Online sources of information are probably updated immediately when the runway numbers are repainted. However, many pilots fly with paper charts and airport directories. Either they fly old planes without modern avionics, or they simply want information that will survive a computer hardware failure. These paper documents expire in a few months and _should_ be replaced after expiration. For at least a few months (possibly longer), pilots rely on old information from paper charts and directories to get runway numbers for the airport they are using. If you are approaching XYZ airport and you see runway 19, but your airport directory says XYZ has runway 18 and 00 instead of 19 and 01, that's a problem..

It's not so bad at controlled airports, where pilots have to request landing clearance from air traffic control. The current runway number is given by ATC as part of that clearance. For example: "Cessna 236, cleared to land, runway 19". But at non-controlled airports, it's up to the pilot to broadcast his/her intention to land. There is room for confusion when the number painted on the ground does not match the paper chart. Some pilots would reasonably believe they have arrived at the wrong airport.

A clever person could build an mp3 tool to discover, categorize, and play such content.

Everyone has privacy rights, but everyone has a right to due process as well. A landlord's lack of camera disclosure falls far short of any level of proof necessary to establish violation of a tenant's privacy rights. Without such proof, it's not easy to find any jurisdiction on the planet (least of all Europe) that will act on the mere possibility that privacy rights might have been violated.

The solution is ridiculously simple. All rental contracts to include boilerplate text that acknowledges the presence of cameras and the circumstances under which the landlord intends to use them. Such text won't change much, but it eliminates potential complaints. Happy now?

To a certain extent, the Air BnB business model depends on tenants accepting the presence of cameras that operate when the property is unoccupied. The only viable alternative is to stay at a hotel, where housekeepers visit daily and a property manager is on site.

Assume whatever you want, but without actual proof that the camera was used, your assumptions fall short of probable cause. No proof means no search warrant, which means no arrest, which means game over.

The only recourse AirBnB offers for finding an undisclosed surveillance device is a refund, as described at https://www.airbnb.com/help/ar...

The presence of an undisclosed camera is at most, a breach of contract. And since AirBnB anticipates this and prescribes a specific remedy, it won't be easy for a tenant to get any more compensation than a free rental. After all, the tenants agreed to the terms (and the specific remedy for undisclosed cameras) as part of the contract.

The USE of such a camera might be grounds for all sorts of civil & criminal trouble, but the proof of use is ultimately on you. If you call the cops, they would need a search warrant (in the landlord's home state) to do any meaningful followup. That's a lot of effort with a low probability of success. Without a solid reason to believe the camera was in use, I wouldn't bet much on the search warrant, much less the search. At best, you end up with a 5% chance of catching a landlord illegally using a camera vs. a 100% chance of getting blacklisted as a tenant.

What I think you'll see in the future is a boilerplate disclosure of surveillance devices, whether they are present or not, just as you can't open a food wrapper these days without some form of peanut disclosure. Otherwise, the only camera-free properties to rent will be those where the landlord manages the property in person. That would pretty much eliminate the entire category of vacation home rentals.

People can (and do) deploy hidden cameras in conjunction with home security systems, for the purpose of identifying burglars or home invaders. A homeowner could reasonably claim that the cameras are only activated when the property is vacant. Considering that the value proposition of Air BnB is to facilitate absentee landlords, such property owners have a reasonable use case for cameras: to inspect the property via remote control after tenants leave, to see if the housekeeping service is doing their job. If the cameras are not actually running while tenants are present, there is no need to disclose their presence.

Hypothetically, if I owned a home in some far away place and wanted to rent it out via Air BnB, I would (at a minimum) have some sort of home security system to protect the property during weeks when it might be vacant. If someone wants to rent it and they ask me if the property is ready for visitors, I might want a camera system to help determine the status of the house. If I pay a service provider for maintenance or cleanup, I'm going to want some verification that they showed up and did the work. Cameras can do all of that, using nothing more than hardware already present for the security system.

Is there room for abuse? Absolutely. Bad landlords could hide under the skirt of reasonable use cases, and run the cameras 24x7. Even worse, the government really wants you to begrudgingly accept THEIR 24x7 cameras, so they are unlikely to provide meaningful protection from private cameras. Although Air BnB says disparaging things about hidden cameras, they don't want to lose their base of absentee landlords either. You can't have it both ways. The cameras are winning this battle, using expedience as a shield against privacy rights.

