Steve Jobs didn't run around with a resume because he went and started his own business. At the time, his talents were with something new, and wouldn't have been recognized by established companies anyway. If you think that your skills are something special, you serve yourself better by going and using them in an original way as an entrepreneur rather than trying to fit in the box of some established job. Of course, it is much easier to have someone else start a business and provide work for you to do, but then we;d have to acknowledge that the guy at the top is doing something special deserving of his wealth-gap-inducing income.
I think that it's hard to draw a logical link between someone buying a quadcopter and Wal-Mart and doing something irresponsible with it because they aren't a dedicated member of the RC community, and a commercial entity using a RC planes/helicopters in the course of their enterprise.
In the former case, it seems that the issue is that technological advance has removed the barriers to entry that have historically regulated access to these machines to those who have a responsible and dedicated interest in the field. Perhaps regulations are needed as to the capabilities and safety features of "cheap" RC craft, similar to how there are limits on the model rocket parts you can buy at the big-box.
In the later case, for-profit companies use all manner of potentially dangerous equipment, often in places where it might come in contact with the public. Imagine if the DOT prohibited taking a vehicle on the Interstate for a commercial purpose; it would be absurd. Instead, you can drive the company pickup just the same as if you were driving your own. Then, for larger vehicles or those being used in a non-standard manner, there is a system of commercial driving licenses and insurances.
The problem with the approach the FAA has been taking on this issue is that the deciding factor is whether money changes hands. If an activity is safe for a hobbyist to perform, why is it suddenly dangerous and in need of regulation when a professional does it? If anything, commercially operated remote controlled planes/helicopters would be safer in a given situation, as the parent company is going to have real liability insurance, and the insurer is going to have all sorts of maintenance and training requirements.
The extra ironic part is that by selling you the gasoline to burn, they contribute to the slow heating and eventual flooding of a city that is basically on an island at sea level
In the short term, that analysis may be correct, however for work that is both skilled and dangerous you need to factor in how difficult it will be to find a replacement technician after it becomes known that you let the last one perish. There is additionally the external cost of reduced effectiveness from the management team who would need to work through the emotional impact of watching someone die when they could have helped. Economics can model much more than the actual dollars
This is actually the first real word I'd seen on it. I flew back in May and remember not hearing a notice when we crossed 10k feet that we could use devices, but just figured that I'd missed it. The cool part to watch out the windows is under 10k anyway
The largest hazard with that set seems to be swallowing the parts, in that in addition to potentially choking on small parts, some would sicken or kill you if you managed to choke them down. For mature children though, looks like a cool toy to use under supervision (for educational guidance in addition to safety).
The real problem with that thing seems to be that it was quite expensive, and even more expensive to produce (the company lost money on every unit).
Entries in the no-fly list are sufficiently bare of details that by the law of large numbers, most of the entries probably apply to a US citizen somewhere, even if the entry was added for a specific non-citizen. Hence why there are periodic stories of family vacations stopped by the US Government accusing 3 year olds of terrorist sympathies and soldiers recently returned from duty of being the enemy they were just engaged with.
The trick here is that he was powerful enough to get them to look it up and find out it was a mismatch. You or I (presuming you're not a Senator posting under a pseudonym?) wouldn't get that luxury.
This. Particularly since many print magazines don't print the numbers on a surprising number of pages (ads, the first page or spread of an article, on infographics
The web has invented its version as well, though, with what would be a six-inch newspaper article spread across 3 pages. "one page view" is now a subscriber-only feature
That's easy: If it's an anonymous threat, it's not serious. Much like: "There was a bomb threat today? Statistically, we're safer today than yesterday!"
Solar powered melting devices have two advantages over blacktop from a thermodynamic perspective:
- Blacktop conducts part of the collected heat into the ground, whereas solar collection could hypothetically collect the energy before it gets to the ground, leaving more available to radiate back upward.
- When it isn't snowing, blacktop still radiates into the air above it. These devices could store energy to be released only when it's actually snowing.
That said, implementing these devices as anything other than a billionaire's ruinously expensive driveway seems impractical. The actual devices would be absurdly expensive to produce in that quantity with the amount of semiconductor fabrication and precision assembly. Ignoring materials, installation would cost much more than a normal highway, since this essentially combines the labor-intensiveness of a cobblestone road with the specialized labor requirements of a hardwood floor. Lastly, that energy storage mechanism that makes it remotely feasible would be similar to replacing the fuel tanks at every gas station with the batteries of a Tesla charging station.
You can specify senders whose mail is to not be opened. Basically, it's $5 a month to have someone throw your junk mail away for you.
The moment an officer realizes there's evidence in a home is often the exact same moment the perp realizes they need to get rid of said evidence. If the officer has to go get a warrant, that gives the suspect plenty of time to destroy the evidence.
Yeah, phone is really the only noun that fits in that hypothesis, so their point for a special case is totally justified
The police are allowed to search your phone, your papers, your home, anything, once they go to a judge, present their case, and receive authorization. The person whose property is being searched has no voice in this case, and in fact isn't even necessarily aware it is being made until they are presented with the warrant. It's literally the most trivial of checks and balances, provided you actually do have a need to search that single individual's property. The goal of these warrantless search rules is to allow dragnet searches of EVERYONE's property.
Think of a warrant as similar to those "hash cash" anti-spam concepts: It's really easy to do if you have a single email that you want to send, but if you're looking to send 100k indiscriminate spam messages, it's going to slow you down.