Youtube comments of Jersey Shore Drone Services (@jerseyshoredroneservices225).
-
685
-
459
-
220
-
216
-
203
-
181
-
168
-
168
-
165
-
116
-
115
-
114
-
111
-
94
-
89
-
87
-
86
-
75
-
74
-
69
-
67
-
64
-
63
-
61
-
56
-
52
-
50
-
45
-
44
-
43
-
43
-
40
-
40
-
40
-
38
-
37
-
37
-
36
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
33
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
27
-
26
-
26
-
25
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
14
-
14
-
You're right. We actually have a shortage of planes for various reasons. I think the main problem is that fighter jet programs are planned years or decades ahead of time. Then when the present day reality doesn't match what the expectations were, you can get jammed up.
The US kind of expected the F-35 to replace almost everything else but that hasn't worked out. Now we have a shortage of planes that we didn't expect to still have a need for.
At the same time all these new F35s are very expensive, and continuing to fly aging planes is also very expensive. So we are retiring some older planes a little bit early to try to save money.
We're also short on pilots and ground crews.
If anybody wants to search they can find a lot that has been written on the situation. Here's one paragraph from one article that I quickly found.
National Guard Boss Warns of Potential ‘Critical’ Fighter Shortage
"The head of the National Guard warned that a shortage of fighter jets, pilots, and maintainers in the reserve components could leave the military short-handed in a possible conflict. "
Here is part of another article.
"We’re forced to make a choice between two things: We can either maintain legacy force structure, and ultimately what that means is maintaining units and maintaining basing in any location that you want to pick, or modernizing,” according to the deputy chief of staff for plans and programs, Lt. Gen. Richard Moore. “Unfortunately, what’s happening is we’re trying to do both.”
But congressional reluctance about the Air Force’s planned retirements have prevented the service from shifting to the modernization effort it wants, he said in April at an Air and Space Forces Association event.
“We’re being restricted from divesting legacy force structure,” Moore said, adding that the service is “having to slow down modernization.”
That’s one reason the Air Force struck six F-35As and six F-15EXs from its planned purchase in FY25, he noted, as well as reducing its buy of MH-139 Grey Wolf patrol helicopters.
“To maintain legacy force structure and try and modernize, we’re hollowing out the force,” Moore said."
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
"The remote pilot in command may reduce the intensity of, but may not extinguish, the anti-collision lighting if he or she determines that, because of operating conditions, it would be in the interest of safety to do so."
Full regulation:
Section 107.29 Operation at night
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (d) of this section, no person may operate a small unmanned aircraft system at night unless—
(1) The remote pilot in command of the small unmanned aircraft has completed an initial knowledge test or training, as applicable, under §107.65 after April 6, 2021; and
(2) The small unmanned aircraft has lighted anti-collision lighting visible for at least 3 statute miles that has a flash rate sufficient to avoid a collision. The remote pilot in command may reduce the intensity of, but may not extinguish, the anti-collision lighting if he or she determines that, because of operating conditions, it would be in the interest of safety to do so.
(b) No person may operate a small unmanned aircraft system during periods of civil twilight unless the small unmanned aircraft has lighted anti-collision lighting visible for at least 3 statute miles that has a flash rate sufficient to avoid a collision. The remote pilot in command may reduce the intensity of, but may not extinguish, the anti-collision lighting if he or she determines that, because of operating conditions, it would be in the interest of safety to do so.
(c) For purposes of paragraph (b) of this section, civil twilight refers to the following:
(1) Except for Alaska, a period of time that begins 30 minutes before official sunrise and ends at official sunrise;
(2) Except for Alaska, a period of time that begins at official sunset and ends 30 minutes after official sunset; and
(3) In Alaska, the period of civil twilight as defined in the Air Almanac.
(d) After May 17, 2021, no person may operate a small unmanned aircraft system at night in accordance with a certificate of waiver issued prior to April 21, 2021 under §107.200. The certificates of waiver issued prior to April 21, 2021 under §107.200 that authorize deviation from §107.29 terminate on May 17, 2021.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
The main problem I have with this outlook is the concept of "quick".
I think in this context quick means months but I don't think that's realistic.
