You're spot on. The EU has a history of screwing US companies for the benefit of EU companies -- they blocked the Honeywell/GE merger (any EU defense contractor benefits), and, during the Boeing/McDonnell Douglas merger, forced Boeing to tear up its exclusive contracts with Delta and American (contracts between US companies) -- guess who benefits there?
All the while, the EU throws multi-billion euro subsidies at Airbus.
The US isn't without blame here -- if the government had any balls, it could have not certified the A380, or hit it with a $1m landing fee. Or blocked many EU mergers "just because you're French". Perhaps if the US govt found its gonads we'd have a more level playing field.
I never thought I would see the day that Google panders to the Chinese Communists by deceiving an innocent Chinese citizen with a biased or incorrect search result. I can't imagine a more boneheaded maneuver.
It's time for Google management to pull their heads out of their asses.
Larry, Sergei, Eric -- as politely as I can put it, you guys can go fuck yourselves.
I was in the some boat -- the people in my school district voted to raise taxes to improve the schools, and so we had a good public school (this was near NASA in Houston.) Now, however, the Texas Supreme Court says that they can't do that, because there are places that can't or won't raise taxes to improve their schools. So, all schools are dragged down to the same level of mediocrity.
Education is far too important to be left to the whims of a government monopoly, and the whims of union bosses. Yes, there are good teachers (and I had more than my share), but they are successful in spite of the system, not because of it.
But if we take it as given that we're stuck with this wallowing behemoth, the big thing to change, IMHO, is the reliance on a single learning style. The current classroom sees students as machines that assimilate input and regurgitate the right answer. If your dominate learning paradigm fits the teacher, great; if not, you'll sort of get the idea, but you'll never excel. The teaching methods need to handle the different modes of learning -- visual, auditory, and kinesthetic.
Also, the vast majority of us don't work on an assembly line, so why are public schools modeled on one?
Sure, there are idiots flying airplanes, but there are far more idiots driving 4 ton death machines (a.k.a. a Chevy Suburban). My original comment was about the relative risk of driving vs. flying, and the proximity to said idiots -- short of a midair collision or near miss, the idiot pilot tends to be at least a half mile away, while the idiot SUV driver is regularly within feet of me. Keeping the head on a swivel is a good antidote to the flying idiot; while the same is true on the ground, it doesn't feel as effective.
I won't get into the "doctor in a Bonanza" problem, except to say that they tend to kill themselves before they kill other pilots. Their passengers are at their mercy, though.
As the old saying goes, "the most dangerous thing in aviation is the drive to the airport". On the road, I have to face the standard, poorly training American driver in an SUV who is Driving While Intoxicated/Yakking. No similar risk exists for flying.
It is true that the consequences of poor skill or judgement in the air are swift and severe, but I control my skill and judgement. On the road, I am pretty much at the mercy of other drivers.
It sounds like you got the Airbus/flight control manufacturer's association of America/Boeing sales pitch about how you HAVE TO HAVE THIS STUFF and were pretty convinced.
Call me crazy, but I'm not willing to bet my life that a bunch of French programmers (or any other nationality, for that matter) got everything right, even for situations that can't be forseen. In my opinion as a software engineer and pilot, the Airbus design philosophy is fundamentally flawed, in that the pilots can't override the fly-by-wire software, even if that software is in error. One Fine Day, we're going to lose an aircraft and all aboard due to a software error.
I'll take the judgement of an experienced pilot over the commands of a dumb box any day of the week.
I can't believe that the FAA certificated the fly-by-wire Airbus aircraft, unless there is some treaty whereby we must accept the certification from the EU.
The required strength of runways for the A380 is the same as the 787. It was one of the design requirement of the A380. Not bloody likely, as the A380 (nee A3XX) plans predate the 787 (nee 7E7) by many years. Please post a reference.
Granted that the Repubs get more money from Big Business, but the Demos counter that with money from Trial Lawyers and Union Bosses. To a first order, this fight is a wash.
