Not to mention athletes, body builders, and people like myself who get to adjust male hormones, if you do it with the right chemicals in the right doses, farking around with hormones isn't a problem.
Before I got my current treatment regimen going, I was at 39 ng/dl when normal total testosterone levels range from 300 - 1000 ng/dl
I've high speed taxied a Cessna 210 Centurian and a Super Cub through soil without gear failure.
Engines are also supposed to operate without icing, so is the loss of the B-777 a weather issue, a Boeing issue or a Rolls Royce problem?
It's a Rolls Royce issue, just like the hull loss of EC-JOH is because of whomever made the landing gear, not because of weather.
Or the sliding off the runway is due to the brakes (which Airbus makes) or the anti-lock brake software (which Airbus wrote).
The pilots landed in bad conditions, thats the pilot error, but the loss of the hull isn't because of the weather, its because of the structural failure.
Fact remains, B-777s have fewer hull losses per hour flown than A-340, but no fatalities for either type.
Technical fault of the engine, not Boeing, any RR Trent 800 could have had that failure.
Upon investigation, the accident was blamed on ice crystals from the fuel system clogging the fuel-oil heat exchanger (FOHE). Air accident investigators called for this component on the Trent 800 series engine to be redesigned.
9 November 2007 – An Iberia Airlines A340-600 (EC-JOH) was badly damaged after sliding off the runway at Ecuador’s Mariscal Sucre International Airport. The landing gear collapsed and two engines broke off. The aircraft was scrapped.
Rain didn't cause the landing gear to collapse, the construction of the gear did.
B-777 is safer than the A-340, while there have been no fatalities in either type, the A340 has had five hull loss accidents while the B-777 has only had one.
Airbus didn't make the engine of the A380 that blew up, Rolls Royce did, RR also had an engine for the Boeing 787-8 blow up on the test stand. So if you want to hammer on RR vs CFM vs GE vs Engine Alliance, go for it. But Airbus didn't build the problem engine and Airbus didn't tell Qantas they had to use the RR engine in question.
If Carbon Fiber is do goddamned flimsy, then why is everyone and their mother going to carbon fiber over aluminum? Look at the 787, A-350 for current examples, oh plus military aviation and whatever Boeing comes out with to replace the Boeing 737 Next Gen.
You know that in Wisconsin the CBA specifically said the legislature could at any time strip the Unions of the Collective Bargaining Right, the Union just didn't think Wisconsin's legislature would ever go and do it.
Is it a union busting bill if the union had the clause in the CBA that allowed collective bargaining taken away?
When the Japanese radiation actually killed someone outside of Japan then maybe it's an international matter.
But it hasn't.
American units based in Japan were helping with the relief efforts, US intelligence assets were in play over Japan with U-2S and Global Hawk flights directly over Fukushima, but all of those were because the Japanese government asked for the assistance.
So why doesn't Japan already have radiation hardened robots? They have a good number of nuclear power plants, an advanced robotics industry, why the hell didn't the Japanese build any of this type of robot?
This is the second shipment of US robots to go over.
The reason why this or that wasn't done sooner is because the Japanese didn't ask for it, and despite what you may think about American foreign policy, the US isn't just going to muscle into an internal Japanese matter and tell a Japanese utility company what to do.
Just flying power generators in wouldn't help once they ran out of fuel, thats part of the problem at Fukushima, the backup generators ran out of fuel.
Business isn't about being fair, and this comparison is completely valid, Google is still catching up to Apple and Microsoft.
Really Apple's business history is that of two companies, Apple Computers from 1976 to 2006 which focused on personal computers, laptops and software and Apple Inc from 2007 which focuses on personal computers, portable computing operating systems and consumer electronics
Look back 13 years ago for Apple before the transition started.
For 1998-99 Apple made a $601 million profit on $6.1 billion in revenue for the 1999 fiscal year.
Slashdot Mirror
Not to mention athletes, body builders, and people like myself who get to adjust male hormones, if you do it with the right chemicals in the right doses, farking around with hormones isn't a problem.
Before I got my current treatment regimen going, I was at 39 ng/dl when normal total testosterone levels range from 300 - 1000 ng/dl
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypogonadism
I replaced the CPU three times in my G3 Minitower Mac.
From a 233 MHz to 366 to a 433 over the years.
I've high speed taxied a Cessna 210 Centurian and a Super Cub through soil without gear failure.
Engines are also supposed to operate without icing, so is the loss of the B-777 a weather issue, a Boeing issue or a Rolls Royce problem?
It's a Rolls Royce issue, just like the hull loss of EC-JOH is because of whomever made the landing gear, not because of weather.
Or the sliding off the runway is due to the brakes (which Airbus makes) or the anti-lock brake software (which Airbus wrote).
The pilots landed in bad conditions, thats the pilot error, but the loss of the hull isn't because of the weather, its because of the structural failure.
Fact remains, B-777s have fewer hull losses per hour flown than A-340, but no fatalities for either type.
Technical fault of the engine, not Boeing, any RR Trent 800 could have had that failure.
Upon investigation, the accident was blamed on ice crystals from the fuel system clogging the fuel-oil heat exchanger (FOHE). Air accident investigators called for this component on the Trent 800 series engine to be redesigned.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7941137.stm
As for all A-340 loses from humans or weather...