The US can't refurbish and ship a substantial amount of equipment in months, that would take a year or more.
Russia's production and other military assets can be moved back from the border out of reach of most ground based weapons. We, the US, would address those targets with assets at sea and air power that Ukraine just doesn't have and won't be able to develop "quickly". If we gave Ukraine an Air Force of 500 planes they wouldn't know what to do with it, how to maintain it or where to keep it secure.
In the first 6 months after the full scale invasion this concept would have had a much better chance of working. You know, some shock and awe for Russia when it still thought it would achieve its goals in weeks, but now I think it's too late for that.
At this point I think removing ridiculous ROE and providing more of the right weapons including things like JASSM for the F16s would probably be able to stop Russian advances and push them back in some places.
Forcing Russia to move its assets 500 km or more into Russia while continuously attacking its logistics lines of communication would slow them down but it wouldn't do anything to prevent their aircraft from taking off with bombs and missiles.
All of the West combined doesn't have enough air defense (available for Ukraine) to stop Russia's air attack and even if we did we can't afford enough ammunition for those systems. Russian bombs and missiles are cheap and plentiful while our answer to them is expensive and in short supply.
If the US were in Ukraine's situation and we were finally allowed to use all of our assets, we would use bombers flying directly over Russia and naval platforms to blow up every military asset on the Western side of the country, at least.
On top of that we would use our force of fighters to do what Zalinski has been pleading for since this started, we would "close the skies".
Unless we're willing to do that for Ukraine I don't think a quick end is achievable anymore.
We should surge the weapons Including long-range air-to-air missiles for the few F-16s that they'll have soon, and remove the ROE-D (rules of engagement- dumb). This would stop Russia's advances, help Ukraine take back certain areas and greatly reduce Russia's ability to bomb infrastructure.
It would also cut back dramatically on Ukrainian losses of equipment and people, allowing them to build up a much more capable military over a year or two.
Over the next two years, forces would be trained to use all this stuff efficiently (especially the Air Force) along with maneuver warfare, combined arms and all that stuff.
That will take time and we shouldn't expect an immediate result.
Two years of inflicting losses on Russia at 7:1 while Ukrainian cities and manufacturing are able do what they do without much fear of missiles raining down would dramatically shift morale and capability. In that situation Russia just might decide not to continue. The Soviets decided not to continue in Afghanistan so it wouldn't be unprecedented 🤔
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
A lot of people in these comments and in Texas are total idiots. I hope you internet warriors are much more reasonable in real life because you are not "allowed to shoot trespassers in Texas".
YouTube doesn't allow links anymore so here's a quote. Before you raise your 12 gauge at somebody who poses no threat to you you might want to go to law school or hire a lawyer before you need to hire a defense attorney.
"If the person is not an immediate threat to you or your family, deadly force is not permissible. This is easier to understand with concrete examples...."
Can I Be Charged for Shooting Someone Who Is On My Property Illegally?
Posted on August 07, 2020 in Criminal Defense
Waking up in the middle of the night to rustling outside your house or the sound of a window breaking downstairs would set anyone on high alert. Maybe you grab the nearest object to use in self-defense, if necessary, or perhaps you keep a gun in the house to protect you and your family. Many Texans are gun owners, saying that a gun in the house makes them feel safer. Even if the gun is properly registered and you have the appropriate licensing for the weapon, situations like these can leave the property owner facing criminal charges. Understanding self-defense laws is critical for Texas home and gun owners. It is imperative for those who are facing such charges to seek the guidance of an experienced criminal defense attorney to protect their rights.
A Look at Criminal Consequences
Texas law states that property owners are able to use force to terminate trespassing or theft if they deem it is necessary; however, force and deadly force are two different actions. Shooting the trespasser is considered deadly force since the bullet can easily end the person’s life. If the person is not an immediate threat to you or your family, deadly force is not permissible. This is easier to understand with concrete examples.
