For both JFK and Newark (both of which I fly through a lot), it depends on the terminal. Newark A sucks, hard. Newark C is quite nice since the renovations. JFK 8 is also pretty nice.
I would go so far as to say they would have required the companies that recorded the data for billing purposes to remove it when the bill was paid without dispute instead of hanging on to it at all.
That's a patently silly claim. There were certainly business records in the 1790s; if they were going to outlaw keeping records after billing was concluded, don't you think they would have done that in, say, the 1790s? They pretty clearly didn't do that...
"Not subject to FOIA" is not the same as "we refuse to respond to FOIA requests"
I don't think the UAS community is complaining about the existence of regulations, or even the need for regulations, per se. The main complaint to the FAA is that they are ready for regulations, ANY regulations, just get on with promulgating them. I'm not a drone guy, but even I recognize that the potential of UAVs is huge for fundamental changes in many fields, but the FAA has been (intentionally?) dragging its feet for _so long_ that the technical initiative is bleeding out of the US into other countries that haven't been moving slower than molasses in winter.
Eminent != Imminent
It needs to be paid for one way or the other
Of course brain surgeons don't "just do" brain surgery
Endowments return significant operating funds in up years, and sales from the endowment assets smooth out what would otherwise be significant operating losses in the down years; they decouple university operating finances from the business cycle and local politics. They _stabilize_ finances. They can also used as collateral allow for much larger debt funded initiatives to be floated. I dearly wish my university employer had a large endowment....
Put another way: you don't eat your seed corn. The endowment is the seed corn. Selling off an endowment for short term, short sighted "it seems wrong to have so much money!" would be criminal
Which is more officially the Doctrine of Constitutional Avoidance: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...
The station and shuttle were in incompatible orbits for docking: it would have been physically impossible to get the Columbia to the station.
Arresting an occupant for refusing a search would violate the fourth amendment, and poison the search. That's well settled case law, and not even remotely what this case was about.
Warrants aren't required when consent exists. Warrants exist for those cases where no one gives consent. That's kind of the point.
"Occupant" has a long standing, well understood legal definition. It isn't "random schmoe who happens to be near the house"....
Utility workers don't have the right to consent, because they are not legal occupants. They can, however, report anything they suspect is illegal to the police, who then need to obtain consent or a warrant. I'm not sure why you would think otherwise.
Minors generally can't legally consent to anything