Slashdot Mirror

You're right about 35mm film, but you're confused about digital resolutions.

HD is 1920 x 1080 = 2,073,600 pixels (2.1 megapixels).
4k is 4096 x 2160 = 8,847,360 pixels (8.8 megapixels).
8k is 8192 x 4320 = 35,389,440 pixels (35.4 megapixels).

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_common_resolutions

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Apophenia is the tendency to mistakenly perceive connections and meaning between unrelated things.[1]

Originally, character's name was Gally.
Name was changed during translation in order "to appeal to more than just the hard-core manga and anime crowd".

https://www.animenation.net/bl...

Actually, the discrepancy between the names Gally and Alita comes courtesy not of AD Vision, but from Viz.
In the October 1993 issue of Animerica, Fred Burke, co-translator for the Viz Comics Battle Angel Alita manga explains that, "For a Viz Comic to work, it's got to appeal to more than just the hard-core manga and anime crowd;" therefore there were several alterations made in the translation of the manga.
Yukito Kishiro's title Gunnm, a compound of Gun Dream, was re-named Battle Angel Alita.
Gally, the protagonist, had her name changed to Alita, a name, Burke explains, means "noble": a name that he discovered while searching through a book of baby names.
Burke also explains that, for no reason given, the floating city Zalem was re-named Tiphares: a name meaning "beauty", taken from the Qabalah and the mystical Tree of Life.
Furthermore, Yugo's name was given a cosmetic change to Hugo for American readers.

Also...
https://web.archive.org/web/20...

Your statement is arguably technically correct, but very misleading. If you actually read the linked article it says

However, many people who work and who don’t owe any federal income taxes still give money to Uncle Sam, because money comes out of their paychecks for Social Security and Medicare, he said.

or, in other words, although those 44% are not paying Federal Income Tax, most of them are paying federal taxes on their income (as the "payroll tax").

No, sorry, but D-VHS won: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

What makes you think that the "cleanup cost" of the Chernobyl and Fukushima disasters is yet known in its entirety?

Also, there are not only costs for disaster clean-ups, but currently completely unknown costs for the safe storage of the nuclear waste produced. The Asse II mine alone, which was attempted to be used for nuclear waste storage during 11 years, has cost ~9 billion Euro as of today, with no end of additional costs in sight. And that was just one small site.

I'm a huge fan of the manga... Waited for the movie since it was announced that Cameron bought the movie rights, as it was known already that he is a fan...
And I can't get myself to watch it.

Basically, when Cameron passed the project on to Rodriguez it was obvious this will not be anything like the story in the manga.
It may LOOK like it... here and there...
But Rodriguez is neither a fan who'd keep it all kinda there by simply sticking to a 1:1 adaptation - nor is he intellectual enough to read, understand and adapt the subtleties of the story.

As for motorball...
In the manga it is all about self-discovery and self-actualization by reaching one's ultimate potential in a battle with the Universe which dictates that you can't win, break even or get out of the game.
And liberating oneself by reaching for and achieving the "freedom to".

To see anything like it in a movie, I'd advise going to the source - 1975 Rollerball.
There it is more about individualism as a solution... but it is just a metaphor for that same self-actualizing battle with the world.

Gab was *specifically* created to cater to far-right politics; like that was the ENTIRE POINT of the site!

You are misinformed.

You are probably misinformed about Breitbart as well.

Gab was *specifically* created to cater to far-right politics; like that was the ENTIRE POINT of the site!

You are misinformed.

You are probably misinformed about Breitbart as well.

Unionizing is the exactly opposite of divide and conquer. You might need to go look up what the word "Union" means.

You're strawmaning. You're trying to redirect the conversation away from "Game devs are being taken advantage of and should organized for better bargaining power" to "The heads of the Union you form might be corrupt so don't form one in the first place". The Stawman here is a big, scary Union Boss.

This has _nothing_ to do with negativity and everything to do with the fact that you, by yourself, do not have enough leverage to secure decent or even safe working conditions. This is a historic fact. It's not something that's up for debate. You by yourself cannot beat Jeff Bezos or Bill Gates in negotiations.

