Law and theory certainly do have a distinct meaning. And that is theories are made to be broken and usually have some cases where it fails. Therefore a better theory to explain reality will come up after some time.
Look for industries where you can be a systems analyst instead of a software engineer.
Software engineer is working on the same products/problems/frameworks day in and day out. Sure new problems/challenges are fine, but it gets old and boring. There's constant pressure to churn out code, meet unrealistic deadlines and perform up to some management made up performance levels.
System analysts take a look at problems and systems and create solutions. Whether the solutions are tools/utilities, products or anything in between in multiple different frameworks/languages. There is practically hundreds of industries which can utilize your knowledge of creating software to good use.
Look for anything flexible honestly. Software engineering positions want you to become a robot. Look for things that you don't have to learn something completely new but gives you the opportunity to learn new things and tackle new problems.
You see, with fusion more applications can exist that require high energy consumption.
You can't power rockets with solar energy.
You can't even power cars with only solar. You need an energy storage device. You won't with fusion.
Solar power basically requires batteries. Fusion does not. You realize that panel production and battery production requires a ton of oil to produce and is not clean by any means.
Fusion would drive energy prices less than nuclear ever could.
You would also find a reason with fusion to go out into space and explore/exploit with finding He3 to power advanced fusion.
It won't prevent anyone from reselling them.
Cell phones can be broken down to parts and resold regardless of any kill switch that might be put in.
You can't kill switch a led screen.
Do you mean blimps or mini blimps not drones?
I have not heard of solar powered drones.
People are against people who break the law.
Breaking the law to capture a "bad guy" doesn't make it right.
uhh.... stand your ground?
I kid i kid, but seriously, it's not hard to perpetuate stupid.
I'm fairly sure that facebook servers do not reside in quebec and therefore are not subject to being translated into french first.
But they are recorded as soon as they step out of their house. CCTV is everywhere. And guess what, eye have been recording images in people's brains for millions of years. That's never going to change. The idea of people seeing what you're doing and remembering it won't change, what's the problem with people recording it in a device as well? It's their line of sight.
If people cared about privacy, they would object to being recorded by private entities. It's just that they have no choice to accept it, but assault someone for recording them? Easier to pick on a single person than a culture.
So in the future, when both parents object and their 4 year old daughter is separated from them and then intimidated into agreeing to let people search the family's home, does that still sound like a reasonable loophole that only exists to be abused?
The correct way would be if anyone objects, no searches can be done without warrant. In fact, no searches should be done without warrant ever. If there is a strong need, feel free to get your search order approved by a judge.
It's not reasonable to be intimidated into doing anything.
Honestly and foremost:
This applies to government making laws/regulations that were discriminatory.
This did not apply to individuals making discriminatory decisions.
LTE is already behind. But yes, in order to keep up with usage and utilization, more efficient communication methods are needed.
That and the latest news from carriers seems to be their solution in fixing the problem will be to provide their base stations with greater banwidth to handle the LTE traffic. If anything that suggests that they're sitting on their ass raking in cash and being slow to react to their customer's demands. They can claim there isn't enough airwave bandwidth, but when their solution is to upgrade their base station's connection that seems to be a smokescreen.
I wouldn't doubt if claiming that there's not enough airwave bandwidth is just a ploy to carve up the market between 4 different companies to maintain their dominance.
It's similar to the shilling given to google fiber. If telcos and cable providers would invest in their own infrastructure, there's no reason why google fiber's approach wouldn't work for them too.
Wolfram trumps Money?
so let me get this straight.
San Fran which has limits of building heights and has problem with rent because there's not enough space wants a big company to plop their campus right in the middle of the city.
How is that fixing any problems?
The whole reason they built out there was that it was cheaper and there was space.
Gov't workers haven't gotten pensions since the mid 80s. Only the lowest paid workers still get that option, everyone else gets a 402b or whatever the respective retirement option that closely resembles what a 401k is.
You also must have the preconceived notion that the concept of upper management who gets paid grossly more than the standard rank and file employee doesn't exist in the public sector.
You would be greatly mistaken. The same issues come up in both private and public now a days.