And don't forget the Trust-funded Senator from Chappaqiuddick, Ted "no pants" Kennedy.
see the realclimate.org link in the right hand column of the home page, 14 links from the top.
And as for FUD -- as someone else has already pointed out, human-induced climate change is a religion, complete with a priesthood that screams "heretic!" when anyone challenges their "findings".
If the proponents of human-induced climate change really had the answer, why don't their models converge? We seem to get a "wait, it's going to get even warmer!" report on an almost weekly basis, which tells you that their models are all over the place.
If you really think that "the hockey stick is real", go use the same modeling technique on the stock market, and you should make billions. I won't hold my breath.
GOOG does have positive cashflow (~$238m last quarter), but that pales to, say, Microsoft ($4b). Buying Google's cashflow (in the form of stock) is highly expensive -- P/E of 234 (!!!), and Price/Sales of almost 20. Those ratios are typically assoicated with minor dieties (or.coms before the bubble burst), and not mere mortals.
I'm not saying that Google isn't worth the current price, but they have absolutely no room to screw up.
Yes, both side have complaints. Which complaints are valid is a different matter. I guess we'll find out in due course.
Airbus did counter-sue; I offer other possible reasons:
* give the appearance that they have a case, causing Boeing to think long and hard
* give the appearance of being a crazed litigator, hell-bent on suing forever.
* cause a delay in the proceedings so they can get one more round of state-aid to their newest aircraft, the A350 (competes with the 7E7.)
Granted that the EU could retaliate. IMHO, only a credible threat by the US will get the EU to treat Airbus as a real company, and not as a subsidy child. It's time for Airbus to pay for new aircraft out of cash flow or by loans from real banks that take the risk of the development into account.
I'm conviced that Airbus won many orders that it wouldn't have otherwise because its cost of capital is effectively zero, enabling it to offer prices that a real company (Boeing) couldn't match.
And don't get me started about Airbus using its government connections to get landing slots at busy EU airports (e.g., Heathrow) for a favored customer. Or the way the EU "Competition Commissar" meddled with the Boeing/McD and Honeywell/GE merger attempts, to the benefit of EU corporations.
If the EU really wants a level playing field, great; if not, it is going to get ugly.
Just because the US government does it more stealthy through for example "defence contracts" that for "reasons of national security" cannot be shown to the public?
Ah, you're quoting propaganda from Airbus. Take a look at US DoD procurement, and you'll see two to three contractor teams fighting tooth and nail for 8% profit, which is hardly a subsidy.
Even if you do think 8% is an illegal subsidy, EADS (the parent company of Airbus) has exactly the same problem with its military contracts. So, the EU/US trade war comes down to Airbus launch aid, which is huge (IIRC, 4 Billion Euros for the A380.)
Personally, I think it is time for US airport to charge a $10million penalty (er, "landing fee", or "airport improvement fee") for every A380 landing. Watch A380 sales dry up, watch the French squeal like pigs, and watch launch aid dry up in a heartbeat.
A 747 does cruise around 565 mph at altitude. However, regulations and controllers require a slower speed while approaching an airport.
First, there is a speed limit of 250 kts (~287 mph) below 10000 feet.
Second, when closer to an airport, a controller will often slow down an aircraft for spacing reasons. 210 kts and 180 kts are favorite speed restrictions for controllers here in the Seattle area.
If memory serves, 160 kts is a target airspeed for a 747 on short final; smaller aircraft can usually go slower.
As others have pointed out, a laser-wielding bad guy could position himself somewhat in front of the path of the aircraft to simplify the aiming problem.
In summary, this isn't a trivial problem, but it isn't impossibly hard, either.
Great! Until you manage to amend it, it is The Foundation Document, and it means what it says.
What about one America instead of 50?
Since I live in Washington State, I'm rather glad that I am not subject to the neo-socialist laws of the Peoples Republic Of Massachusetts (Rent Control, high taxes and regulation, no concealed carry) or the neo-fascist laws of Texas (anyone can shoot a fleeing felon, "good ol' boy" regulation, etc.) We Americans can choose a state that aligns with our values, which is a Good Thing.
