Yes, but 2,000 square miles is a tiny percentage of the planet Earth.
And, that is the hard lesson learned by the Japanese and the world -- own up immediately so the world (the US and western Europe to lessor degree) can deploy resources (generators, cables, helicopters, et al) can within an hour initiate deployment of resources. rather than being too proud to ask for help.
If asked immediately, the world could have helped, and possibly prevented meltdown, but the Japanese for cultural reason et al waited too long. THAT needs to be fixed. When you are at any risk of losing a core of an old-school reactor, open the kimono and beg for help. Simple.
I'm so glad that we abandoned air travel after early deadly crashes showed how unsafe the technology was (really? people flying in heavier than air vehicles - absurd and obviously stupid).
I'm sure some people who continued to dream of air transport claimed that the technology would only get better and safer. Perhaps some even made absurd claims such as "In less than one hundred years, we may see more than a five year span where no one died in a crash of a United States-certificated scheduled airline operating anywhere in the world" which, of course, would have been an absurd prediction. Fortunately, we largely ignored such idiots.
Because it is more moral to give a dollar to an unskilled, unmotivated, and under-educated American worker who didn't bother to pay attention in school or better themselves and lives in an apartment with his own bedroom, a flush toilet, dishwasher, internet access, and a smoke alarm and who owns an iPhone than to give a dollar to a hard working young adult who grew up on a farm in rural China without running water and whose hardworking family struggled to barely survive and who has taken the initiative to leave their family to move to where there are jobs?
Actually, I have no idea. Probably something to do with tribalism and a "We have ours, get your own" attitude or something along those lines.
But, based on what I recall reading when I was a child, we will have fusion power plants up and running by then so we don't need to bother with any of this. I don't track trends in this area but I assume those that make predictions have some legitimate basis for those predictions so who am I to question them. Didn't Apple just build a giant fusion power plant in the Silicon Valley? I didn't follow that either, but I assume that's what it is -- its big, its round, and its strange looking rather like I would expect a really big fusion reactor to be.
By charging and discharging your car batteries for uses other than moving your car, you would be consuming charge/discharge cycles on your relatively expensive batteries designed for your automobile rather than batteries designed for fixed location storage (which would likely be cheaper as weight and compactness and certain safety considerations would be substantially less costly for the fixed location storage batteries.).
The cost of what you describe can be a very expensive replacement of your electric car batteries or substantial reduction in resell value of your electric car. That's quite a bit above zero.
Using batteries from electric cars for fixed storage after the batteries don't hold enough of a charge for automotive use might be more cost effective (both financially and environmentally) than discarding and recycling them.
This is ridiculous if, for example, the "2x4" being sold measures 1.5" x 3.5".
Although if the product being sold as a "2x4" only measures 1.3"x3.3", the complaint is valid (I think Lowes was doing something like this a few years ago and settled the case and began to put "true" dimensions on the signage -- which is very confusing but, fortunately, I rarely have to resort to buying lumber at Lowes).
I once lived in an old house and the 2x4s were much closer to measuring 2"x4" (I think they were about 1.75"x3.75"). That was a pain because modern 2x4s on retro work didn't match so extra hoops had to be jumped through to make everything work.
If the scenario is as described (which, frankly, seems somewhat unbelievable - why would production DB access credentials be floating around in a document available to a junior dev?), there is at least one senior executive who needs to be fired immediately. Perhaps more than one such executive needs to go as there are at least TWO serious and obvious problems - (1) the DB access credentials being published where a junior dev could even find them and (2) not having a tested and working restoration/return to service plan. If different executives are responsible for these two epic fails, they should all go. Perhaps the CEO should also go (although, that may also be the owner of the company -- in which case of course they would be unlikely to fire themselves!) as she has very bad judgement in hiring and does not exercise appropriate oversight.
Hopefully the actual password (vs. a salted hash of it) is also a secret as far as Facebook is concerned. However, they certainly could allow a password reset.
True, to a point. However, when uber wealthy people get taxed substantially more highly, they are still left with a few billion dollars of discretionary assets so higher income taxes have comparatively little impact on them - perhaps they only have $20 billion to give away, not $40 billion (which might actually make their lives easier). The same can not be said of the middle/upper-middle class taxpayer.
A combined marginal 70% income tax rate on Zuckerberg would have little impact on his personal life with regard to living expenses (food, housing, transportation, etc) for him and his family even if he has quite high standards for each. He still would never need to, for financial reasons, wash his own car, clean his own toilet, cook his own dinner, paint his own hallway, forgo medical care, stay at a Motel 6, or work another day in his life except for the fun of it.