Of course you're just parroting a long standing anti-Union straw man. Are you getting paid to do this or just trolling for fun? Either way you're the 20th century equivalent of this. Didn't work last time either.

Bill Shorten https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... Likely to be Australia's Next Prime minister and most of his party are former Union Leaders and when they win the leader is either former union leader or union managemnt of some sort. While this may not be the case in the US we have a problem with unions in Australia https://www.theguardian.com/au... Note the US is one country on slashdot, the rest of the world is represented here also

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... it's a good read..

Define "usable energy storage". A quick look at Wikipedia tells me that Li-air batteries have 1/5 the specific energy of gasoline.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

In other words, citation needed.

Usable energy and specific energy are different things, only 40% of the gas you burn goes into turning the wheels, the rest is lost. While electric motors are 90%+ efficient at converting energy being put into them into turning the wheels.

Gas cars are DEAD technology. You may as well be calling for coal powered steam engine cars.

Why else would drumpf want a space force? Certainly not for NASA

People do realize that the Space Force is just that part of the Air Force that launches and operates military satellites and the like, right? Russia has a similar arrangement.

I don't get why people think that was odd. The Army Air Corp became the Air Force after WWII when it became clear it was it's own disjoint specialty. This is much the same.

No. PACER is managed by Administrative Office of the United States Courts. The AO prepares and submits budgets for the courts; however, each court has their own budget. If a district court in California wants to get flat screens, then they have to work with the AO and the General Services Administration to properly budget, request, and procure them.

In the USA, a debit card used with a PIN goes through the EFT network (Maestro for MasterCard or Interlink for Visa), not the credit card network. The ACH fee for an EFT payment is close to the 30 cent transaction fee for a credit card payment, but EFT generally imposes no percentage of the total. This is why many brick and mortar merchants automatically select EFT when a debit card is inserted, and some offer cash back because there's no fee to increase the total.

No, as a sibling pointed out, Fuchsia is about replacing the Linux kernel. It's unlikely to have any major user-facing impact. Chrome OS is Google's attempt at a desktop OS and it added support for Android apps a few years ago, so it could be considered the "desktop version" of Android in some sense.

And yet somehow he has the top TWO highest-grossing movies of ALL time. Gee, I wish I could "fail" like that! /s

Since you are "obviously" such a talented director with a "proven" track record what was he supposed to have done differently in your "professional" opinion?

What have you produced aside from bitch about Quantity != Quality, criticize without offering ANY details, or worse offer no solutions?

And while stuff like Avatar is basically a modern rip-off of Dances with Wolves in space what he has produced has resonated very well with the general populace in spite of him producing "nothing but shit" as you claim. Was Avatar formulaic? Yes, extremely derivative. Did it have archaic tropes of "Might makes right"? Yeah, it was another dumb action "shootout at the O.K. coral in space." However, it sounds like you are jealous of his financial success, think that the _other_ types of success are the ONLY ones that matter, and don't see the value of his movies contents raising the consciousness of what is possible. Specifically, in Avatar there was social commentary on the blatant greed with unsustainable strip mining ("unobtainium"), plants having feelings and emotions, plants effectively forming a planet wide brain due to the large quantity of neuron connections (IIRC Grace Augustine commented on this), everything is connected a.k.a. Gaia Theory ("Eywa"), OBEs, and the future ability to transfer consciousness from one body to another. It sounds like you weren't paying ANY attention to the deeper narratives being presented.

Movies often are multi-dimensional. Do you even understand the difference between the literal story and the allegory??

Instead of just whining about Cameron producing "nothing but shit", in your opinion, why don't you actually have a discussion on WHY you think Cameron sucks -- or are you just too fucking lazy and intellectually dishonest to even attempt that?

Right now, 2% of the world's energy is supplied by renewables; note that in much of the US at least, hydro is NOT considered renewable. So we get 2% of our energy from renewables today - and we're to change that to 50% or more, in just 20 years? yeah - I have a hard time believing that...

