Slashdot Mirror
Train Derailment Dumps Two 737 Fuselages Into Clark Fork River
McGruber (1417641) writes "Boeing builds its 737 airplane fuselages in a Wichita, Kansas factory. The fuselages are then shipped on top of railroad flatcars (as shown in this photograph) to Boeing's Renton, Washington plant, where assembly is completed. Unfortunately, a train carrying two fuselages to Renton derailed approximately 18 miles east of Superior, Montana. The 737s slid down a steep embankment and ended up in the Clark Fork River. That'll buff right out."
I think that's gonna void the warranty... .High*Ping*Drifter.
"When in doubt, I whip it out!"
Exactly!
I assume they only do that when behind schedule, same as the GE jet final assembly plant in Peebles, Ohio does. Truck or rail if on schedule, big honking cargo jet if behind.
The government doesn't insist that they add anything to alcohol. I can go to the store and buy as much alcohol as I want. It is even legal for me to get a massive buzz from drinking it. Problem is that a lot of people do a lot of stupid things that are costly to society while drinking alcohol. So the government does insist that if you drink something that may end up costing society some money that you help to pay for the damage through increased taxes. The only problem there is that alcohol does have a lot of industrial uses. So if you are going to use your alcohol for something other than drinking then you shouldn't have to pay taxes to cover the cost of stupid things people tend to do while drunk. No problem. If you make your alcohol impossible to drink (but still usefull for industrial activities) then you don't have to pay taxes on it. The government only insists that if you do something that costs us all more money then you should have to pay some of it back via increased alcohol tax. Seems pretty reasonable to me.
According to the article, there was alcohol involved.
And this is news for nerds how?
Never trust a man in a blue trench coat, Never drive a car when you're dead
You're petrified of a guy who finds a tax on alcohol reasonable? And who can explain why that tax is there?
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
Yes, my God, they expect you to show 5 days a week and do an honest days work! Damn those 1%ers!
The largest container is 53 feet long. The largest common size is 40/45. So no, not going to fit.
.sig: Now legally binding!
Your bullshit would be more compelling if only more concrete.
A lot of argument suggests the morning after pill causes abortions. A lot of argument suggests homosexuality is a choice. A lot of argument doesn't make it so.
Are the taxes disproportionate to impact or not? Say something real.
That would be great if the government paid for treatment for alcoholics, counseling for family wrecked by alcohol use, covered medical expenses for people who drink, cover damages by drink drivers, paid for medical expenses by people hurt by someone who was drunk, etc. When the money just goes to the general fund (and rarely a small slice of it for some small aspect of the damage) while not covering any of the actual damages, then no one is paying to cover the cost of stupid drunk people, except for drunk stupid people with enough money to be payout when sued. Otherwise everyone buying alcohol, those who drink too much and those that don't, are just paying more disproportionately taxes for no good reason.
Also, as someone working in the chemical industry, some projects in industry can not use denatured alcohol, and have to go through more hoops, bureaucracy and costs to deal with this too. The only thing worse than someone saying you should be taxed because you share something in common with those doing damage, are others that argue the taxes are okay because it doesn't affect them.
...but man, you should see how flat that train squashed my penny!
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Yo dawg, I heard you like planes, so I put a plane inside your plane so you could... oh wait.
Buck Feta. You know what to do.
Boeing green is a standard anti corrosion paint they use. Most parts are green under toe topcoat.
http://i.imgur.com/EJVBCzL.jpg
"To those who are overly cautious, everything is impossible. "
They also largely exist for the purpose of protecting the market of established distilleries as new excise licences for distilleries (as opposed to breweries and wineries) are difficult or impossible to come by in most places with excise law.
I would find excise laws far less objectionable if licenses were available to anyone who applied for one. I have personally applied for and been denied an excise license for a distillery, so I have direct experience that licensing is a form of racketeering, the kind of thing that would be illegal if applied to any other product.
To lower the number of injuries per crash.