On the other hand, a combined marginal 35% income tax on a couple having a taxable income of $200K a year (somewhat below the burden that a California taxpayer would bear) is likely to feel in very measurable ways the impact of the taxes or any increase in them on their personal life. Both spouses may find it necessary to continue working because of the tax burden. They may find it necessary to retire later because they have less savings. They may not be able to help their kids as much with college expenses. They may not be able to afford a housekeeper so have to do their own housework at the expense of not having as much time to further their own education and earning power. The list is endless.
I don't begrudge uber rich Americans (like Gates $81B per Forbes in 2016, Bezos $67B, Buffett $65.5B, Zuckerberg $55.5B, Ellison $49.3B). I also have no problem if they are talking about raising marginal tax rates on the highest income levels to the point that such taxation would actually affect their everyday personal life. However, I don't think their opinion means much when it comes to what will inevitably result in middle class tax increases. All of these individuals are completely free to donate money to the federal government. For example, to reduce the public debt, here's where one can contribute, however given the fairly paltry sums collected this way, it's obvious that none of these uber wealthy people contribute a significant amount of their resources via this route.
It is interesting that Zuckerberg exploits (legally) strategies explicitly to minimize his and/or his heirs income taxes (such as via Grantor Retained Annuity Trusts) - if he's in favor of increased government spending and hence higher taxes, the question is why does he do this?
Amazon should instead give out Nutraloaf. It provides most of a person's nutritional needs and no local businesses will complain as few, if any, sell it (although some government agencies also give it away to selected individuals so Amazon might face some competition there if they are not careful when selecting their distribution channels).
but even then I can quote you all I like as long as I give credit.
No, it's not that simple. You can't, for example, take a Harry Potter book, make verbatim (i.e., "quote you all I like') copies and add a cite to the last page of your copies that gives credit to J. K. Rowling and then sell the copies.
Fair use is allowed of course so you can write a book review which includes quoting a couple paragraphs from a Harry Potter book and sell your review of the book to others.
Large trucking companies on well traveled routes might just own all the batteries they swap/charge at the battery swap points. Smaller operators or trucks used for less traveled routes may rent batteries and the battery charging/rental business will be responsible for retiring batteries that no longer meet spec or move them to situations requiring lower specs (perhaps renting them at a lower 'per kwh' or 'per hour' cost).
With driverless trucks, drivers won't be leasing or buying the tractors anymore so some big capital intensive organization will own, maintain, and operate them.
How much more would you be willing to pay for a "non-bumpable" ticket? Would you accept the restriction that the ticket was completely non-refundable and non-reschedulable unless, for example, the flight departed more than two hours late? Would you accept that such a ticket would become "lowest possible standby priority only" if you didn't check in more than 30 minutes before departure (and, still be non-refundable if there were fewer seats than standby passengers so you didn't get a seat after all)? Perhaps the airlines should consider offering such tickets. However, most people who are willing to pay extra for such tickets are also unlikely to need them or accept the additional restrictions as they are probably already flying business or first class and are likely a member of the airline's frequent flyer club -- a combination of factors that make one almost completely immune from bumping at most airlines.
I certainly don't think United handled this as well as they could have from a PR standpoint. However, if they had a crew shortage (due to illness or delays of incoming flights for example) at the destination and were going to have to cancel one or more flights out of there, the decision to bump four passengers from this flight to make room to ferry crew members probably made sense overall (it would inconvenience the smallest number of passengers and also make the most economic sense).
The law and the contract you agreed to when you bought the ticket are what controls here, not what you think is "reasonable" or in "good faith" at a particular moment in time.
Here is United's Contract of Carriage document - in particular see rule 25. Here is the Federal Code of Regulations section regulating overselling. Notice the last sentence of 250.3(a) in the CFR (aka FAR) which governs the policies airlines must make regarding overselling which states that:
Such rules and criteria shall not make, give, or cause any undue or unreasonable preference or advantage to any particular person or subject any particular person to any unjust or unreasonable prejudice or disadvantage in any respect whatsoever.
This makes it difficult for an airline to consider special cases (such as true, or untrue, claims that "I have to see patients tomorrow") as if they do so and allow Passenger A who was initially selected for removal to remain on the flight, they now have to now remove Passenger B who would have otherwise remained on the flight -- opening the airline up to a lawsuit from Passenger B. Thus, the last resort of random selection among the lowest priority passengers.
If you fly United, you agree to all the rules above. If you don't like them, don't fly United. If it's really important that you get somewhere, pick an earlier flight (and certainly not the last one of the day) or have a backup plan (another airline, another flight, a private charter on call, etc...).