Due to the practice of crop dessication it seems that the exposure (by which I mean ingestion) to glyphosate in the general population has risen a lot in recent years. Obviously this would differ between regions as the practice is more controlled in some regions than in others, differences in diet, and obviously the level of exposure probably is lower than what the article terms "high exposure". Still...

Of course. There will be no wind and solar dominating without the oil industry. From those oil wells comes a lot of natural gas, and that natural gas will be needed as backup power for the unreliable wind and solar.

If only you could do that with, say, hydro or nuclear, right?

They get to "greenwash" their industry by providing the natural gas to keep those windmills spinning. Oh, people do know that those windmills need power to get up to speed to catch the wind, right? They can't get going on their own, they take electricity to get started before they produce any on their own.

Even if that startup issue was true, which it definitely isn't, what the fuck would be the point of using "natural gas to keep those windmills spinning"? They're generators, not fans. Are you suggesting some kind of large-scale scheme is going on that involves passing natural-gas-generated electricity as wind power?

Then there is the transportation sector. There's not any airplanes without hydrocarbons. No cargo ship is going to cross an ocean without hydrocarbon fuels either.

If only there was a way to synthesize hydrocarbons...

The oil industry has nothing to fear. Except nuclear.

Ah, so they're going to build nuclear airplanes, based on what you wrote above?

The invention of Cipher Block Chaining solved that issue btw
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

It seems that a spoonful of RoundUp wouldn't be so bad but a few of them (>85mL) could be fatal. The surfactant POEA makes it more toxic than just glyphosate.

So yeah, you could take the dare, that would be stupid but not enough to earn you a Darwin award.

Yes, some people are clue-la-la, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

if a gas turbine was only 30% efficient, why would anyone buy one?

I don't know, how about you ask the people buying them? Also, tell me how efficient they are if you dispute the 30% efficiency. Oh, and provide a citation, like this one:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

When the gas turbine is used solely for shaft power, its thermal efficiency is about 30%

Then you can tell me again on how solar power is "reliable" while natural gas is "dispatchable". Your answer lies in those definitions.

Natural gas turbines have a max realistic efficiency of about 60%. The main problem with them from a business point of view is firstly the prospect of one day having to actually pay for the emissions, which most of the industry currently does not have to do, and secondly the fluctuations in fuel prices. With wind and solar you don't have those problems. The business case becomes much more predictable and less risky. Granted, you need grid storage for them but for large segments of the market solar packaged sell with a battery storage package that will give you anywhere from one to three or four days of power and the grid storage problem is solvable. Generally the extraction costs of gas are on a general upward trend and there is an ever looming possibility of gas turbine operators having to pay for their carbon emissions while Wind and Solar don't have any extraction costs and produce hardly any carbon footprint. The argument you are having is basically whether film cameras (gas/coal/oil) are the future or digital camera (wind/solar/grid storage) are the future my money is on the latter. If fusion turns out to be possible that's gravy.

One possible motivation for setting up a network like this is to transfer value between foreign branches without having to go through the traditional SWIFT networks or other formal international exchange methods, electronic or otherwise. How might this be useful? I can think of a few benefits:

1. Transactions can be made without actually converting currencies. The transaction is converted into "JPM Coins" from the local currency in country A and "JPM Coins" in country B are converted to that local currency in the destination country. This allows for the possibility that the conversion is made at rates other than those officially sanctioned. In this respect it would be similar to the Islamic practice of Hawala which also bypasses the banking system.

2. Transactions could be routed around sanctions by avoiding direct conversions between say US dollars and banned local currencies, especially if foreign institutions acquire their own supply of "JPM Coins".

3. Transactions in "JPM Coins" could also potentially be used to bypass taxes, dodge capital controls or avoid fees associated with more traditional money transfer systems.

There may be other benefits as well, but that's what I could think of on a first pass.

if a gas turbine was only 30% efficient, why would anyone buy one?

I don't know, how about you ask the people buying them? Also, tell me how efficient they are if you dispute the 30% efficiency. Oh, and provide a citation, like this one:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

When the gas turbine is used solely for shaft power, its thermal efficiency is about 30%

Then you can tell me again on how solar power is "reliable" while natural gas is "dispatchable". Your answer lies in those definitions.

