Pee at an angle to the wall.
Steve Jobs: "You're holding your wanker wrong".
Subsidizing the cost of nascent "green" technology is needed to prod the industry to produce and learn how to make a better green mouse-trap through experience and R&D.
It's paying off now as electric cars are getting competitive. Gasoline engines have been the dominant car technology for a century, and thus have had a lot of R&D behind them. Thanks to subsidies to induce sales and R&D, electric cars have evolved to be competitive with gasoline.
Private companies rarely look more than 5 to 10 years ahead. It's why they have to be prodded via subsidies, etc. Finance theory on ROI teaches one to generally focus on the short-term. Whether this is entirely rational or not makes an interesting debate, but it's the ruling view of the current business world.
By the way, I consider "soft" socialism to be incentive-based. "Hard" socialism would be outright banning products. I'm generally against outright banning for products, such as incandescent bulbs and sugar-loaded Big Gulps. Tax them heavily as a disincentive, but don't ban them.
Not really. They often have to use it with actual data to relate to what it's doing with it. The data flow matters.
Imagine a Beowulf Cluster of pork
You know, I generally don't agree with open carry
But if your drone was hovering in my backyard looking at my teenage daughters for no good reason, and if I'd shot it down and you were about to come onto my property in a threatening manner without explanation, I can see the point.
Do you really need an explanation, considering you just shot down their drone?
Get a screwdriver and just pry the damn thing off the keyboard.
Same with the windows and menu keys. You can still press them by poking something in there (often a pinky works).
In other words, if a stranger wanders onto your property, you shoot them and ask questions later.
If a stranger wanders onto your property carried along on the back of a foot long drone, then I think any reasonable person would assume an alien invasion by really tiny people (or ants) is in progress and do their patriotic duty and start shooting.
In the words of the wise: "How can you be expected to teach children to read if they can't fit inside the building?"
Depends on what you shoot at it with.
Shooting at the sky is bad. Falling bullets can kill.
And that was one of the charges. I think the facts of the particular case are important rather than the principles at stake. Of course he had an expectation of privacy and below a certain height (I think it is 500 feet or so) the other person was trespassing with the drone. Did shooting it out of the sky reasonably endanger anyone... How far from the property line was it? What direction did he shoot? This was a shotgun, so pellets generally have a shorter range than a rifle or hand gun. The fact that only the drone was damaged and no one was actually hurt should count for a lot.
So Comcast isn't incompetent after all, just bribed up the wazoo.