I don't like overbooking but it reduces the cost of airline tickets. Perhaps a new set of fare classes could be added which would guarantee a seat. These tickets would probably still have restrictions but would be just like what you seem to want. They might cost quite a bit more, they might be completely non-refundable/transferable unless the flight departs more than two hours late, they might require checking in 30 minutes before scheduled departure (at which time they would become standby tickets but still be non-refundable even if you don't get a seat because all seats are filled by other standby passengers).
Perhaps you should start an airline that differentiates itself by not overbooking at all if you feel strongly about it (the CFR doesn't seem to require overbooking, just allow it). Maybe it will be so popular you will get rich and put the rest of the airlines out of business (although I doubt it -- most passengers are very price sensitive).
The odds of being involuntarily booted from a flight are tiny compared to all the other reasons you might not get where you expect at about the time you expect. Other risks such as mechanical failures, crew shortages, computer failures, weather holds (even not at your source or destination -- but the plane planned for the flight is stuck on the ground at a third airport) are far greater risks so it is reasonable to assume that all passengers are prepared for failing to get where they expect at about the time they expect.
BTW, if someone fears being denied boarding due to overbooking, there are several ways to dramatically reduce the odds of being selected. One is to buy a higher class (business or first) class seat. Another is to check luggage (the airline doesn't want to delay your flight by having to find and retrieve your luggage from the plane). Another is to join the airline's frequent flyer club. Another is to become disabled -- perhaps chop off a leg or gouge out your eyes (but I really don't recommend this last strategy).
And, that contract, in conjunction with government laws and regulations, allows them to boot you from a flight with minimum compensation requirements set by the government.
Your analogy with an apartment is not very good as many (most?) states have additional specific protections for residential tenants written into statutory law. As well, a tenant is given exclusive use of a specific unit for a extended term of time (and is generally responsible for returning the unit to its 'move in' condition less normal wear and tear at the end of that time). Airlines don't give you guaranteed exclusive use of a specific seat ever (they often switch flights, combine them, substitute other aircraft etc).
Airlines are obviously free to move you from seat to seat, plane to plane etc. Suppose the plane had a mechanical problem after this passenger was seated. Is it your position that that the airline had to let him sit in the seat for the duration of the (planned) flight and that he, in turn, could refuse to leave the seat for that time?
The fact that the passenger boarded and was seated does not matter -- the airline has as much right to order the passenger to leave their plane as they had to refuse to allow him to board in the first place. The passenger was a jerk and should have simply gotten up and left the plane when requested. The moment he was told to leave the plane and failed to do so, he was in the wrong. Perhaps the airline and police could have handled it better, but ultimately he was not going to be on the flight.
A better analogy would be a hotel which decides they don't want you staying there (for reasons other than because you are a member of a 'protected class'). Generally, a hotel can revoke your right to be on the property for almost any reason -- perhaps just because they want to do maintenance on the room and the vendor is there doing maintenance on other rooms so it's cheaper to kick you out and refund your money than to have the vendor come back. I'm sure there's a good (rental or Uber) car analogy as well.
Then don't use your work devices for personal business. Your employer selected Microsoft for their business so they must be okay with this collection - it's your employer's data, not yours.
Personally, I will probably never again install Windows 10 (or successors) on any personal iron for a variety of reasons -- Linux works fine for my personal use for almost everything. If my employer chooses to use Windows 10, it doesn't bother me because it's not my machine/data.
Which works until the admin is in an induced coma for a couple of days after a really bad accident. The canary dies and at the very time the admin would be hoping for sympathy and some leeway due to her long upcoming recovery, she is instead fired and eventually ends up in prison and bankrupt and unable to ever again get a job in IT (or, perhaps anywhere).
I don't whine about outsourcing so I guess I'm not your target audience.
We all live in a global economy and for decades mass manufacturing with large unskilled labor content (and not burdened by excessive product shipping costs etc) has moved to the country with the lowest labor cost and an economic and governmental climate suitable for establishing plants. The individual workers in these countries benefit and generally the country's economy rises -- benefiting all in the country.
I'm happy to see my dollar go to some poor person who is working their tail off in another country -- esp. if the alternative is paying more for the product so a self-entitled US factory worker can be overpaid for their skills (or lack thereof). The fact that they were unwilling to work hard enough in school or throughout their career to do better for themselves serves as an object lesson to the next generation.
It is shortsighted to believe that America's best future lies in prioritizing low skill labor over high skill labor (which generally require more education and making good life choices). It lies in education and expecting and encouraging people to make responsible life choices so they can be productive members of the competitive global economy and maintain a high standard of living for themselves and their families.