Define "usable energy storage". A quick look at Wikipedia tells me that Li-air batteries have 1/5 the specific energy of gasoline.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

In other words, citation needed.

Is it just me, or do a lot of the images suffer from heterochromia?

Also, anyone with glasses seems to have problems.

Why can China figure out how to construct 18,000 miles of high speed rail, and we can't even figure out how to connect LA to SF?

High speed rail... dark side of the moon... mass production of consumer goods... America is failing repeatedly, with or without Trump.

It's a communist country, their government can do anything it wants, and the people have no say.

Isn't that sort of what Google is doing with Fuchsia?

OS X / macOS seems to have gotten progressively more and more iOS like since about Yosemite (10.10).

Also the AFP.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agence_France-Presse

Lots of companies do this. Keep track of disgruntled ex-employees or those who make threats against the company or its personnel. And if the threat begins to look credible, they turn that information over to law enforcement authorities to act on it.

It's possible that this can be abused. If you have a paranoid member of management or one that uses the system to carry out personal retribution. Usually law enforcement is smart enough to figure out if the threats are groundless or malicious. Problems arise when the "security professionals" who are handed this information are empowered as mini police forces by themselves. There are companies that employ armed personnel who step beyond protection and conduct further investigations or other actions posing as police or FBI agents. Conducting "sneak and peak" searches when they have no legal warrants nor the authority to act on them.

The USA reacts with more aiports and similar, where you have lots of little planes.

(The obvious cultural difference is look at the top ten list of airports by takeoffs and landings vs. top ten list by passengers. )

Movements: 7 of the top ten are in the USA, and the USA holds the top four spots.
Passengers: The USA only has TWO of the top ten. (ATL and ORD).

You can see what the A380 really delivers when you see Dubai is number three by passengers - and not even in the top twenty by movements. You can see the stats here. (Dubai, DXB, is the home hub of Emirates so it's really A380 central there.)

The USA reacts with more aiports and similar, where you have lots of little planes.

(The obvious cultural difference is look at the top ten list of airports by takeoffs and landings vs. top ten list by passengers. )

Movements: 7 of the top ten are in the USA, and the USA holds the top four spots.
Passengers: The USA only has TWO of the top ten. (ATL and ORD).

You can see what the A380 really delivers when you see Dubai is number three by passengers - and not even in the top twenty by movements. You can see the stats here. (Dubai, DXB, is the home hub of Emirates so it's really A380 central there.)

The term for this is catfishing and it already happens. People just use stolen photos instead of AI generated ones.

Now enhance this so it's a video...

This is the same general technique used for Deepfakes. The concept is called a generative adversarial networks (GAN), which was first published in 2014 and they've rapidly been getting better. The algorithm in the article is apparently Nvidia's latest work on GANs for human faces.

Unfortunately, I haven't seen anything recent in computer-generated audio. My understanding is that the problem isn't in getting the computer to read words (Alexa/Siri/etc. do a pretty good job), but more in automatically determining what intonation/pacing/stress/etc. will actually make it sound right to a human. (A quick search found a project called WaveNet from Google's DeepMind from 2016 that uses neural nets to get better text-to-speech.)

Now enhance this so it's a video...

This is the same general technique used for Deepfakes. The concept is called a generative adversarial networks (GAN), which was first published in 2014 and they've rapidly been getting better. The algorithm in the article is apparently Nvidia's latest work on GANs for human faces.

Unfortunately, I haven't seen anything recent in computer-generated audio. My understanding is that the problem isn't in getting the computer to read words (Alexa/Siri/etc. do a pretty good job), but more in automatically determining what intonation/pacing/stress/etc. will actually make it sound right to a human. (A quick search found a project called WaveNet from Google's DeepMind from 2016 that uses neural nets to get better text-to-speech.)

That's how healthy competition develops.

No. What you are describing is monopolistic competition.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Monopolistic competition is a type of imperfect competition such that many producers sell products that are differentiated from one another

the goal is to achieve perfect competition, where various competitors offers the same goods at the market price.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

That's how healthy competition develops.