While researching this topic a few months ago, most phones did use both 5.8 and 2.4GHz. The exception was a Panasonic 5.8 phone, which was 5.8GHz only. It does not conflict with my wireless 802.11g network in the house.
... and some are fun to drive to boot! My Passat Wagon (really, an Audi A4 in drag) get 30mpg highway, can haul four adults, three dogs, and baggage, and has good handling. For real fun (albeit with lesser mileage), an Audi S6 wagon will light your fire.
Compare the cost and weight of the Passat Wagon ($28000, 4000 lbs gross) to a bloated, wallowing land pig like a Ford Exhumation (er, Excursion) ($40000, 9200 lbs) -- there's no comparison. Unless you have an irrational desire to have a lot of ground clearance that you'll probably never use.
This guy is right, the market sets the price for goods, and the execs at corporations have a fudiciary obligation to shareholders to maximize profits....
That's FIDuciary, not FUDiciay. Although there's lot of FUD around this topic..
As the parent noted, if you want to save really big dollars, outsource the CEO.
I, for one, am tired of the EU meddling with US companies. Previous examples include:
Boeing/McDonnell Douglas -- EU forced changes to contracts with Delta, and American Airlines
Honeywell/GE -- merger blocked
Perhaps a little tit-for-tat is in order to show the EU bureaucrats the errors of their ways. First, the US could simply declare the merger of Air France and KLM illegal. Second, the US FTC could declare that the government subsidies of Airbus are illegal, and impose either contervailing duties on Airbus aircraft, or simply refuse to allow new Airbus aircraft to land in the US. We could watch the EU squeal like pigs when their 6 million Euro subsidy of the A380 goes straight down the toilet.
Memo to the EU: fuck with us, and we'll fuck with you. And you'll lose.
Slashdot Mirror
You're spot on. The EU has a history of screwing US companies for the benefit of EU companies -- they blocked the Honeywell/GE merger (any EU defense contractor benefits), and, during the Boeing/McDonnell Douglas merger, forced Boeing to tear up its exclusive contracts with Delta and American (contracts between US companies) -- guess who benefits there?
All the while, the EU throws multi-billion euro subsidies at Airbus.
The US isn't without blame here -- if the government had any balls, it could have not certified the A380, or hit it with a $1m landing fee. Or blocked many EU mergers "just because you're French". Perhaps if the US govt found its gonads we'd have a more level playing field.
I never thought I would see the day that Google panders to the Chinese Communists by deceiving an innocent Chinese citizen with a biased or incorrect search result. I can't imagine a more boneheaded maneuver.
It's time for Google management to pull their heads out of their asses.
Larry, Sergei, Eric -- as politely as I can put it, you guys can go fuck yourselves.
because we iPod owners aren't paying the microsoft tax. As politely as I can put it, Mr. Ballmer, you can go f*ck yourself.
... knock yourself out, boys and girls. Who would have thunk it?
I was in the some boat -- the people in my school district voted to raise taxes to improve the schools, and so we had a good public school (this was near NASA in Houston.) Now, however, the Texas Supreme Court says that they can't do that, because there are places that can't or won't raise taxes to improve their schools. So, all schools are dragged down to the same level of mediocrity.
Education is far too important to be left to the whims of a government monopoly, and the whims of union bosses. Yes, there are good teachers (and I had more than my share), but they are successful in spite of the system, not because of it.
But if we take it as given that we're stuck with this wallowing behemoth, the big thing to change, IMHO, is the reliance on a single learning style. The current classroom sees students as machines that assimilate input and regurgitate the right answer. If your dominate learning paradigm fits the teacher, great; if not, you'll sort of get the idea, but you'll never excel. The teaching methods need to handle the different modes of learning -- visual, auditory, and kinesthetic.
Also, the vast majority of us don't work on an assembly line, so why are public schools modeled on one?