No disagreement -- I would never buy a screwdriver at Harbor Freight because of the very issue you mention. One has to be selective. (And, one has to look at the specific instance of the tool they are buying -- for example, I've seen speed squares in the bin at HF that had flash all along the "marking" edges -- but others next to them were fine).
However, I will buy a drilling hammer, clamps (for when I need a bunch of them occasionally instead of just a couple that I normally use), cheap multi-meter for crude work (they just get tossed in the toolbox -- might get broken and crushed but rarely do, I certainly wouldn't do that with a $300 multi-meter so I probably just wouldn't have one in a place where I would like to have one).
Generally, I won't buy any power tool from HF if I really expect to use it more than a few times a year or expect precision results from it (I do always make sure to test it immediately upon purchase -- DOA is a real risk at HF) and I've never bought a battery powered tool there as I don't want to "buy into" some questionable (and archaic) battery system. Sometimes I do buy power tools at HF that I never could justify for my limited use at a higher price and occasionally I find myself using them more than expected and then I'm likely to buy a better quality one to replace the HF version when it dies or I get annoyed at it.
It turns out that the vast majority of consumers prioritize cost over quality. This is not irrational and those that have a need can usually do otherwise.
For example, Harbor Freight tools are generally crap. But they are cheap. Professionals who use them ten hours a day, six days a week are not going to buy them unless they work in an environment where the tools "disappear" after a couple months (both because they fail more often and because they, generally, are not as easy to do quality work with quickly) -- these professionals buy professional tools. The rest of us are well served by buying a $19.99 "sawzall". If it ends up that we wear it out in five years or less than ten hours of "run-time", we will buy another OR a better brand -- but, in reality, most of these tools end up working for the rest of your life (at least as a backup to the better one you bought because you decided you wanted the cool features or smooth operation of the better one). Sometimes, the best tool from 40 years ago is inferior to the Harbor Freight tool (due to technology advances) and it is better to just buy new tools incorporating recent technology every ten years than using "great" tools that are thirty years old but can't hold a candle to the cheap tools available now.
If you build a new server/desktop, do you buy the "highest quality" bits? If you're wealthy, doing so makes sense for bragging rights. However, for most engineers who are going to toss it in three to four years, it really doesn't matter if the case is plastic or thick steel or flimsy steel -- the resale value of the case is essentially zero and all three types of cases work fine if you don't have a full grown pet gorilla in your household who likes to play "toss the computer against the wall" (in which case, the quality of the case is likely the least of your worries as the gorilla grows up).
Most of the durable goods bought at Walmart (tools, kitchen utensils, small kitchen appliances etc) probably end up being used a few times over the owner's lifetime. If they are going to bake all day, every day, they will buy a professional mixer instead of the deprecated KitchenAid crap that Target or Kohls or Walmart sells. Generally, why pay for "quality" -- do you really care if the kitchen gadget still works when your great grandchild inherits it and it's completely technologically obsolete anyway? Engineers should understand "cost:benefit" tradeoffs very well.
I've got a very cool looking meat grinder that got passed down from my grandparents that still works as it did when my grandmother used it. Guess what, I look at it but don't use it. It's not dishwasher proof (my grandmother probably never saw a dishwasher), it's a pain to clean (my grandmother was used to things being a pain to clean), it spews blood around while grinding (my grandmother probably never thought about that - "it is what it is" - as all her friends' grinders did the same), I have to find a place to clamp it and there's no rational place to do so my kitchen (but probably was in my grandmother's kitchen).
If you care about "quality" (or false pretenses of same), you're not shopping at Walmart, Home Depot, Target, or McDonalds. However, every one of those vendors has multiple competitors who DO offer quality products and better selection (of course at a higher price). For a tiny example, if you want selection and access to quality products, check out McMaster-Carr or similar -- but make sure you've got a high limit on your credit card.
Fortunately, it appears Gorsuch is also very critical of Kelo. According to CNN, in an email to a couple of friends at the time, Gorsuch praised Thomas' rather scathing dissent (interestingly, Scalia joined only in O'Connor's dissent, not Thomas').
It's interesting that Trump nominated Gorsuch. Trump seems to think Kelo was a "great" (or maybe "beautiful" or maybe just "pussy grabbing worthy" - I don't recall his exact words) decision. I'd guess that Trump wasn't aware of Gorsuch's views on Kelo before nominating him.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, but 2,000 square miles is a tiny percentage of the planet Earth.