No. What you are describing is monopolistic competition.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Monopolistic competition is a type of imperfect competition such that many producers sell products that are differentiated from one another

the goal is to achieve perfect competition, where various competitors offers the same goods at the market price.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Fuel economy per seat shows the 777 and the 787 have better fuel economy than the A380. Even the low-seat density version of the 787. Perhaps it's the way Boeing designs as compared to Airbus that is the reason their aircraft have better fuel economy per passenger than the A380.

Four engines is less efficient per ton-mile than two. (Two engines are less efficient than one, but people seem to think having a redundant propulsion system is a good idea in an airliner.) This is true for planes, boats, cars (where 4WD uses slightly more fuel than 2WD). And the capacity of an A380 (575 in typical 3-class seating) is less than 60% more than a 777 (365 in its largest 3-class version), less than 50% more than an A350 (387 in largest 3-class version). Not twice as much.

The A380 doesn't haven a weight advantage either. It's MTOW is 1.268 million pounds, or 2205 lbs per passenger with 575 passengers. The 777 MTOW is 775,000 pounds, or 2123 lbs per passenger with 365 passengers with similar range. The A380's weight per passenger is often worse due to the increased difficulty of booking 575 passengers for a single flight. This was a complaint Boeing often received about the 747, which led it to develop the smaller 777 and 787.

Its fuel capacity (560,000 lbs) @ 575 passengers and 8000 nautical miles gives it a consumption of 0.122 pounds per passenger-mile. The 777-300ER (321,000 lbs fuel) @ 365 passengers and 7370 nmi has a fuel consumption of 0.119 pounds per passenger mile. So a fully loaded A380 actually burns slightly more fuel than a fully loaded 777-300ER. That means the only time it makes sense to use an A380 instead of a 777 is when you have more than 365 passengers wanting to fly a certain route (but fewer than 575), or when a route is between 7370 and 8000 nmi.

Also, part of the A380's problem is that there is practically zero demand for it in the second hand market (discount airlines and airlines in developing markets). That makes its acquisition cost higher for the airline initially purchasing it since they can't recoup as much of their initial investment when they retire the plane. Its primary customers remain the airlines catering to wealthy travelers (more than half the A380 orders are from Emirates).

Way back when the A380 was first announced, I pointed out over and over (and the Airbus fans kept modding me down) that Boeing had pitched the idea of a full-double deck 747 to the airlines ever since the 747 first entered service in the 1970s. Boeing never built it because there was never enough demand for it from the airlines. McDonnell Douglass pitched a similar plane back in the 1990s, and it too met with little interest from the airlines. It took the EU with its "government should decide what happens, not the market" philosophy to force Airbus to build a plane with insufficient market demand. (The cockpit of the 747 was placed on a second deck to allow for loading cargo through the nose in the freighter version. So using the second deck for more passengers was an unintended side-effect.)

At the same time, Boeing bet on smaller, more efficient twin-engine planes (the 777 and 787) servicing more direct routes, instead of the hub and spoke model championed by the A380 and 747. Boeing's market research appears to have been accurate, as that's what the airlines are buying (over 2000 orders for the 777, 1400 for the 787, nearly 900 for the A350). For two decades the 777 had the long-range 300+ passenger market all to itself. It completely demolished Airbus' offering (just 377 deliveries for the 4-engine A340). When Airbus introduced the A350 as a competitor to the 787, the airlines rebelled and Airbus was forced to redesign it to be bigger so it would compete with both the 787 and 777.

Four engines is less efficient per ton-mile than two. (Two engines are less efficient than one, but people seem to think having a redundant propulsion system is a good idea in an airliner.) This is true for planes, boats, cars (where 4WD uses slightly more fuel than 2WD). And the capacity of an A380 (575 in typical 3-class seating) is less than 60% more than a 777 (365 in its largest 3-class version), less than 50% more than an A350 (387 in largest 3-class version). Not twice as much.

