Apparently not, since there is a checklist for disabling it. The problem in the crashed flights is that it happened at a time when the pilots are fairly busy anyway and they didn't realize what was happening.
I'm not a pilot but I wonder if the better approach wouldn't have been to just recommend turning it off before they even take off.
According to Boeing, it's just meant to make the plane handle more like the non-MAX version of the 737.
Well, without being able to work, it might be a bit hard to make living arrangements. Especially if her current living arrangements were connected with the school that expelled her.
There is a limit on how long a Canadian can stay in the U.S. without some sort of papers. She was here much longer than that already because of her student status, but she lost that status. I'm not sure if that would legally mean she had to leave immediately, but according to TFA, that's what she was told.
Actually, what I said is that you confused 'free' and 'functional' twice in 3 lines (scroll up and see for yourself, it's objectively true) and that I will stick with Smith, whose ideas you apparently find too lefty for your tastes.
Also, I didn't say monopoly, I said unhealthy market. With fuzzy thinking like that, it's no wonder you're not making sense.
I will say though that when one entity owns practically all of the business save a couple websites, it is probably near enough to a monopoly situation. It's certainly and unhealthy market.
Even stranger since they claim the reason for not doing that before was concerns for draining the battery. Not really a problem for devices you plug in.
In this case, there's no guarantee you will actually be issued the stock, and if you sell it back, no guarantee that the dollar balance in your account can ever actually be withdrawn.
Meanwhile, they do their best to project a bank-like image.
Actually, b looks quite plausible. If I had no moral compass and I wanted to change my grades or someone hired me to change theirs, that's what I would do.
The Capitalist understands that the market must be well regulated in order to maximize efficiency, that is produce and provide abundance for the society for the smallest practical effort. Maximizing profits for a particular class is a perversion of the principle that a healthy market should correct. If you don't believe that, you do not support Capitalism. Claiming otherwise would be like me claiming to be a Socialist but we should privatize all industries and regulate nothing. It's like an unrepentant Satan worshiper expecting to be welcomed for communion at a Catholic mass.
It's almost amusing how many people who say various flavors of Socialist (including market socialists) are bad because they are not Capitalists while themselves not being Capitalists at all.
Perfection isn't necessary, but some vague indication that they more or less do what they're supposed to do would be a plus. The free market fanatics remind me of people swearing that their astrologer is dead accurate....except this bit.....and that bit......and this other bit......oh yeah, I guess that was a miss......well nobody's perfect....Hey now, that one would have been true until the grey aliens got involved...
Based on what you've said, Adam Smith was a leftist. He was quite clear in his advocacy of government regulation of the marketplace.He also warned that corporate charters should be given out sparingly and once given they should be on a short leash.
So to be clear, you are pro consumerist and thus anti-capitalist. The Capitalists have Smith's "The Wealth of Nations" as their cornerstone, that would you say is the cornerstone of your preferred economic system? In what way does it achieve results superior to Capitalism or market Socialism?
It probably makes more sense to consider high noon a specific measurable event that has only loose bearing on our modern reckoning of time. It might actually be less confusing if high noon is NEVER noon according to the clock rather than sometimes.
Exactly this! Many of the banking regulations were put into place in the wake of a disastrous series of bank failures during the depression. These include the FDIC and minimum reserve requirements. the depression era failures are where we get the stereotype of grandma or grandpa stuffing their money in the mattress.
Crypto currencies bypass those regulations, so it should be no surprise that some "bank like" institutions dealing in crypto currencies are no safer than the pre-regulation banks.
This SHOULD serve as a warning to the deregulate all the things crowd, but I doubt very much it will sink in.
That dynamic plus the whole in-network/out of network thing is part of the problem. Apparently a big enough problem that prices remain high. That is exactly the sort of thing where Smith suggested it is government's place to give the market a push in the right direction.
Slashdot Mirror
From this.
Apparently not, since there is a checklist for disabling it. The problem in the crashed flights is that it happened at a time when the pilots are fairly busy anyway and they didn't realize what was happening.
I'm not a pilot but I wonder if the better approach wouldn't have been to just recommend turning it off before they even take off.
According to Boeing, it's just meant to make the plane handle more like the non-MAX version of the 737.
Well, without being able to work, it might be a bit hard to make living arrangements. Especially if her current living arrangements were connected with the school that expelled her.