And, that is the hard lesson learned by the Japanese and the world -- own up immediately so the world (the US and western Europe to lessor degree) can deploy resources (generators, cables, helicopters, et al) can within an hour initiate deployment of resources. rather than being too proud to ask for help.
If asked immediately, the world could have helped, and possibly prevented meltdown, but the Japanese for cultural reason et al waited too long. THAT needs to be fixed. When you are at any risk of losing a core of an old-school reactor, open the kimono and beg for help. Simple.
I'm so glad that we abandoned air travel after early deadly crashes showed how unsafe the technology was (really? people flying in heavier than air vehicles - absurd and obviously stupid).
I'm sure some people who continued to dream of air transport claimed that the technology would only get better and safer. Perhaps some even made absurd claims such as "In less than one hundred years, we may see more than a five year span where no one died in a crash of a United States-certificated scheduled airline operating anywhere in the world" which, of course, would have been an absurd prediction. Fortunately, we largely ignored such idiots.
If the scientists want to find more previously unknown microbes, they probably need go no further than their local Chipotle.
I'm betting they are maximizing for profit, not income - at least in the long term.
Because it is more moral to give a dollar to an unskilled, unmotivated, and under-educated American worker who didn't bother to pay attention in school or better themselves and lives in an apartment with his own bedroom, a flush toilet, dishwasher, internet access, and a smoke alarm and who owns an iPhone than to give a dollar to a hard working young adult who grew up on a farm in rural China without running water and whose hardworking family struggled to barely survive and who has taken the initiative to leave their family to move to where there are jobs?
Actually, I have no idea. Probably something to do with tribalism and a "We have ours, get your own" attitude or something along those lines.
But, based on what I recall reading when I was a child, we will have fusion power plants up and running by then so we don't need to bother with any of this. I don't track trends in this area but I assume those that make predictions have some legitimate basis for those predictions so who am I to question them. Didn't Apple just build a giant fusion power plant in the Silicon Valley? I didn't follow that either, but I assume that's what it is -- its big, its round, and its strange looking rather like I would expect a really big fusion reactor to be.
By charging and discharging your car batteries for uses other than moving your car, you would be consuming charge/discharge cycles on your relatively expensive batteries designed for your automobile rather than batteries designed for fixed location storage (which would likely be cheaper as weight and compactness and certain safety considerations would be substantially less costly for the fixed location storage batteries.).
The cost of what you describe can be a very expensive replacement of your electric car batteries or substantial reduction in resell value of your electric car. That's quite a bit above zero.
Using batteries from electric cars for fixed storage after the batteries don't hold enough of a charge for automotive use might be more cost effective (both financially and environmentally) than discarding and recycling them.
This is ridiculous if, for example, the "2x4" being sold measures 1.5" x 3.5".
Although if the product being sold as a "2x4" only measures 1.3"x3.3", the complaint is valid (I think Lowes was doing something like this a few years ago and settled the case and began to put "true" dimensions on the signage -- which is very confusing but, fortunately, I rarely have to resort to buying lumber at Lowes).
I once lived in an old house and the 2x4s were much closer to measuring 2"x4" (I think they were about 1.75"x3.75"). That was a pain because modern 2x4s on retro work didn't match so extra hoops had to be jumped through to make everything work.
If the scenario is as described (which, frankly, seems somewhat unbelievable - why would production DB access credentials be floating around in a document available to a junior dev?), there is at least one senior executive who needs to be fired immediately. Perhaps more than one such executive needs to go as there are at least TWO serious and obvious problems - (1) the DB access credentials being published where a junior dev could even find them and (2) not having a tested and working restoration/return to service plan. If different executives are responsible for these two epic fails, they should all go. Perhaps the CEO should also go (although, that may also be the owner of the company -- in which case of course they would be unlikely to fire themselves!) as she has very bad judgement in hiring and does not exercise appropriate oversight.
Hopefully the actual password (vs. a salted hash of it) is also a secret as far as Facebook is concerned. However, they certainly could allow a password reset.
Back in the day, we all used i , j , and k and none of us got accused of copying because of using the same variable names.
Get off my lawn.
True, to a point. However, when uber wealthy people get taxed substantially more highly, they are still left with a few billion dollars of discretionary assets so higher income taxes have comparatively little impact on them - perhaps they only have $20 billion to give away, not $40 billion (which might actually make their lives easier). The same can not be said of the middle/upper-middle class taxpayer.