To the extent that tuition waivers are granted in exchange for work by the recipient, they should be considered taxable income. In current practice, the waivers are little more than a tax dodge.

If nothing changes except the tax status of waivers, then yes, grad students will get screwed. But the change (if it happens) will not occur in a vacuum.

"Full price" tuition is like sticker price on a car or the asking price on a house. Hardly anyone pays full price. Every year, tuition rises by some ridiculous amount, with a corresponding increase in the average amount of "financial aid" for each student. When someone like George W. Bush applies to Yale or Harvard with more money than brains, they find room for him somehow -- at full price of course.

If universities had to charge the same price to every student in an identical program, and students had to think twice before signing up for vast amounts of debt, the free market would balance at some point lower than current prices.

Thanks largely to government "help", far too much money has been pumped into higher education. University spending (public and private) continues to grow in the absence of any restraint. Students can always borrow more money next year because the government will borrow more money to lend. As a result, tuition rises faster than inflation every year, but the quality of the finished product is pretty much the same.

We have a similar problem with health care. For many years, employees sought better and better health care insurance, because employers paid most of the cost and employees received the benefit tax-free. As taxes and health care costs both grew without restraint, the value of employer-provided health care increased as well, fueling a vicious cycle. Every year, the cost of health care increases far beyond the rate of inflation because insured people are effectively discouraged (if not blocked altogether) from price shopping for their insurance or health care services.

Before Congressional Democrats butchered it, early drafts of the Affordable Care Act tried to encourage more competition for both insurance and health care services. By the time the law was finalized, lobbyists "fixed" it, preserving the sacred status of health insurers, health care providers, and big pharma. To this day, vast amounts of government "help" accomplish little more than inflating the health care bubble and taking care of lobbyists.

In some ways, taxing tuition waivers and student loan interest can be considered the Obamacare of higher education. If the tax dodges go away and loan interest is taxed as well, maybe it's time for students to set a limit on the amount they are willing to pay for tuition. Rest assured, universities will not allow their seats to remain empty. If supply and demand forces them to lower their operating cost to survive in a price sensitive environment, so be it.

Students should be outraged at the prospect of paying high tuition, borrowing money at high interest rates, and paying high taxes on top of it all. I understand their anger. But asking government to keep inflating the bubble is a big mistake and not sustainable. Such "help" will only make things worse.

In some states, coal is one of the leading energy sources for electrical power. Depending on where you live, your "clean" electric car may be powered by COAL.

Lithium ion batteries store a LOT of energy, and it's not that hard to get them to ignite, at which point they burn VERY hot. Plenty of YouTube videos with lithium ion battery fires. Go watch some before attempting to explain how safe they are on an airliner.

A bunch of bad people could carry laptops on the same flight, and short out the battery packs with a paper clip. Not very difficult with most batteries. Even Apple products could be modded to make the batteries vulnerable.

Checked baggage or carry-on, lithium ion batteries are a problem either way. A laptop could serve as it's own timer, with a hardware mod to close a relay and short out the batteries while the damn thing sits in the cargo hold. As an added bonus, nobody can get in while the plane is in flight. Sure, there is a fire suppression system, but I wouldn't bet on it because such fires are difficult to extinguish.

A few problems here:
1. You mentioned spark plugs twice. If you have coil-on-plug design, you replace them with the coils, else you replace them with the spark plug wires. It's one or the other.
2. You mentioned coils twice. See above.
3. If you get your car repaired at the stealership, you pay the prices you mentioned. That stuff is a lot cheaper at an indy mechanic, cheaper than that as a DIY.
4. I drive a BMW 528, 9 years old with 120,000 miles. Of all the repairs you mentioned, the ONLY one I have EVER had done is coils + plugs, for about $350 on a 6-cylinder car.
5. Had a battery replaced in my car for about $150 (massive battery, complicated by German engineering). My guess is the Tesla battery is far more expensive

I figured it had to be a free factory. Nobody in their right mind would build or lease an unsubsidized factory in California today, given the high cost of taxes and labor. Elon would not have taken the bait without some plan to prevent unions from making the venture unprofitable. Looks like part of that plan is on display.

Precisely the reason for avoiding union nonsense by moving the work elsewhere.

Build all US facilities in right-to-work states. Seems to work for BMW, Mercedes, Toyota, and Hyundai.

Paypal only, please.

I'm glad to see Amazon (or any other competitor) bring disruption to a market that sorely needs it.