of Renee Good was warranted, has resigned.
This doesn't contradict what I said, because "moments before" is like 2 seconds. It seems plausible to me that the agent reacted to a gun being pulled out of pants and panic shot within 2 seconds. His gun was not already drawn, so that's a plausible lag time. If we assume that ICE did not execute a guy for literally no reason whatsoever, that seems to me the most likely explanation for why he drew and fired.
My dude, they were already beating him for no reason whatsoever. When someone showed me this video the first time, I thought the outrage was that they were beating a guy who wasn’t resisting for no reason whatsoever, which is true, but then they also killed him, again for no reason. They were already violent criminals before they murdered him. If he had been drawing it would have been justifiable self defense and ICE would still have been entirely in the wrong. Though he didn’t.
How does the victim you supposedly saw pull out a gun, do that when he's pinned to the ground with a agent bashing his head repeatedly with an implement?
When you're in a high stress physical altercation with obscured vision, and you see a gun in your opponent's pants, and then a hand on that gun, and then the gun being pulled out of the pants by that hand, all happening quickly in succession, you may believe in that split second that you are in a mortal situation. These are not well trained soldiers here.
I'm not defending them, just guessing at the explanation. I'm operating from the assumption that the ICE agent did not randomly with absolutely no cause decide to execute a guy; probably something made him believe in that moment that he should shoot. You can see from the other, closer video that he very suddenly draws his weapon, as if in reaction to something.
Edit: someone else ITT theorized that the disarming agent ND'd which caused another agent to shoot in reaction. That's also pretty plausible.
Why do you think it’s so important to get in this guy’s head, and to give him this graceful excuse of “maybe he just panicked?”
Obviously someone panicked. We can clearly see they did not line them up and actually shoot them with a firing squad.
But what is the point of this thought exercise? Where does it lead? To more “training” for the agents?
The whole thing is illegitimate and immoral. There is no need to engage with what was going on in the guy’s head. We are way, way too far past that point.
> Why do you think it’s so important to get in this guy’s head, and to give him this graceful excuse of “maybe he just panicked?”
It's not an excuse, it's an explanation. By all means throw the book at him for murder or whatever. I think it's important because understanding why things happen is important to stop them from happening. If you just stop at "they're evil murderers" then your options for fixing that are very limited.
> But what is the point of this thought exercise? Where does it lead? To more “training” for the agents?
I'm responding to your earlier post, claiming that the victim indeed did put his hands on his gun. I ask you again, provide that evidence that you claim to have seen in the video.
Please see my bio. I support ICE in principal, though not in current practice. This isn't a secret or shameful to me. If we can't have a dialogue about how to deport illegal immigrants safely, and how to get from here to a working deportation system, and the only two options are to abolish ICE or the current situation, I fear abolishing ICE is not going to be what happens. That isn't really what anyone wants. The first step to fixing what's going wrong is to understand the failure mode. The failure mode is not in most cases "they executed him because they are evil murderers".
You seem to think this is a failure mode and not the system working as intended. I encourage you to read some Stephen Miller posts. Dead liberals is a nice bonus to them.
Your comments are the only level headed ones remaining since so many comments have been flagged and removed. These knee jerk reactions are not helpful and tend to be wrong.
Telling illiberal authoritarians to go fuck themselves is reasonable. But power is still more important than insults.
reply