The_Nybbler
If you win the rat race you're still a rat. But you're also still a winner.
No bio...
User ID: 174
Lol, Mr. and Mrs. Maduro additionally charged with possession of machine guns and destructive devices. Apparently even foreign heads of state need a US firearms permit.
In a surprise twist, the Maduros claim a 2nd Amendment right to own them. The courts decide that machine guns and destructive devices are indeed covered by the 2nd Amendment, but rule that the Maduros as foreigners in foreign lands cannot claim the protection of the Bill of Rights, and they're convicted. The dicta about machine guns is never considered again in any court except the Fifth Circuit, which SCOTUS overrules per curiam without argument or comment.
What defines a circuit board with a microcontroller on it as a "flight controller"? The software running on the microcontroller, and the fact that you have the thing hooked up to a radio control receiver and some motor drivers, are what actually makes it a flight controller. If the thing enters the country without software on it, and not hooked up to a radio control receiver or any motor drivers, what makes it a "flight controller"?
You have to call it something when you request your FCC authorization. You also have to have software running to do the necessary tests. Yes, you can lie, but if you're trying to do legitimate business that's not going to work.
Same thing with "ground control station." If I'm flying a hobby racing quadcopter I have a radio control transmitter and a video receiver. If I'm doing something fancier I might have... an ordinary laptop computer hooked up to the radio control transmitter and a telemetry receiver.
An aircraft radio control transmitter is pretty obviously that. Unless you're going to claim it's really for controlling muppets.
Yes, and I expect eliminating the RC aircraft hobby is intentional
I doubt the authority of the FCC to do this for devices operating in the ISM band. If you have an amateur radio license, remote control of vehicles is something that the CFR specifically lists as something your license permits you to do.
The FCC can refuse authorization of anything on the Covered List, and import or use of devices which require FCC authorization and don't have it is forbidden. And of course most of us don't have an amateur radio license; I never had the desire to get an attaboy from an amateur bureaucracy because I could tell a dit from a dah at high speed. (I know, there's no-code licenses now)
I simply cannot see how the government could legally stop me from building and flying a hobby quadrotor.
The FCC can stop you from legally buying the necessary parts; the FAA can prevent you from flying it (legally). They've been adding hoops to be legal to fly for a while now, and the way I read it most people aren't (one of the requirements to meet the recreational exception is that you need to follow the code of some "community based organization", and one of the rules of two of the CBOs is that you have to have a flight line dividing spectators from aircraft, and that implies you have a field you can control). The thing is, it's neither the FCC nor the FAA which wants to do this. The FAA wants to make it very cumbersome, but that's just what the FAA does. But DHS and the DoD want civilian drones to go away or at least be strictly controlled (i.e. in the hands of big, responsible, corporations that they can lean on), so they lean on the FAA and FCC to do things.
A portion of the right has adopted the Chomskyite "everything that is wrong in the world is somehow due to America's actions", and it doesn't sound any better coming from them than it did from Chomsky.
Speed, brutality, decisiveness - action for the sake of action - are conflated with effectiveness by certain kinds of people, while caution, planning, and introspection are viewed with contempt. Of course, it's hardly a universal perspective. You have plenty of people with pretty much the opposite view.
Hence the term "analysis paralysis".
I'm not saying dedicated hobbyists can't make these things. In America, even. Of course they can; any EE can make a Betaflight/Rotorflight flight controller based on the reference designs, and full schematics and layouts for motor controllers are available. Transmitters are harder because of the mechanical elements but I wouldn't be surprised if there are designs available. I'm saying it won't be economical for an actual company to make them for profit, which means the less-dedicated hobbyists (most of them) who just want to fly will be out of luck. Which means a lot less stuff in the air to scare the three-letter-agencies.
foreign interventions spend political capital and energy which take away from the domestic issues and effect domestic issues.
No they don't. "Political capital" is only expended if there was some sort of deal made here, which there was not; Trump did not make domestic concessions in order to gain support to attack Venezuela, because he didn't need to. The US is a large country and is able to do more than one thing at a time, and indeed pretty much always will do so.