A combined marginal 70% income tax rate on Zuckerberg would have little impact on his personal life with regard to living expenses (food, housing, transportation, etc) for him and his family even if he has quite high standards for each. He still would never need to, for financial reasons, wash his own car, clean his own toilet, cook his own dinner, paint his own hallway, forgo medical care, stay at a Motel 6, or work another day in his life except for the fun of it.
On the other hand, a combined marginal 35% income tax on a couple having a taxable income of $200K a year (somewhat below the burden that a California taxpayer would bear) is likely to feel in very measurable ways the impact of the taxes or any increase in them on their personal life. Both spouses may find it necessary to continue working because of the tax burden. They may find it necessary to retire later because they have less savings. They may not be able to help their kids as much with college expenses. They may not be able to afford a housekeeper so have to do their own housework at the expense of not having as much time to further their own education and earning power. The list is endless.
I don't begrudge uber rich Americans (like Gates $81B per Forbes in 2016, Bezos $67B, Buffett $65.5B, Zuckerberg $55.5B, Ellison $49.3B). I also have no problem if they are talking about raising marginal tax rates on the highest income levels to the point that such taxation would actually affect their everyday personal life. However, I don't think their opinion means much when it comes to what will inevitably result in middle class tax increases. All of these individuals are completely free to donate money to the federal government. For example, to reduce the public debt, here's where one can contribute, however given the fairly paltry sums collected this way, it's obvious that none of these uber wealthy people contribute a significant amount of their resources via this route.
It is interesting that Zuckerberg exploits (legally) strategies explicitly to minimize his and/or his heirs income taxes (such as via Grantor Retained Annuity Trusts) - if he's in favor of increased government spending and hence higher taxes, the question is why does he do this?
Amazon should instead give out Nutraloaf. It provides most of a person's nutritional needs and no local businesses will complain as few, if any, sell it (although some government agencies also give it away to selected individuals so Amazon might face some competition there if they are not careful when selecting their distribution channels).
No, it's not that simple. You can't, for example, take a Harry Potter book, make verbatim (i.e., "quote you all I like') copies and add a cite to the last page of your copies that gives credit to J. K. Rowling and then sell the copies.
Fair use is allowed of course so you can write a book review which includes quoting a couple paragraphs from a Harry Potter book and sell your review of the book to others.
In trucks swapping batteries might fly.
Large trucking companies on well traveled routes might just own all the batteries they swap/charge at the battery swap points. Smaller operators or trucks used for less traveled routes may rent batteries and the battery charging/rental business will be responsible for retiring batteries that no longer meet spec or move them to situations requiring lower specs (perhaps renting them at a lower 'per kwh' or 'per hour' cost).
With driverless trucks, drivers won't be leasing or buying the tractors anymore so some big capital intensive organization will own, maintain, and operate them.
How much more would you be willing to pay for a "non-bumpable" ticket? Would you accept the restriction that the ticket was completely non-refundable and non-reschedulable unless, for example, the flight departed more than two hours late? Would you accept that such a ticket would become "lowest possible standby priority only" if you didn't check in more than 30 minutes before departure (and, still be non-refundable if there were fewer seats than standby passengers so you didn't get a seat after all)? Perhaps the airlines should consider offering such tickets. However, most people who are willing to pay extra for such tickets are also unlikely to need them or accept the additional restrictions as they are probably already flying business or first class and are likely a member of the airline's frequent flyer club -- a combination of factors that make one almost completely immune from bumping at most airlines.
I certainly don't think United handled this as well as they could have from a PR standpoint. However, if they had a crew shortage (due to illness or delays of incoming flights for example) at the destination and were going to have to cancel one or more flights out of there, the decision to bump four passengers from this flight to make room to ferry crew members probably made sense overall (it would inconvenience the smallest number of passengers and also make the most economic sense).
The law and the contract you agreed to when you bought the ticket are what controls here, not what you think is "reasonable" or in "good faith" at a particular moment in time.
Here is United's Contract of Carriage document - in particular see rule 25. Here is the Federal Code of Regulations section regulating overselling. Notice the last sentence of 250.3(a) in the CFR (aka FAR) which governs the policies airlines must make regarding overselling which states that:
This makes it difficult for an airline to consider special cases (such as true, or untrue, claims that "I have to see patients tomorrow") as if they do so and allow Passenger A who was initially selected for removal to remain on the flight, they now have to now remove Passenger B who would have otherwise remained on the flight -- opening the airline up to a lawsuit from Passenger B. Thus, the last resort of random selection among the lowest priority passengers.
If you fly United, you agree to all the rules above. If you don't like them, don't fly United. If it's really important that you get somewhere, pick an earlier flight (and certainly not the last one of the day) or have a backup plan (another airline, another flight, a private charter on call, etc...).