The A380 doesn't haven a weight advantage either. It's MTOW is 1.268 million pounds, or 2205 lbs per passenger with 575 passengers. The 777 MTOW is 775,000 pounds, or 2123 lbs per passenger with 365 passengers with similar range. The A380's weight per passenger is often worse due to the increased difficulty of booking 575 passengers for a single flight. This was a complaint Boeing often received about the 747, which led it to develop the smaller 777 and 787.

Its fuel capacity (560,000 lbs) @ 575 passengers and 8000 nautical miles gives it a consumption of 0.122 pounds per passenger-mile. The 777-300ER (321,000 lbs fuel) @ 365 passengers and 7370 nmi has a fuel consumption of 0.119 pounds per passenger mile. So a fully loaded A380 actually burns slightly more fuel than a fully loaded 777-300ER. That means the only time it makes sense to use an A380 instead of a 777 is when you have more than 365 passengers wanting to fly a certain route (but fewer than 575), or when a route is between 7370 and 8000 nmi.

Also, part of the A380's problem is that there is practically zero demand for it in the second hand market (discount airlines and airlines in developing markets). That makes its acquisition cost higher for the airline initially purchasing it since they can't recoup as much of their initial investment when they retire the plane. Its primary customers remain the airlines catering to wealthy travelers (more than half the A380 orders are from Emirates).

Way back when the A380 was first announced, I pointed out over and over (and the Airbus fans kept modding me down) that Boeing had pitched the idea of a full-double deck 747 to the airlines ever since the 747 first entered service in the 1970s. Boeing never built it because there was never enough demand for it from the airlines. McDonnell Douglass pitched a similar plane back in the 1990s, and it too met with little interest from the airlines. It took the EU with its "government should decide what happens, not the market" philosophy to force Airbus to build a plane with insufficient market demand. (The cockpit of the 747 was placed on a second deck to allow for loading cargo through the nose in the freighter version. So using the second deck for more passengers was an unintended side-effect.)

At the same time, Boeing bet on smaller, more efficient twin-engine planes (the 777 and 787) servicing more direct routes, instead of the hub and spoke model championed by the A380 and 747. Boeing's market research appears to have been accurate, as that's what the airlines are buying (over 2000 orders for the 777, 1400 for the 787, nearly 900 for the A350). For two decades the 777 had the long-range 300+ passenger market all to itself. It completely demolished Airbus' offering (just 377 deliveries for the 4-engine A340). When Airbus introduced the A350 as a competitor to the 787, the airlines rebelled and Airbus was forced to redesign it to be bigger so it would compete with both the 787 and 777.

I thought that quote was pretty clear. The suit alleges that they took PACER user fees and used the money to buy things (like flat screens) for courts that were *not* related to PACER.

Diverting user money like that is not allowed under the law.

One ruling has already found that PACER was in violation; that's being appealed right now.
More details here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

He'll never be found innocent in a court of law, they don't assess innocence in a court of law just whether or not he is guilty.

They absolutely do assess innocence in a court of law. In fact it is the default presumption under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and is firmly established from the US Constitution via the 5th, 6th, and 14th amendments as well as extensive case law. The entire point of a court is to determine guilt or innocence insofar as that is possible. If the accused is not found guilty then by default they are considered innocent. You can get pedantic about the distinction between "not guilty" and "innocent" but de-facto they have the same outcome so it's a distinction without a difference. If they aren't found guilty then they are de-facto innocent as a practical matter. This is true even if they acknowledge having committed the act leading the the indictment.

To be clear the court is assessing whether there is sufficient evidence to find a violation of a law. If insufficient evidence is presented then the accused is considered innocent. Being guilty of a act is not necessarily the same as being guilty of a crime.

That said, there is meaningful dispute as to whether he was the shooter or not.

No there is not. Every bit of available evidence points to him being the shooter and there is no credible evidence to the contrary. If you have such evidence please post it and I'll reconsider.

Now before you go saying anything about crazy conspiracy. I'm not alleging or asserting any of that or trying to raise any suspicion.I'm invoking the general principle of trying to always keep an open mind.