If the trespasser is wandering around your yard, in a non-threatening manner, using deadly force can lead to felony charges. However, if the individual becomes a threat by coming toward you with a weapon in hand or breaking into your home and using the weapon to take things, their trespassing has now escalated to attempted murder or aggravated robbery. Because your life may be on the line, Texas’ stand your ground laws allow you to shoot the individual, in an act of self-defense, without needing to retreat from the other party in any way. Stand your ground laws allow property owners to defend their property through deadly force without retreating if the other party is an imminent threat. Despite these laws, it is fairly well-known that any case involving the use of weapons or death can leave the self-defending party in hot water.
Was Deadly Force Necessary?
In cases involving weapon use, a jury will need to determine the need for the deadly force in that instance. In other words, was shooting the other party really necessary or warranted? Texas juries have a three-step process that they will use when looking at such cases:
After reviewing the Texas legislation that discusses the use of deadly force, the jury must find that you were justified in using this level of force to stop the trespasser, thief, or attempted murderer.
The jury must decide that you had reasonable belief to think that deadly force was immediately necessary to stop the individual from fleeing the scene with your property in hand or to protect yourself against the individual.
The jury must agree that when you used deadly force, you believed that you had no other means to protect your property from being taken or protect yourself and that using less force would have led to risks of your own death or serious injuries.
Contact a Floresville Weapons Charges Lawyer
If you or anyone you know is facing charges involving the use of weapons or deadly force, you should immediately seek out legal counsel. Charges to this degree can lead to significant time behind bars, hefty fines, or even the death penalty. Our BCP Criminal Defense Attorneys believe in the right of Texas property owners to defend themselves and are committed to defending those facing murder or manslaughter charges in the state of Texas. We have over 40 years of combined experience to put toward your defense and we will fight tirelessly on your behalf. If you are facing criminal charges after defending yourself using a weapon, contact
Wilson county criminal defense attorneys
at 830-769-1010 to schedule your free consultation.
Sources: links not allowed on YouTube :-(
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@CWLemoine
It's okay because we're allowed to talk to each other. If you're standing in line and somebody cuts in front of you is it okay to tell him to get back to the end of the line? Of course it is, even if there's a small chance that the person might flip out and do something bizarre. We don't have to stay silent and walk on eggshells because there's a small possibility that somebody's a nut, especially if they appear to be a police officer.
It's also okay in this situation because it's not a crime. That guy is an officer of the law. He doesn't get to arrest people because he thinks the way they approached was inappropriate. If he was startled that's also not a crime, sometimes we get startled in life. If he didn't want to be approached than he should have acted like he was on a call, you know by turning on his Lights or something like that. If that other cop didn't want to be spun out with the pit maneuver he should have had his lights on too. When you don't act like a cop actively doing cop things you shouldn't expect to be treated like one.
If she had any other reason to contact that officer and knocked on his window to do so, he would have been fine with it. The only reason he had a problem is because she had a problem with his driving. Had she said I lost my dog, I lost my wallet, I need directions or any other reason, it would have been fine with him.
This guy clearly wasn't concerned for his safety or the call because he stood around arguing with this lady. if he had half a brain he would have said I'm sorry mam you're right, I was distracted with this call,cand since I'm on a call I can't talk to you anymore about it right now. if you wish to file a complaint go to the police station. My name is blah blah. And that would have been the end of it. That would have taken several seconds but instead he invested probably 40 minutes to be vindictive and get revenge, because she hurt his feelings. Then the rest of the government piled on to make sure she got really jacked up.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The press just has to hype everything up because sensationalism sells.
However, to be fair, if you look on the lockheed Martin webpage it says this:
"ATACMS is a long-range, guided missile that gives commanders the immediate firepower to shape the battlespace. Each ATACMS missile is packaged in a look-alike MLRS launch pod and fired from the MLRS family of launchers."
A less biased source says this:
"Most often categorized as short-range, medium-range, intermediate-range, and intercontinental ballistic missiles (SRBMs, MRBMs, IRBMs, and ICBMs). SRBMs are effective to 300 miles (480 km), MRBMs from 300 to 600 miles (480 to 965 km), IRBMs from 600 to 3,300 miles (965 to 5,310 km), and ICBMs more than 3,300 miles…"
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
New Jersey has a law that prohibits cashless brick and mortar businesses.
The federal government ignores the law at Sandy Hook national park.