Inappropriate title - I've lived in a lot of countries around the world and AFAICR they all had exactly the same system.
The picture of a fuselage on a railcar and the two fuselages that fell into the river are all apple green colored
Why is that?
The green is a protective coating. It's removed with a solvent before painting. The yellow around the wingroots is zinc-chromate anti-corrosion paint, which is permanent. Most of the interior metallic structure is covered in chromate.
But the current Boeing 737-600 up to 737-900 has not much in common with the original 737-100. Basicly just the dimensions of the fuselage are the same. In the same way you could say that Toyota still builds the Corolla.
That stuff is pretty amazing. I have a number of bits of aluminum plate and extrusions scrounged from the Reserve Property Center (Where Boeing sold surplus parts and equipment including entire landing gear assemblies - it was a fantastic place to stagger around and become delusional about what you could build. Unfortunately, the MBAs shut it down a number of years ago. Very, very sad. )
Anyway. the coating withstands scratching, denting, bending and pretty much everything short of a TIG welder. I wish there were ways to get that coating applied in one off numbers for various home projects.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Its clearly not news, because it happens on a regular basis it seems.
I think you meant to say 'lower water content'. Alcohol is an azeotrope and is hard to get past 95% purity. Once you do, and you open it to air, poof, the water gets absorbed into the alcohol and you're back where you started from. Pretty expensive stuff.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Before it cost Boing too much...(excuse the mock name) The Clark Fork River is really swift there as you can see in the picture.. Wonder if any fish will be flying first class?
Complete bullshit. It didn't "cost Boeing too much." They moved their headquarters and some of their manufacturing out of Washington State, because State legislators got sick and tired of their incessant demands for more tax loopholes, and told them no.
If they can't afford to pay taxes like everybody other goddamned business in the state, let them do business elsewhere. That seems like a pretty damned fair policy to me.
It works for Boeing, too. They just move out of state. Other parts of the country with lower costs can use the jobs.
I love how on Slashdot how threads frequently go, Poster A:"Well, this is true (with not citations)" Poster B: "No, that is wrong (with no citations)." Poster C: "No, B is wrong because they provide no citations (still no citations for A or C)". No one is providing concrete numbers or citations. You chew someone out for not being concrete, but then turn around and still are no concrete yourself, making vague comparisons because the word "argument" gets used in a lot of places that have no relevance to the issue. I would assume that most people who actually cared about the subject would take a quick Google search because it is a heavily researched topic.
But of course, since people around here can't look things up for themselves, and assuming that the posts they like are right without proof but posts they don't like must be wrong without proof... you can try looking at studies like this one and compare it to totals of alcohol tax revenues here. Now of course the revenue from tax is not the total cost, because there is a lot of money spent on enforcing laws, economic impact on businesses dealing with the laws, and people finding ways around the laws (even legal ones like driving to a different location, with impact on local business). But the result is that throughout the US $4 billion gets collected in alcohol taxes in the 90s, when estimates of cost impact show the vast majority of impact is on non-government individuals who do not get help from the government with the collected taxes. And the vast majority of those impacts (71% in the US study cited in the study) are from lost work because people miss work or become injured in a way that doesn't contribute to work, or that government gets less tax revenue when someone dies. The actual direct impact to government programs is estimated at under a billion dollars. And that is using numbers that are said to be over-estimated when looking at what happens when people actually stop drinking.
And this still doesn't address the issue that most of the taxes are collected from people not contributing to the problem, with a quarter if the people causing half the problems (e.g. a citation, more give numbers all over the place on this, so exact numbers are not available, but agree that most damage done by small portion). Some of this should be obvious considering how many people drink but do not drink and drive, have liver damage, etc. Nor does do the numbers change that the government isn't applying the money in a way to stop damage. If the societal damage were taken serious, there would be a lot more research and implementation of programs to stop people from drinking too much, and actually fixing problems... but that is not how government works except the most obvious cause-effect problems.