Trump doesn't win elections with only "his supporters." Trump needs to win with his actual voters and his actual voters want him to focus on America at home. This move will make that even worse than it already was.
Those who are 100% concerned with domestic issues aren't going to be upset by this either; it just won't make them happy.
The midterms may indeed be a wipeout. This isn't going to make it one iota worse and might make it slightly better.
I expect "run the country" will mean we let the interim government run it under US military supervision. Although apparently the VP is now demanding Maduro's return, so maybe she'll get the "#2 man in Al Queda" treatment and someone else will run the interim government.
Venezuela's oil is ultra-heavy crude that currently (because Communism) requires them to import naphtha just to ship to somewhere it can be refined. The US has no pressing need for it. Assuming there's a stable government out of this rather than a civil war, US oil companies will improve their infrastructure enough (including their own refining capacity, at least enough that they can produce enough naphtha to ship the rest without imports) that they'll be making a lot more money from the oil, which will help the US companies some but the Venezuelans more. The oil is just a cherry on top, not a reason.
if we can't even preserve some few rags of compassion towards children
You mean girl children, right? Because compassion towards boy children is notably absent, and contempt is its substitute.
DNS blocks, removing them from Google search results, etc.
Should work as well as anti-piracy controls.
The funny example I go to sometimes is the ban on Chinese drywall.
This ban was because we imported a lot of shitty Chinese drywall that later outgassed sulfur compounds. It wasn't pre-emptive, it was punitive.
This is different from the UAS ban for several reasons including
-
UAS that do bad stuff on their own or at the surreptitious direction of their foreign manufacturer are largely only theoretical. DJI has been accused of uploading flight logs during an update, but that's it.
-
It applies to components, too, including components such as motors and batteries that could not be compromised to do the bad stuff theorized.
The reason for the UAS import ban is to prevent Americans from doing bad things with a UAS on purpose, not for any damage done by the manufacturer or manufacturer's country.
The recipients wouldn't be happy if nude pictures of me were being widely disseminated. Ugly privilege!
There is no way the Venezuelans are going to vote to give their oil to American companies.
Of course not. They're going to vote to SELL their oil to American companies. Because the choice will be between doing so and not selling much oil at all; they no longer have the domestic expertise and the US isn't going to let anyone else in.
You've got the model wrong. Even if this literally went against things Trump promised (and I don't think it does), as @sun_the_second says, it's losing that's the real problem for most of his supporters, not war. It'll tick off the pro-Russia contingent, but most of his supporters will be in favor so long as it looks like winning, and he'll probably increase support from the remnants of the neocons.
As far as a night of bombing and snatching a foreign head of state? It's cool if you get away with it.
Yep. It's risky as hell because you can get dragged into a general invasion and contested occupation that way, but Trump is no stranger to risk.
An anti-American communist being admired by NPR is a day ending in a Y. It doesn't really mean anything.
Grenada was even more successful than Panama. Wikipedia has it lasting 8 days, and the day of the invasion is now Thanksgiving for the Grenadians, so a cultural win as well. I'm not clear on whether the Venezuelan operation is completely over yet, so it may be too soon to put it in the record books.
Bin Laden's youngest wife was turned over to the Pakistanis during or after the raid; she was the only one there.
It's possible they were importing weapons or something (which would explain the timing), but Venezuela needs naphtha to process their heavy oil, and that's what Skipper was supposedly carrying.
El Salvador seems more likely. I'm sure Bukele would love to have him in CECOT.
Yep, I disagree with doing this (because it shouldn't be the USs business, not because Maduro didn't have it coming), but it seems like we at least did it right. Hard to believe we basically Grenada'd Venezuela. Even better than Panama, no siege.
The US obviously does not now and never has believed regime change is per se bad.
Looking at the thread @CertainlyWorse pointed to, I think if there's anything aside from Marco Rubio's personal interest and Trump's desire for a Nobel Peace Prize, @UberZarathustra has it -- reduce China's influence in the Western hemisphere.
- Prev
- Next

Most of Latin America is successful democracies now.
More options
Context Copy link