The park is open 6 am through 9 pm daily, except by permit. There is a $20 charge per day for beach parking from Memorial Day weekend through Labor Day. Fees are collected between 8 a.m. and 6 p.m. All toll booths are cashless and accept credit, debit, and contactless payment only
2019
Gov. Phil Murphy on Monday signed into law a bill that bans most brick-and-mortar businesses in the state from refusing to accept cash from customers, making New Jersey only the second state to do so.
The bill, NJ A591 (18R), first introduced in 2017, began advancing in June but was temporarily held up because of opposition from Amazon and Walmart, according to The Philadelphia Inquirer. Amazon, which is experimenting with cashless stores, had a bookstore in Paramus that did not accept cash, according to the paper. At the time the bill was delayed, Amazon was considering Newark for its HQ2 expansion. Shortly after Amazon chose Virginia and Long Island City instead, the bill began advancing again.
“Many people don’t have access to consumer credit and any effort by retail establishments to ban the use of cash is discriminatory toward those people,” said Assemblyman Paul Moriarty (D-Gloucester), a sponsor of the bill, in a statement. “The U.S. dollar is legal tender and should be accepted at any retail establishment in New Jersey.”
The bill’s official description states it “prohibits a person from selling or offering for sale any goods or services at retail if the person requires the buyer to pay with credit or prohibits the buyer from paying with cash.”
There are a few exceptions to the new law, which takes effect immediately.
📣 Want more POLITICO? Download our mobile app to save stories, get notifications and more. In iOS or Android.
Airport stores are allowed to not accept cash as long as there are at least two in the same terminal that do accept cash and sell food. Municipal parking facilities are also exempted, as well as any parking facility that accepts only mobile payment. Car rental businesses would be able to refuse cash if they accept cashier’s checks and certified checks.
Business advocates called the new law unnecessary, burdensome government interference.
“Today’s signing removes a business owners’ right to freely determine how they would like to receive payment for their products and services,” said Michael Wallace, vice president of government affairs for the New Jersey Business & Industry Association, in a statement. “The preference for retailers to run a cashless business is often based on efficiencies and, in some cases, as a safety measure. Consumers of all income levels are able to access pre-paid cards for purchasing. As such, this law will ultimately stifle innovation and act as a further deterrent to doing business in New Jersey.”
Massachusetts banned cashless stores in the late 1970s. The city of Philadelphia — but not the state of Pennsylvania — also recently enacted a cashless store ban.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
My understanding is that deep seek did not steal technology from open AI. They may have lied about not using very many high-end chips but I don't think they stole any technology.
"DeepSeek may have used a technique called “distillation,” which allows its model to learn from a pretrained model, in this case ChatGPT. While DeepSeek has been accused of intellectual property theft ever since it gained mainstream attention, some industry experts have dismissed these claims saying they stem from an inadequate understanding of how models such as DeepSeek are trained.
OpenAI prohibits the practice of training a new AI model by repeatedly querying a larger, pre-trained model, a technique commonly referred to as distillation, according to their terms of use. And the company suspects DeepSeek may have tried something similar, which could be a breach of its terms."
"In the context of AI, "distillation" is generally considered a fair practice as it allows for the creation of smaller, more efficient models by transferring knowledge from larger, complex models, making AI more accessible and sustainable, but ethical concerns can arise depending on how it's used, particularly regarding potential intellectual property issues when distilling proprietary models. "
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@johnatsippican5501
According to Wiki, GRU became the main airport in 1985. See below...
Personally, my only flight in an airliner was to Brazil in 2001
I left EWR and landed at GRU, not CGH.
I arrived back at home the night of September 10th and when when I woke up the next morning There was smoke rising 40 miles to the North in NYC.
Wiki:
Until 1985, Congonhas was the main airport of São Paulo operating domestic flights, as well as international service to neighbouring countries such as Argentina, Uruguay, Paraguay, Chile, Peru and Bolivia. Due to Congonhas' short runways, unable to accommodate most long-haul jets, intercontinental flights required changing planes at Rio de Janeiro–Galeão or were operated at Viracopos Airport. However, Viracopos' distant location, in Campinas, 97 km (60 mi) from downtown São Paulo, made that choice inconvenient both for passengers and for airlines, so a connection in Rio was usually preferred.