Sure, there are idiots flying airplanes, but there are far more idiots driving 4 ton death machines (a.k.a. a Chevy Suburban). My original comment was about the relative risk of driving vs. flying, and the proximity to said idiots -- short of a midair collision or near miss, the idiot pilot tends to be at least a half mile away, while the idiot SUV driver is regularly within feet of me. Keeping the head on a swivel is a good antidote to the flying idiot; while the same is true on the ground, it doesn't feel as effective.
I won't get into the "doctor in a Bonanza" problem, except to say that they tend to kill themselves before they kill other pilots. Their passengers are at their mercy, though.
As the old saying goes, "the most dangerous thing in aviation is the drive to the airport". On the road, I have to face the standard, poorly training American driver in an SUV who is Driving While Intoxicated/Yakking. No similar risk exists for flying.
It is true that the consequences of poor skill or judgement in the air are swift and severe, but I control my skill and judgement. On the road, I am pretty much at the mercy of other drivers.
It sounds like you got the Airbus/flight control manufacturer's association of America/Boeing sales pitch about how you HAVE TO HAVE THIS STUFF and were pretty convinced.
Call me crazy, but I'm not willing to bet my life that a bunch of French programmers (or any other nationality, for that matter) got everything right, even for situations that can't be forseen. In my opinion as a software engineer and pilot, the Airbus design philosophy is fundamentally flawed, in that the pilots can't override the fly-by-wire software, even if that software is in error. One Fine Day, we're going to lose an aircraft and all aboard due to a software error.
I'll take the judgement of an experienced pilot over the commands of a dumb box any day of the week.
I can't believe that the FAA certificated the fly-by-wire Airbus aircraft, unless there is some treaty whereby we must accept the certification from the EU.
Score -5 -- ranting; rabid screed; assumes facts not in evidence; diatribe about "evil capitalists"; generally clueless
The required strength of runways for the A380 is the same as the 787. It was one of the design requirement of the A380.
Not bloody likely, as the A380 (nee A3XX) plans predate the 787 (nee 7E7) by many years. Please post a reference.
Granted that the Repubs get more money from Big Business, but the Demos counter that with money from Trial Lawyers and Union Bosses. To a first order, this fight is a wash.
And don't forget the Trust-funded Senator from Chappaqiuddick, Ted "no pants" Kennedy.
nautical miles, you weenie.
see the realclimate.org link in the right hand column of the home page, 14 links from the top.
And as for FUD -- as someone else has already pointed out, human-induced climate change is a religion, complete with a priesthood that screams "heretic!" when anyone challenges their "findings".
If the proponents of human-induced climate change really had the answer, why don't their models converge? We seem to get a "wait, it's going to get even warmer!" report on an almost weekly basis, which tells you that their models are all over the place.
If you really think that "the hockey stick is real", go use the same modeling technique on the stock market, and you should make billions. I won't hold my breath.
Google is highly cashflow positive [...]
.coms before the bubble burst), and not mere mortals.
GOOG does have positive cashflow (~$238m last quarter), but that pales to, say, Microsoft ($4b). Buying Google's cashflow (in the form of stock) is highly expensive -- P/E of 234 (!!!), and Price/Sales of almost 20. Those ratios are typically assoicated with minor dieties (or
I'm not saying that Google isn't worth the current price, but they have absolutely no room to screw up.
Yes, both side have complaints. Which complaints are valid is a different matter. I guess we'll find out in due course.
Airbus did counter-sue; I offer other possible reasons:
* give the appearance that they have a case, causing Boeing to think long and hard
* give the appearance of being a crazed litigator, hell-bent on suing forever.
* cause a delay in the proceedings so they can get one more round of state-aid to their newest aircraft, the A350 (competes with the 7E7.)
Granted that the EU could retaliate. IMHO, only a credible threat by the US will get the EU to treat Airbus as a real company, and not as a subsidy child. It's time for Airbus to pay for new aircraft out of cash flow or by loans from real banks that take the risk of the development into account.
I'm conviced that Airbus won many orders that it wouldn't have otherwise because its cost of capital is effectively zero, enabling it to offer prices that a real company (Boeing) couldn't match.
