Think about what you're saying, that anyone should be able to anything they want? Anything? or should there be some rules governing behavior? Unless you're in favor of wild west anarchy, you're in favor of *some* type of regulation on society and the blessed free market capitalism.
Fingers? Those are dildos
and you don't think the *Japanese* have already marked this down as a sex toy possibility?
but seriously, expand your mind. This sort of thing has huge potential, just look at existing robo-skeletons already in use. That this initial prototype is unwieldy and rough? it's how progress is made
Also not terribly productive until you put reigns on it and channel that strength towards useful goals.
Regulations are the reigns by which the power of the free market is harnessed and made productive.
And like reigns...to much is bad, but none is worse. But nuanced conversations like this with 'but free market' morons in the current GOP are next to impossible.
So yes the FCC is exactly where to complain about this.
Or in NYC, just getting a signal through all the buildings is a challenge.
call center employees are being thrown under the bus
but it's a really nice bus that the CEO's are riding...does anything else really matter?
HVAC techs specifically are in demand because they must do everything that's required for HVAC: plumbing, electric, gas and minor construction.
WE ARE ALL GOING TO DIE!!!!
Well, yes, yes we are. (filter error: 'Don't use so many caps' I'm QUOTING the OP you moronic filter bastard!)
Nobody builds Chernobyl-type reactors any more. That simply can't happen with most reactors.
And you don't think they said that older reactors 'simply cant fail' when they built them?
(b) there was this tsunami that killed twenty-five thousand people going on, disrupting a whole lot of things.
Wait, if the reactor can't fail, why are you bringing up environmental/situational issues? It shouldn't matter...
My point is you can't tell me the issues that will be faced in the future and therefore can't claim a nuclear reactor is 'safe'.
The 'potential' liability of nuclear is far far far greater than anything else. Operational issues are relevant and coal has many bad things about it...but it simply can't fail catastrophically. A plant can blow up, a waste lake can collapse and flood a single valley. Both sites you can safely walk on the very next day. Nuclear can't do that....and won't every be able to do that.
And as I've said in other posts, nuclear is going to be absolutely required for the next century or so...simply because the scale of climate change damage dwarfs even nuclear's problems. Being the lesser of two evils doesn't make it less 'evil'.
And of course if you dismantle the damn you can also reclaim the land rather quickly.
Need we mention the fishing and recreation industries that now take advantage of the new lakes? There isn't a 'positive' side to a nuclear accident...
Coal has massive 'operational' issues. It's failure scenarios are pretty mundane and localized.
Nuclear has some operational issues (storing waste being the biggest) but the failure issues are the big ones. They occur infrequently but unlike every single other source of fuel, render 100s of square miles uninhabitable for decades. Nothing else has that problem.