9 November 2007 – An Iberia Airlines A340-600 (EC-JOH) was badly damaged after sliding off the runway at Ecuador’s Mariscal Sucre International Airport. The landing gear collapsed and two engines broke off. The aircraft was scrapped.
Rain didn't cause the landing gear to collapse, the construction of the gear did.
At least Stats or Calculus 2xx and Biology, Chem or Geology for Liberal Arts.
More for people getting a teaching certificate, even if you are going to teach English or Arts, have some background knowledge.
Cliff Claven from Boeing corporate in Chicago you mean.
B-777 is safer than the A-340, while there have been no fatalities in either type, the A340 has had five hull loss accidents while the B-777 has only had one.
There are only 375 A-340s compared to 919 B-777s
Airbus didn't make the engine of the A380 that blew up, Rolls Royce did, RR also had an engine for the Boeing 787-8 blow up on the test stand. So if you want to hammer on RR vs CFM vs GE vs Engine Alliance, go for it. But Airbus didn't build the problem engine and Airbus didn't tell Qantas they had to use the RR engine in question.
If Carbon Fiber is do goddamned flimsy, then why is everyone and their mother going to carbon fiber over aluminum? Look at the 787, A-350 for current examples, oh plus military aviation and whatever Boeing comes out with to replace the Boeing 737 Next Gen.
A-330 is similar to the 767 and 777, not the 737-300
Yet the Tea Baggers in Congress aren't pushing for cutting spending.
Where are cuts against military spending? Intelligence spending? Operations spending? Or hell, the 50.3 billion dollars in Black Projects for the DoD?
Where are secret budget items in the US Constitution?
Tax rates are at a 50 year low, so the "Taxed Enough Already" thing is just BS
You know that in Wisconsin the CBA specifically said the legislature could at any time strip the Unions of the Collective Bargaining Right, the Union just didn't think Wisconsin's legislature would ever go and do it.
Is it a union busting bill if the union had the clause in the CBA that allowed collective bargaining taken away?
You forgot Boosted fission that use Tritium, Deuterium or Lithium deuteride as a boost.
Umm, yea.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Madoff
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-03-30/ex-taylor-bean-official-ragland-to-enter-plea-in-1-9-billion-fraud-case.html
And this dude is in court right now
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raj_Rajaratnam
Theres alot of cases going on, have ended in pleas if you just google.
Macs don't come with a lot of crapware, they work just fine with the default OS instillation.
Sony and Samsung are not American companies.
When the Japanese radiation actually killed someone outside of Japan then maybe it's an international matter.
But it hasn't.
American units based in Japan were helping with the relief efforts, US intelligence assets were in play over Japan with U-2S and Global Hawk flights directly over Fukushima, but all of those were because the Japanese government asked for the assistance.
I've read similar, diesels failed and all the battery backups failed over time.
It really was the worst case scenario coupled with the transportation infrastructure failing from the 9.0 earthquake.
So why doesn't Japan already have radiation hardened robots? They have a good number of nuclear power plants, an advanced robotics industry, why the hell didn't the Japanese build any of this type of robot?
This is the second shipment of US robots to go over.
http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9215346/U.S._to_send_radiation_hardened_robots_to_Japan?taxonomyId=12
Other American robots were already sent, or it was at least reported, a week ago.
http://articles.cnn.com/2011-03-23/tech/robots.japan.relief_1_packbot-irobot-ground-zero?_s=PM:TECH
The reason why this or that wasn't done sooner is because the Japanese didn't ask for it, and despite what you may think about American foreign policy, the US isn't just going to muscle into an internal Japanese matter and tell a Japanese utility company what to do.
Just flying power generators in wouldn't help once they ran out of fuel, thats part of the problem at Fukushima, the backup generators ran out of fuel.
Every Macbook or iMac for at least the last three years and every Macbook Pro, Mac Pro, G5, Power Mac tower, Powerbook for the last ten years.
Most better PCs have had gigabit NICs for the same period
They compete in the mobile operating system area, Google isn't really a threat in the number of physical phones and tablets sold yet.
Business isn't about being fair, and this comparison is completely valid, Google is still catching up to Apple and Microsoft.
Really Apple's business history is that of two companies, Apple Computers from 1976 to 2006 which focused on personal computers, laptops and software and Apple Inc from 2007 which focuses on personal computers, portable computing operating systems and consumer electronics
Look back 13 years ago for Apple before the transition started.
For 1998-99 Apple made a $601 million profit on $6.1 billion in revenue for the 1999 fiscal year.
http://www.tidbits.com/article/5608
http://www.wikinvest.com/stock/Apple_(AAPL)/Data/Revenue/2000
Google
Revenue US$ 29.321 billion
Operating Income US$ 10.381 billion
Profit US$ 8.505 billion
Employees 24,400
Apple
Revenue US$ 65.23 billion
Operating Income US$ 18.39 billion
Profit US$ 14.01 billion
Employees 49,400
Financially they are playing catchup to Apple and M$
And in the all important Fortune 500 list, Apple is a Fortune 100 company, Google is a Fortune 200 company.
Exactly, small arms really don't have technologies that are controlled.
Its only illegal arms import, export and smuggling.