I've never had them weigh a my carry-on, and they don't seem to have a problem with moving items from the large bag to a carry-on to get below the heavy weight threshold.
I certainly never go out and buy soda or clothes or cars or whatever the crap gets advertised by traditional advertising, though. But then, I never buy most of that crap regardless, either.
The funny thing about this highly targeted stuff is that as it becomes more advanced and the data they have on you becomes more reliable, they won't even target you with these things because they know you aren't a good candidate for their brands.
Advertising gets a pretty bad rap (some of it deservedly so), but the money behind it powers one of the greatest resources in the world. In other words, at least it's not derivatives trading.
BTW, if you cap malpractice, who pays for the health care of someone who was injured by malpractice? If the slip of a knife causes someone to require tens of thousands of dollars of health care, where is that going to come from?
I believe the malpractice caps proposed were mainly related to noneconomic damages. Things like "pain and suffering" where people can be awarded millions of dollars based on a jury's judgement call. The medical bills you refer to would be direct economic damages and include past and future medical expenses, past and future lost earnings, domestic services, job loss, and lost business or employment opportunities. That would be unlimited.
Because the TSA isn't about security, it is about making people feel secure.
The TSA isn't about security, or security theater, or making people feel secure.
At this point, they're like every other useless, failed agency in this country. A bunch of hacks trying to cover their asses by busting people for drugs
Nuclear is already viable in all but political arenas. Jump the price of power enough and people will hold their nose and select it. Of course, you can't exactly shove nuclear power into a car, and oil is mostly used for transportation. So you're looking at a BIG change if you're going to use nuclear power to provide transport. Something like vast electrification of rail lines, restoration of electric trolly car systems, etc... More dense housing where mass transit is viable.
You're right, and this is also why the pure electric car isn't viable yet. Our current infrastructure is designed around the idea that I put energy into my car and drive it until it is almost gone... then put more in and keep driving with no down-time. Whatever solution we come up with has to fit this or it is a step backwards. For this reason I'm a big fan of hydrogen fuel. Electric drivetrains have already proven to be successful in a number of vehicles. So lets start building hybrid vehicles... and I don't mean the battery-laden type like the Prius. Think more along the lines of locomotive style hybrids. Small efficient engines powering an electric motor. By making the drive-line standard we will have a platform which we can swap in the most cost efficient energy source available at a given time.
Then if Nuclear is widely adopted we use excess electricity to generate hydrogen fuel.
FORTUNE'S FUN FACTS TO KNOW AND TELL: A firefly is not a fly, but a beetle.