Since the opening of Guarulhos Airport in 1985, international flights no longer operate from Congonhas, and domestic operations have undergone restrictions. Congonhas remains important to the city for regional and short-distance domestic flights
1
-
Aren't our phones " papers and effects"?
Without a warrant or subpoena ouldn't the fourth apply as well?
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ArturRehi
About those planes that the US is sending to the desert...
As usual the situation is very complicated...
We actually have a shortage of planes for various reasons. I think the main problem is that fighter jet programs are planned years or decades ahead of time. Then when the present day reality doesn't match what the expectations were, you can get jammed up.
The US kind of expected the F-35 to replace almost everything else but that hasn't worked out. Now we have a shortage of planes that we didn't expect to still have a need for.
At the same time all these new F35s are very expensive, and continuing to fly aging planes is also very expensive. So we are retiring some older planes a little bit early to try to save money.
We're also short on pilots and ground crews.
If anybody wants to search they can find a lot that has been written on the situation. Here's one paragraph from one article that I quickly found.
National Guard Boss Warns of Potential ‘Critical’ Fighter Shortage
"The head of the National Guard warned that a shortage of fighter jets, pilots, and maintainers in the reserve components could leave the military short-handed in a possible conflict. "
Here is part of another article.
"We’re forced to make a choice between two things: We can either maintain legacy force structure, and ultimately what that means is maintaining units and maintaining basing in any location that you want to pick, or modernizing,” according to the deputy chief of staff for plans and programs, Lt. Gen. Richard Moore. “Unfortunately, what’s happening is we’re trying to do both.”
But congressional reluctance about the Air Force’s planned retirements have prevented the service from shifting to the modernization effort it wants, he said in April at an Air and Space Forces Association event.
“We’re being restricted from divesting legacy force structure,” Moore said, adding that the service is “having to slow down modernization.”
That’s one reason the Air Force struck six F-35As and six F-15EXs from its planned purchase in FY25, he noted, as well as reducing its buy of MH-139 Grey Wolf patrol helicopters.
“To maintain legacy force structure and try and modernize, we’re hollowing out the force,” Moore said."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@professor-gerdes
Obama, obliterate, oath, open, ocean, obedient, over, overcast, obey, Olympics,
Ozempic..
Oblast sounds like oh 👍
https://youtu.be/YlF5XrTO6rw?si=-2Elg2FrgbhfWnnz
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@TB-xw3vo
First of all you don't know what rules the mysterious drones are operating under they're probably not under part 107 because they are probably greater than 55 pounds.
Even if they are operating under part 107 they're allowed to fly at night. If you're a licensed remote pilot you need to get the books because you've forgotten the rules. You should start with 14CFR part 107.29
Support Us!
Toggle navigation
LII
Electronic Code of Federal Regulations (e-CFR)
Title 14—Aeronautics and Space
CHAPTER I—FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
SUBCHAPTER F—AIR TRAFFIC AND GENERAL OPERATING RULES
PART 107—SMALL UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS
Subpart B—Operating Rules
§ 107.29 Operation at night.
14 CFR § 107.29 - Operation at night.
CFR § 107.29 Operation at night.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (d) of this section, no person may operate a small unmanned aircraft system at night unless—
(1) The remote pilot in command of the small unmanned aircraft has completed an initial knowledge test or training, as applicable, under § 107.65 after April 6, 2021; and
(2) The small unmanned aircraft has lighted anti-collision lighting visible for at least 3 statute miles that has a flash rate sufficient to avoid a collision. The remote pilot in command may reduce the intensity of, but may not extinguish, the anti-collision lighting if he or she determines that, because of operating conditions, it would be in the interest of safety to do so.
(b) No person may operate a small unmanned aircraft system during periods of civil twilight unless the small unmanned aircraft has lighted anti-collision lighting visible for at least 3 statute miles that has a flash rate sufficient to avoid a collision. The remote pilot in command may reduce the intensity of, but may not extinguish, the anti-collision lighting if he or she determines that, because of operating conditions, it would be in the interest of safety to do so.