And don't get me started about Airbus using its government connections to get landing slots at busy EU airports (e.g., Heathrow) for a favored customer. Or the way the EU "Competition Commissar" meddled with the Boeing/McD and Honeywell/GE merger attempts, to the benefit of EU corporations.
If the EU really wants a level playing field, great; if not, it is going to get ugly.
Ah, you're quoting propaganda from Airbus. Take a look at US DoD procurement, and you'll see two to three contractor teams fighting tooth and nail for 8% profit, which is hardly a subsidy.
Even if you do think 8% is an illegal subsidy, EADS (the parent company of Airbus) has exactly the same problem with its military contracts. So, the EU/US trade war comes down to Airbus launch aid, which is huge (IIRC, 4 Billion Euros for the A380.) Personally, I think it is time for US airport to charge a $10million penalty (er, "landing fee", or "airport improvement fee") for every A380 landing. Watch A380 sales dry up, watch the French squeal like pigs, and watch launch aid dry up in a heartbeat.
A 747 does cruise around 565 mph at altitude. However, regulations and controllers require a slower speed while approaching an airport.
First, there is a speed limit of 250 kts (~287 mph) below 10000 feet.
Second, when closer to an airport, a controller will often slow down an aircraft for spacing reasons. 210 kts and 180 kts are favorite speed restrictions for controllers here in the Seattle area.
If memory serves, 160 kts is a target airspeed for a 747 on short final; smaller aircraft can usually go slower.
As others have pointed out, a laser-wielding bad guy could position himself somewhat in front of the path of the aircraft to simplify the aiming problem.
In summary, this isn't a trivial problem, but it isn't impossibly hard, either.
[The Constitution is] a living document.
Great! Until you manage to amend it, it is The Foundation Document, and it means what it says.
What about one America instead of 50?
Since I live in Washington State, I'm rather glad that I am not subject to the neo-socialist laws of the Peoples Republic Of Massachusetts (Rent Control, high taxes and regulation, no concealed carry) or the neo-fascist laws of Texas (anyone can shoot a fleeing felon, "good ol' boy" regulation, etc.) We Americans can choose a state that aligns with our values, which is a Good Thing.
While researching this topic a few months ago, most phones did use both 5.8 and 2.4GHz. The exception was a Panasonic 5.8 phone, which was 5.8GHz only. It does not conflict with my wireless 802.11g network in the house.
... and some are fun to drive to boot! My Passat Wagon (really, an Audi A4 in drag) get 30mpg highway, can haul four adults, three dogs, and baggage, and has good handling. For real fun (albeit with lesser mileage), an Audi S6 wagon will light your fire.
Compare the cost and weight of the Passat Wagon ($28000, 4000 lbs gross) to a bloated, wallowing land pig like a Ford Exhumation (er, Excursion) ($40000, 9200 lbs) -- there's no comparison. Unless you have an irrational desire to have a lot of ground clearance that you'll probably never use.
Meesa finds your lack of faith disturbing.
This guy is right, the market sets the price for goods, and the execs at corporations have a fudiciary obligation to shareholders to maximize profits. ...
..
That's FIDuciary, not FUDiciay. Although there's lot of FUD around this topic
As the parent noted, if you want to save really big dollars, outsource the CEO.
I, for one, am tired of the EU meddling with US companies. Previous examples include:
Boeing/McDonnell Douglas -- EU forced changes to contracts with Delta, and American Airlines
Honeywell/GE -- merger blocked
Perhaps a little tit-for-tat is in order to show the EU bureaucrats the errors of their ways. First, the US could simply declare the merger of Air France and KLM illegal. Second, the US FTC could declare that the government subsidies of Airbus are illegal, and impose either contervailing duties on Airbus aircraft, or simply refuse to allow new Airbus aircraft to land in the US. We could watch the EU squeal like pigs when their 6 million Euro subsidy of the A380 goes straight down the toilet.
Memo to the EU: fuck with us, and we'll fuck with you. And you'll lose.