I don't like overbooking but it reduces the cost of airline tickets. Perhaps a new set of fare classes could be added which would guarantee a seat. These tickets would probably still have restrictions but would be just like what you seem to want. They might cost quite a bit more, they might be completely non-refundable/transferable unless the flight departs more than two hours late, they might require checking in 30 minutes before scheduled departure (at which time they would become standby tickets but still be non-refundable even if you don't get a seat because all seats are filled by other standby passengers).
Perhaps you should start an airline that differentiates itself by not overbooking at all if you feel strongly about it (the CFR doesn't seem to require overbooking, just allow it). Maybe it will be so popular you will get rich and put the rest of the airlines out of business (although I doubt it -- most passengers are very price sensitive).
The odds of being involuntarily booted from a flight are tiny compared to all the other reasons you might not get where you expect at about the time you expect. Other risks such as mechanical failures, crew shortages, computer failures, weather holds (even not at your source or destination -- but the plane planned for the flight is stuck on the ground at a third airport) are far greater risks so it is reasonable to assume that all passengers are prepared for failing to get where they expect at about the time they expect.
BTW, if someone fears being denied boarding due to overbooking, there are several ways to dramatically reduce the odds of being selected. One is to buy a higher class (business or first) class seat. Another is to check luggage (the airline doesn't want to delay your flight by having to find and retrieve your luggage from the plane). Another is to join the airline's frequent flyer club. Another is to become disabled -- perhaps chop off a leg or gouge out your eyes (but I really don't recommend this last strategy).
And, that contract, in conjunction with government laws and regulations, allows them to boot you from a flight with minimum compensation requirements set by the government.
Your analogy with an apartment is not very good as many (most?) states have additional specific protections for residential tenants written into statutory law. As well, a tenant is given exclusive use of a specific unit for a extended term of time (and is generally responsible for returning the unit to its 'move in' condition less normal wear and tear at the end of that time). Airlines don't give you guaranteed exclusive use of a specific seat ever (they often switch flights, combine them, substitute other aircraft etc).
Airlines are obviously free to move you from seat to seat, plane to plane etc. Suppose the plane had a mechanical problem after this passenger was seated. Is it your position that that the airline had to let him sit in the seat for the duration of the (planned) flight and that he, in turn, could refuse to leave the seat for that time?
The fact that the passenger boarded and was seated does not matter -- the airline has as much right to order the passenger to leave their plane as they had to refuse to allow him to board in the first place. The passenger was a jerk and should have simply gotten up and left the plane when requested. The moment he was told to leave the plane and failed to do so, he was in the wrong. Perhaps the airline and police could have handled it better, but ultimately he was not going to be on the flight.
A better analogy would be a hotel which decides they don't want you staying there (for reasons other than because you are a member of a 'protected class'). Generally, a hotel can revoke your right to be on the property for almost any reason -- perhaps just because they want to do maintenance on the room and the vendor is there doing maintenance on other rooms so it's cheaper to kick you out and refund your money than to have the vendor come back. I'm sure there's a good (rental or Uber) car analogy as well.
Then don't use your work devices for personal business. Your employer selected Microsoft for their business so they must be okay with this collection - it's your employer's data, not yours.
Personally, I will probably never again install Windows 10 (or successors) on any personal iron for a variety of reasons -- Linux works fine for my personal use for almost everything. If my employer chooses to use Windows 10, it doesn't bother me because it's not my machine/data.
Which works until the admin is in an induced coma for a couple of days after a really bad accident. The canary dies and at the very time the admin would be hoping for sympathy and some leeway due to her long upcoming recovery, she is instead fired and eventually ends up in prison and bankrupt and unable to ever again get a job in IT (or, perhaps anywhere).
I don't whine about outsourcing so I guess I'm not your target audience.
We all live in a global economy and for decades mass manufacturing with large unskilled labor content (and not burdened by excessive product shipping costs etc) has moved to the country with the lowest labor cost and an economic and governmental climate suitable for establishing plants. The individual workers in these countries benefit and generally the country's economy rises -- benefiting all in the country.
I'm happy to see my dollar go to some poor person who is working their tail off in another country -- esp. if the alternative is paying more for the product so a self-entitled US factory worker can be overpaid for their skills (or lack thereof). The fact that they were unwilling to work hard enough in school or throughout their career to do better for themselves serves as an object lesson to the next generation.
It is shortsighted to believe that America's best future lies in prioritizing low skill labor over high skill labor (which generally require more education and making good life choices). It lies in education and expecting and encouraging people to make responsible life choices so they can be productive members of the competitive global economy and maintain a high standard of living for themselves and their families.