(c) For purposes of paragraph (b) of this section, civil twilight refers to the following:
(1) Except for Alaska, a period of time that begins 30 minutes before official sunrise and ends at official sunrise;
(2) Except for Alaska, a period of time that begins at official sunset and ends 30 minutes after official sunset; and
(3) In Alaska, the period of civil twilight as defined in the Air Almanac.
(d) After May 17, 2021, no person may operate a small unmanned aircraft system at night in accordance with a certificate of waiver issued prior to April 21, 2021 under § 107.200. The certificates of waiver issued prior to March 16, 2021 under § 107.200 that authorize deviation from § 107.29 terminate on May 17, 2021.
[Docket FAA-2015-0150, Amdt. 107-1, 81 FR 42209, June 28, 2016, as amended by Amdt. No. 107-8, 86 FR 4382, Jan. 15, 2021; 86 FR 13631, Mar. 10, 2020]
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Uh, um, uh, um Uh, um, uh, um
Uh, um, uh, um Uh, um, uh, um
Uh, um, uh, um Uh, um, uh, um
Disgraceful!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I don't dispute Paul's main point but he's making some inaccurate assumptions as well.
To start with, comparing "the drones in Ukraine" with the flipple drones is inaccurate at best. The drones in Ukraine that are being expended at Paul's 70% figure are consumable drones, they are basically piloted explosives.
Paul mentioned $200 drones but I don't think any of them are that cheap unless that's the net cost after being subsidized by donations.
Ukraine's surveillance drones, thermal drones, etc are much more expensive and not intended to be immediately consumed. Sometimes that happens but it's not the plan.
Paul said that to get good at flying a drone you have to go through a few of them. This is not true. The expendable type of PV drones are difficult to fly. However you can learn to fly them without crashing, on a simulator. Then if you do crash them in training they're repairable. They're not super delicate like the DJI drones.
Another factor is that the US military is replacing Chinese drones that it used to use with American made drones that are pieces of junk. Expensive, finicky, problematic pieces of junk.
On a side note, a few dirty politicians are trying to force the same migration to American drones on the general population.
There are very few models available that don't suit the needs of anybody. They don't work very well and are very expensive.
Elise stefanic and some others have been pushing this agenda because the American company Skydio has invested tremendous lobbying money in the dirty politicians. If they're successful they will eliminate aviation hobbiists and small businesses that rely on the functional, cost-effective Chinese drones. You're basically trying to kill an industry and put Americans out of work, to enrich themselves.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Firebombing" is a very old tactic. The only thing that's new about it in Ukraine is that they're having to improvise using small drones because they don't have actual military weapons to do it.
Look up "firebombing" on Wiki:
Early in World War II many British cities were firebombed. Two particularly notable raids were the Coventry Blitz on 14 November 1940, and the blitz on London on the night of 29 December/30 December 1940, which was the most destructive raid on London during the war with much of the destruction caused by fires started by incendiary bombs. During the Coventry Blitz the Germans pioneered several innovations which were to influence all future strategic bomber raids during the war.[2] These were: the use of pathfinder aircraft with electronic aids to navigate, to mark the targets before the main bomber raid; and the use of high explosive bombs and air-mines coupled with thousands of incendiary bombs intended to set the city ablaze. The first wave of follow-up bombers dropped high explosive bombs, the intent of which was to knock out the utilities (the water supply, electricity network and gas mains), and to crater the road — making it difficult for the fire engines to reach fires started by the successive waves of bombers. The follow-up waves dropped a combination of high explosive and incendiary bombs. There were two types of incendiary bombs: those made of magnesium and iron powders, and those made of petroleum. The high-explosive bombs and the larger air-mines were not only designed to hamper the Coventry fire brigade, they were also intended to damage roofs, making it easier for the incendiary bombs to fall into buildings and ignite them. As Sir Arthur Harris, commander of RAF Bomber Command, wrote after the war:
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ulbuilder
Yeah that does seem to apply to the situation. Thanks.
