Short answer: yes.

Most passenger aircraft that require electronics to fly are outfitted with a so-called RAT: Ram Air Turbine. In case of a catastrophic engine failure (or fuel burnout), the RAT will be deployed and provide power for critical systems. The RAT is a small device that looks like a propeller and is usually mounted underneath the aircraft. The forward momentum of the plane will provide sufficient wind to generate power.

There is good episode of Air Crash Investigation on this as well.

H1-B Portability takes care of that, this process is cap-exempt.

The original sponsor does not have to cooperate. You may be mistaken with an older practice where I-140 sponsors would withdraw the petition when a worker left, and the process had to start all over again.

2B: Hop to an employer that is willing to sponsor a change in their H1-B.

From Wikipedia:

From the employees perspective, there is one problem with this: once an employer has started the permanent residency (greencard) process, it is a bad idea to move because you'll be starting all over again.

I totally follow your line of thinking, I just slightly disagree. The EU is a not a country. It is a group of countries which have a bunch of treaties together, making them close friends. The ECJ hears and rules on disagreements between countries.

The ECHR only rules based on the ECHR, and can only marginally touch the "local" member states' parliaments decisions (local laws) and practices.

The SCOTUS is the highest legal authority for a federation. If you'd like a EU comparison: Germany is a federation. The SCOTUS makes decisions based on the US constitution, not on a bunch of treaties between member states.

Now of course, you can go back and say "that's not what I intended to say", but in that case I'd like to refer you to the original message I was responding to which said:

and my simple response was "there is no such thing as the EU supreme court". And I'll happily stand by that. No single court has been appointed the Supreme Court of the European Union, with jurisdiction of every legal matter in the EU. SCOTUS does have jurisdiction over pretty much every legal matter in the US. And that is what I pointed out.

Did you even read the page you're quoting? The ECJ is not a Supreme Court, as national cases cannot be appealed to the ECJ. Even if you were confused with the ECHR, you're still mistaken. The ECHR only takes on cases involving human rights (i.e., no patent cases) and is limited to the interpretation of European Convention on Human Rights. Furthermore, the SCOTUS (with limited exceptions) only handles appeals cases.

The Supreme Court has a much broader horizon when it comes to legal issues, most notably they can declare a national law to be unconstitutional. There is no European Constitution and even if there were, the ECHR has no jurisdiction in that area at this moment.

So no, the ECJ or ECHR are NOT an equivalent of the United States Supreme Court.

There is no EU supreme court, Johan.

Well, if you would actually take the time to look at the sectional chart, you'd see what I mean. It clearly says "plant" and pilots are requested> not to overfly it at a low altitude.

The guy who was arrested a couple of years ago should not have let his case get dismissed on the condition that he would not sue the local Buford T. Justice. If it was me, I'd challenge them in court. They had no business talking that glider down or arresting the pilot.

And any system under which someone is kept in prison without any criminal charges for 14 years is a Judge Dredd system, indicative of an abusive government.

I have a hard time believing someone would volunteer to be in prison for 2.3 million dollars. That equals ~$450 a day, which any decent laywer will make in an hour.

You are proving my exact point.

If someone is suspected of committing fraud, he should be tried for fraud according to criminal law. That means he should be given a proper trial where a jury decides, and when found guilty, a sentence with an end. What happened in the above case, is a single judge on a non-criminal trial suffering from the Judge Dredd syndrom: judge, jury and executioner.

I agree, but they're not as shameless as I thought. My first reaction was: they are not going to have a pilot's license much longer. But when I took a look at the aeronautical charts for that area, I was surprised to find out that it's not a prohibited area to fly over.

In my humble opinion, this means that apparently the Government doesn't think this datacenter is such a big deal, otherwise it would have been a no-fly zone (like the plant a couple of miles to the left of the lake).

This. Exactly this. This is what makes the Government evil. We have all these rules saying that you can't be put in jail without law enforcement providing evidence that you committed a crime. Yet, fact of the matter is, even on the Soviet States of America, you are at the mercy of a single Government employee.

That is irrelevant. The question at hand is whether or not the Government can force you to provide evidence against yourself in a criminal case. Now I'm just a stupid immigrant, but my understanding from the 5th Amendment is that nobody "hall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself". I don't care how much the police think they know. If they need his harddrive, their case is not solid and the suspect should not be required to provide incriminating evidence.

Being forced to provide evidence against yourself pretty makes it the Soviet Republic of Massachusetts.

You, are exactly right. You hit it on the spot. You could not have aimed better.

The real problem with Net Neutrality is not that the restaurant hasn't paid the taxi, but that you are not able to choose a taxi which gives you what you pay for.

Lawmakers should not prohibit restaurants from paying the taxi company, lawmakers should not make it so difficult for new players to enter the market (Uber, anyone?).

Likewise, small ISPs should have an easier time entering the market so we could have a more competitive ISP market, rather than lawmakers creating monopolies everywhere and have consumers whining about them (ab)using their positions.

An apple is fruit, but fruit is not an apple.

An Airbus is a jetliner, a Cessna 150 is not.