Hogwash. You are invoking some serious tin-foil hat stuff to try to make a weak point. We can keep an open mind about his guilt in the incident and we can keep an open mind about where the evidence leads and what to do with it. But I'm not about to play stupid and pretend that every bit of evidence does anything except point to this man having committed this violent act.

Even if convicted in a court of law it is better to view it as the court or jury finding him guilty than "he did it."

Nobody is disputing whether or not he did it. Guilt in the crime is a separate discussion though a moot one given that he died.

The first sale of a 787 was on April 4, 2004. The A350 project started September 14, 2004. Airbus dismissed the concept of a more fuel-efficient, long-range, medium sized aircraft until Boeing started selling them in quantity...

The first sale of a 787 was on April 4, 2004. The A350 project started September 14, 2004. Airbus dismissed the concept of a more fuel-efficient, long-range, medium sized aircraft until Boeing started selling them in quantity...

Each satellite transmits its location (ephemeris) as well as the exact time in each 30 second message. This means that the GPS device does not need to calculate the location. Though the ephemeris updates every 2 hours, a value is considered valid for 4 hours.
The Almanac, a list of the status and rough location for each satellite, is also part of the message and takes over 12 minutes for complete transmission (25 messages). It is used to help determine which satellites to look for on acquisition amongst other things, though this is not essential with modern equipment.
This means that the date is not used to adjust the position information as that is part of the message itself. The alert is nothing to do with general GPS stopping working, but rather anything that depends upon the GPS signal to get the UTC time being at risk (an operation requiring the Almanac).

The information is from the Navigation Message section of the Wikipedia article on GPS Signals (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPS_signals#Navigation_message), which is very detailed.

How can someone who live in a properous country such as the US, end up like an idea like printing a gun and killing a few lawmakers....

Crazy people are in every country. The US is no exception. Prosperity does not change this fact.

I mean, you have to realise that doing that wont solve anything.... even if you killed a few lawmakers they would be replaced by someone else who would most probably continue his work.

Logic does not mean much to someone who is mentally unstable or otherwise incapable of reason. Stop trying to figure out how he logically could have behaved the way he did because logic had little to do with it. His brain was not functioning in a healthy manner.

The real problem is that it's very difficult to identify people like this in advance in an accurate, objective, and fair way so that you can keep firearms out of their hands. Many gun rights advocates like to say we should be dealing with mental health rather than restricting gun possession to improve safety. This is a reasonable and logical argument from a false premise because it presumes we can accurately identify individuals who are not mentally well prior to them acting in a manner that shows them to be a danger either to others or to themselves. We demonstrably cannot do this - no one can unless we develop mind reading technology. By the time they pull a trigger, it's far too late but we have no means to help them all earlier.

How bad can it get in the US?

If history is any judge, pretty bad. While in general the US is a very safe place to live, there are places you definitely don't want to be. While unlikely, your chances of dying by firearm in the US are quite a bit higher than most large industrialized nations. We can debate the reasons for this but the fact remains that your odds of dying from a firearm are alarmingly high and dealing with the problem rationally is politically challenging.

So the A380 can carry the same amount of passengers on four engines with one crew on one landing slot as two A350 or a two 777 on four engines, with two crews and two landing slots. That equals more efficiency, not less.

Airlines are not operating on crew and landing slot efficiency basis. Crew are comparatively cheap. Landing slots are only critical in a hub model, and these days secondary airports are highly used. For the real metric (fuel per mile per passenger seat), the modern twinjets beat the A380.

link.

The A380 is (was) having order problems. The A350 XWB not so much.

That's kind of what I was saying.

So the A380 can carry the same amount of passengers on four engines with one crew on one landing slot as two A350 or a two 777 on four engines, with two crews and two landing slots. That equals more efficiency, not less.

Airlines are not operating on crew and landing slot efficiency basis. Crew are comparatively cheap. Landing slots are only critical in a hub model, and these days secondary airports are highly used. For the real metric (fuel per mile per passenger seat), the modern twinjets beat the A380.

link.

The A380 is (was) having order problems. The A350 XWB not so much.

That's kind of what I was saying.