§ 830.5 Immediate notification
(a) An aircraft accident or any of the following listed serious incidents occur:
(1) Flight control system malfunction or failure;
(2) Inability of any required flight crewmember to perform normal flight duties as a result of injury or illness;
(3) Failure of any internal turbine engine component that results in the escape of debris other than out the exhaust path;
(4) In-flight fire;
(5) Aircraft collision in flight;
(6) Damage to property, other than the aircraft, estimated to exceed $25,000 for repair (including materials and labor) or fair market value in the event of total loss, whichever is less.
(7) For large multiengine aircraft (more than 12,500 pounds maximum certificated takeoff weight):
(i) In-flight failure of electrical systems which requires the sustained use of an emergency bus powered by a back-up source such as a battery, auxiliary power unit, or air-driven generator to retain flight control or essential instruments;
(ii) In-flight failure of hydraulic systems that results in sustained reliance on the sole remaining hydraulic or mechanical system for movement of flight control surfaces;
(iii) Sustained loss of the power or thrust produced by two or more engines; and
(iv) An evacuation of an aircraft in which an emergency egress system is utilized.
(8) Release of all or a portion of a propeller blade from an aircraft, excluding release caused solely by ground contact;
(9) A complete loss of information, excluding flickering, from more than 50 percent of an aircraft's cockpit displays known as:
(i) Electronic Flight Instrument System (EFIS) displays;
(ii) Engine Indication and Crew Alerting System (EICAS) displays;
(iii) Electronic Centralized Aircraft Monitor (ECAM) displays; or
(iv) Other displays of this type, which generally include a primary flight display (PFD), primary navigation display (PND), and other integrated displays;
(10) Airborne Collision and Avoidance System (ACAS) resolution advisories issued when an aircraft is being operated on an instrument flight rules flight plan and compliance with the advisory is necessary to avert a substantial risk of collision between two or more aircraft.
(11) Damage to helicopter tail or main rotor blades, including ground damage, that requires major repair or replacement of the blade(s);
(12) Any event in which an operator, when operating an airplane as an air carrier at a public-use airport on land:
(i) Lands or departs on a taxiway, incorrect runway, or other area not designed as a runway; or
(ii) Experiences a runway incursion that requires the operator or the crew of another aircraft or vehicle to take immediate corrective action to avoid a collision.
(b) An aircraft is overdue and is believed to have been involved in an accident.
[53 FR 36982, Sept. 23, 1988, as amended at 60 FR 40113, Aug. 7, 1995; 75 FR 927, Jan. 7, 2010; 75 FR 35330, June 22, 2010; 80 FR 77587, Dec. 15, 2015]
Aircraft accident
Aircraft accident means an occurrence associated with the operation of an aircraft which takes place between the time any person boards the aircraft with the intention of flight and all such persons have disembarked, and in which any person suffers death or serious injury, or in which the aircraft receives substantial damage. For purposes of this part, the definition of aircraft accident includes unmanned aircraft accident, as defined herein.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@johnnyharris
There is another category, people with permanent disabilities. For those who are able and motivated to do some kind of work there are big problems. To start with, the number of accessible jobs and hiring managers willing to take a chance on a disabled person (and their baggage) are far and few between.
The people in this category have ongoing medical expenses that are not optional so they need to maintain eligibility for SSD or some other program. Just about any work that they do will make them ineligible for the program that they need.
If you didn't know, being considered disabled by the government isn't just about being disabled, it's also about not making too much money (about 1200/ month). Regardless of your disability, if you earn more than that you're not considered disabled so you're not eligible for SSD/ medicare.
Accessible housing and transportation are far bigger, more expensive problems than for the people in the other categories.
Some people reading this might be thinking that there are section 8 and other affordable housing programs. The number of those units are far less than the number of people who need them. Also, like the healthcare benefit programs they have strings attached which prevent a person from trying to improve their life financially.
Vehicles that are modified to be accessible or very expensive and out of the reach of most people. Howard somebody accumulate the money for that without jeopardizing their eligibility for SSD? Even if someone were gifted vehicle like that, some programs would consider it an asset that might cause them to be ineligible.
Trying to have an enjoyable, productive life and be a productive part of society is big challenge, especially with the unnecessary restrictions imposed by the government.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Sticks and Stones wouldn't have blown up all the ammunition depots, fuel depots, convoys, command centers and all the other stuff that's been blown up over the last month. That's led to tremendous demoralization of the Russian forces.