There is a limit on how long a Canadian can stay in the U.S. without some sort of papers. She was here much longer than that already because of her student status, but she lost that status. I'm not sure if that would legally mean she had to leave immediately, but according to TFA, that's what she was told.
Actually, what I said is that you confused 'free' and 'functional' twice in 3 lines (scroll up and see for yourself, it's objectively true) and that I will stick with Smith, whose ideas you apparently find too lefty for your tastes.
Also, I didn't say monopoly, I said unhealthy market. With fuzzy thinking like that, it's no wonder you're not making sense.
I will say though that when one entity owns practically all of the business save a couple websites, it is probably near enough to a monopoly situation. It's certainly and unhealthy market.
If it knocks down television and broadcast radio, deception will be WAAAAAAAY down.
Unfortunately, you need three to have real redundancy since otherwise the system can't decide which one is wrong.
Even stranger since they claim the reason for not doing that before was concerns for draining the battery. Not really a problem for devices you plug in.
In this case, there's no guarantee you will actually be issued the stock, and if you sell it back, no guarantee that the dollar balance in your account can ever actually be withdrawn.
Meanwhile, they do their best to project a bank-like image.
Says the guy who just confused free and functional twice in a 3 line reply. I'll stick with "lefty" Smith.
So you're saying it isn't evidence of guilt but it makes you believe she is guilty? Faith based justice?
Actually, b looks quite plausible. If I had no moral compass and I wanted to change my grades or someone hired me to change theirs, that's what I would do.
That seems likely to me as well. That would be my approach if I had no ethics.
It certainly does seem shady. I agree it reads more like a Ponzi scheme.
The Capitalist understands that the market must be well regulated in order to maximize efficiency, that is produce and provide abundance for the society for the smallest practical effort. Maximizing profits for a particular class is a perversion of the principle that a healthy market should correct. If you don't believe that, you do not support Capitalism. Claiming otherwise would be like me claiming to be a Socialist but we should privatize all industries and regulate nothing. It's like an unrepentant Satan worshiper expecting to be welcomed for communion at a Catholic mass.
It's almost amusing how many people who say various flavors of Socialist (including market socialists) are bad because they are not Capitalists while themselves not being Capitalists at all.
No matter how many people lean to the west, they will not cause a west wind to blow. They'll just fall over and feel silly.
Don't confuse an immediate local interaction with causality.
Perfection isn't necessary, but some vague indication that they more or less do what they're supposed to do would be a plus. The free market fanatics remind me of people swearing that their astrologer is dead accurate....except this bit.....and that bit......and this other bit......oh yeah, I guess that was a miss......well nobody's perfect....Hey now, that one would have been true until the grey aliens got involved...
Based on what you've said, Adam Smith was a leftist. He was quite clear in his advocacy of government regulation of the marketplace.He also warned that corporate charters should be given out sparingly and once given they should be on a short leash.
So to be clear, you are pro consumerist and thus anti-capitalist. The Capitalists have Smith's "The Wealth of Nations" as their cornerstone, that would you say is the cornerstone of your preferred economic system? In what way does it achieve results superior to Capitalism or market Socialism?
It probably makes more sense to consider high noon a specific measurable event that has only loose bearing on our modern reckoning of time. It might actually be less confusing if high noon is NEVER noon according to the clock rather than sometimes.
The I-20 sounds very visa like however the bureaucracy might process it. The best explanation is that TFA is referring to the I-20 as a visa.
Exactly this! Many of the banking regulations were put into place in the wake of a disastrous series of bank failures during the depression. These include the FDIC and minimum reserve requirements. the depression era failures are where we get the stereotype of grandma or grandpa stuffing their money in the mattress.
Crypto currencies bypass those regulations, so it should be no surprise that some "bank like" institutions dealing in crypto currencies are no safer than the pre-regulation banks.
This SHOULD serve as a warning to the deregulate all the things crowd, but I doubt very much it will sink in.
Have some links.
Even a stopped clock is right twice a day. I guess this is one of those times.
So what next, are you going to complain bitterly that nobody ever pestered George Washington about fracking?
And yet the situation hasn't changed. Almost as if that's not a sufficient amount of competition.
That dynamic plus the whole in-network/out of network thing is part of the problem. Apparently a big enough problem that prices remain high. That is exactly the sort of thing where Smith suggested it is government's place to give the market a push in the right direction.