...and the CEOs who have said "No staff reductions are anticipated as a result of $WHATEVER" and six weeks later announce "staffing realignments".
No disagreement -- I would never buy a screwdriver at Harbor Freight because of the very issue you mention. One has to be selective. (And, one has to look at the specific instance of the tool they are buying -- for example, I've seen speed squares in the bin at HF that had flash all along the "marking" edges -- but others next to them were fine).
However, I will buy a drilling hammer, clamps (for when I need a bunch of them occasionally instead of just a couple that I normally use), cheap multi-meter for crude work (they just get tossed in the toolbox -- might get broken and crushed but rarely do, I certainly wouldn't do that with a $300 multi-meter so I probably just wouldn't have one in a place where I would like to have one).
Generally, I won't buy any power tool from HF if I really expect to use it more than a few times a year or expect precision results from it (I do always make sure to test it immediately upon purchase -- DOA is a real risk at HF) and I've never bought a battery powered tool there as I don't want to "buy into" some questionable (and archaic) battery system. Sometimes I do buy power tools at HF that I never could justify for my limited use at a higher price and occasionally I find myself using them more than expected and then I'm likely to buy a better quality one to replace the HF version when it dies or I get annoyed at it.
It turns out that the vast majority of consumers prioritize cost over quality. This is not irrational and those that have a need can usually do otherwise.
For example, Harbor Freight tools are generally crap. But they are cheap. Professionals who use them ten hours a day, six days a week are not going to buy them unless they work in an environment where the tools "disappear" after a couple months (both because they fail more often and because they, generally, are not as easy to do quality work with quickly) -- these professionals buy professional tools. The rest of us are well served by buying a $19.99 "sawzall". If it ends up that we wear it out in five years or less than ten hours of "run-time", we will buy another OR a better brand -- but, in reality, most of these tools end up working for the rest of your life (at least as a backup to the better one you bought because you decided you wanted the cool features or smooth operation of the better one). Sometimes, the best tool from 40 years ago is inferior to the Harbor Freight tool (due to technology advances) and it is better to just buy new tools incorporating recent technology every ten years than using "great" tools that are thirty years old but can't hold a candle to the cheap tools available now.
If you build a new server/desktop, do you buy the "highest quality" bits? If you're wealthy, doing so makes sense for bragging rights. However, for most engineers who are going to toss it in three to four years, it really doesn't matter if the case is plastic or thick steel or flimsy steel -- the resale value of the case is essentially zero and all three types of cases work fine if you don't have a full grown pet gorilla in your household who likes to play "toss the computer against the wall" (in which case, the quality of the case is likely the least of your worries as the gorilla grows up).
Most of the durable goods bought at Walmart (tools, kitchen utensils, small kitchen appliances etc) probably end up being used a few times over the owner's lifetime. If they are going to bake all day, every day, they will buy a professional mixer instead of the deprecated KitchenAid crap that Target or Kohls or Walmart sells. Generally, why pay for "quality" -- do you really care if the kitchen gadget still works when your great grandchild inherits it and it's completely technologically obsolete anyway? Engineers should understand "cost:benefit" tradeoffs very well.
I've got a very cool looking meat grinder that got passed down from my grandparents that still works as it did when my grandmother used it. Guess what, I look at it but don't use it. It's not dishwasher proof (my grandmother probably never saw a dishwasher), it's a pain to clean (my grandmother was used to things being a pain to clean), it spews blood around while grinding (my grandmother probably never thought about that - "it is what it is" - as all her friends' grinders did the same), I have to find a place to clamp it and there's no rational place to do so my kitchen (but probably was in my grandmother's kitchen).
If you care about "quality" (or false pretenses of same), you're not shopping at Walmart, Home Depot, Target, or McDonalds. However, every one of those vendors has multiple competitors who DO offer quality products and better selection (of course at a higher price). For a tiny example, if you want selection and access to quality products, check out McMaster-Carr or similar -- but make sure you've got a high limit on your credit card.
Fortunately, it appears Gorsuch is also very critical of Kelo. According to CNN, in an email to a couple of friends at the time, Gorsuch praised Thomas' rather scathing dissent (interestingly, Scalia joined only in O'Connor's dissent, not Thomas').
It's interesting that Trump nominated Gorsuch. Trump seems to think Kelo was a "great" (or maybe "beautiful" or maybe just "pussy grabbing worthy" - I don't recall his exact words) decision. I'd guess that Trump wasn't aware of Gorsuch's views on Kelo before nominating him.