I think it's completely incorrect to say that the Ukrainians could have done this without javelins, Bayraktar, M142 270, 777, harm, global Hawk, growlers, satellite intel and all the other stuff...
It's also true that without the will to fight, all that stuff wouldn't have a chance of winning the war.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@shooter7a
I read an interesting article on the issue, on The Drive. I'll paste part of it but Utube won't let me put the link :-(
Bottom line is I hope that we can produce as much as Ukraine needs. I know we're not going to give them a large percentage of what we have on hand because that would leave us vulnerable.
"So in essence, at a pace suggested by Hertling, Ukraine’s GMLRS monthly burn rate would equal about 29% of the entire planned U.S. procurement for the next five years, not withstanding production rates of the ER GMLRS which have yet to be set.
Given those numbers, what does Ukraine’s use of HIMARS portend for that nation, and the U.S., which might find itself needing these systems in case of a possible future conflict with China, Russia, or some other adversary?
Inventory Status
“The HIMARS without GMLRS is useless,” Cancian told The War Zone, adding that the U.S. military GMLRS stocks were already depleted during the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Though those wars are over, there is still an ongoing fight against the so-called Islamic State jihadi group and the budget calls for spending about $11.2 million from Operation Inherent Resolve funds to purchase 78 GMLRS for that effort in the coming fiscal year.
"Of the 50,000 [GMLRS] received, the military has probably expended about 20,000," he said. "I calculated that from what had been paid for in the war funding. So the current inventory is about 30,000."
"
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@colbunkmust
In the context of military weapons I don't think the terms are very relative.
"most often categorized as short-range, medium-range, intermediate-range, and intercontinental ballistic missiles (SRBMs, MRBMs, IRBMs, and ICBMs). SRBMs are effective to 300 miles (480 km), MRBMs from 300 to 600 miles (480 to 965 km), IRBMs from 600 to 3,300 miles (965 to 5,310 km), and ICBMs more than 3,300 miles…"
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Speaking of the warranty of fitness...
The Dodge Durango Pursuit is a law enforcement vehicle that comes with many features for police use. Here are some specs for the 2023 Dodge Durango Police Pursuit AWD:
Engine: 3.6L Pentastar V6 engine with AWD or 5.7L HEMI V8 engine with AWD
Transmission: Eight-speed TorqueFlite automatic transmission with instrument panel-mounted shifter
Brakes: Heavy-duty BR9 four-wheel disc brakes with antilock system
Tires: 255/60R 18 BSW on/off-road tires with V-speed rating
Seating: Five-passenger seating with cloth front buckets
Airbags: Seven standard airbags, including advanced multistage front airbags, supplemental side-curtain airbags, front seat-mounted side airbags, and driver's knee bolster airbag
Interior: Police-specific front seats, tri-zone HVAC system, and K-9 friendly three-zone automatic temperature control
Other features: Vehicle systems interface module (VSIM), stealth mode, 220-amp heavy-duty alternator, 12-volt auxiliary power outlet, deep-tint sunscreen on rear doors, quarter panels, and rear liftgate, and headliner with two red/white LED dome lamps
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Dream0Asylum
I think the defence against criminals and terrorists is the same regardless of the tools they use. Whether someone is using a knife, truck, aircraft, firearm, drone, stick, bat or whatever, outlawing the item will make no difference to the criminals, it would just be a hugely restrictive pain in the arse for everyone else.
I agree that we need smart, effective defenses against criminals and terrorists. So far, when it comes to drones all we've gotten are dumb, ineffective, over restrictive defenses.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
In NJ, in the past five years, police have handed out more than 400,000 citations for illegal license plate frames.
Right now in New Jersey if the frame that surrounds the license plate on your car covers any part of any lettering on the plate it’s technically illegal and you can get a $100 ticket, even if the letters and numbers on the plate are still clearly visible.
The law, considered by many to be ridiculous, could change in the next few weeks.
Legislation, S2381, sponsored by Sen. Pat Diegnan, D-Middlesex, and released by the Senate Transportation Committee, would allow license plate frames that conceal parts of markings on the plate as long as it’s readable.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1