First you argue that oversight will be subverted by cronyism. Then you claim that oversight is removed by cronyism.
In neither case is capitalism the problem. The problem is businesses seeking to subvert the concentration of power within government.
The worst part is your wilful ignorance that despite some major flaws, the US has been the biggest exporter of democratic governments and liberty that the world has ever seen.
And there never has been any major catastrophes in socialist countries (other than the socialism itself). Sure thing, bud. Just keep smokin' what your smokin' as we watch the Venezualans cooking their pets over trash fires.
Unless there is some tiny print on all those tickets that say, "We're not responsible for crashing planes" or "Liablitily limited to $1M(US), collectible at Boeing Headquarters."
It's beyond belief how Boeing could not only fail to learn from Airbus' mistakes,
This, more than anything else. The FAA reports the results of EVERY accident they investigate for this sole reason, so that we can all learn from those that have gone before us. How someone that claimed to be a professional engineer and be put in charge of a flight system that would affect the lives of hundreds of people at a time, could be so ignorant of standard best practices baffles me.
In the experimental aircraft community, we have a gentleman name Bob Nuckolls who run Aeroelectric.com. Publishes an excellent manual on aircraft wiring, and keeps an email list to answer builder's questions. Any engineer involved in flight systems that don't follow his tenants is an idiot. The first one is, "Any system required for safe completion of the flight should be as reliable as the wing spars." No electric sensor is that reliable.
Then how do you explain that every comparative study shows that conservatives contribute more to charities than leftists. Government redistribution is not "caring".
So, now we are outlawing specific kinds of speech? Danger is close.
No. It is already here wreaking havoc.
Where I'm all for avoiding things like yelling "fire in a theater" or "inflaming an actual riot"
I'd like to address this, as it is often used as an example of a restriction on freedom of speech. It is not.
"Freedom of speech" is not synonymous with "freedom from judgement of the consequences of your speech". "Fire in a theater" is ok. . . if the theater is nearly empty, or everyone ignores me. But, if there are people trampled in a mad rush for the door, then that happened as a consequence of my actions, just as sure as if I had stood at the front and started shooting at the crowd.
Once you remove "speech" from the equation, this whole debate gets simpler. Yelling "kill the Jews", becomes "instigating a riot". "Kill the crackers" becomes "inciting violence".
How would the videos of military bomb attacks be taken? There were a lot of those passed around during the Iraq war, filmed from the perspective of the bomber.
Norway also has a ridiculous level of taxes on vehicles. A level that makes them prohibitively expensive. So even if the batteries only worked half of the time, that is infinitely better than the none of the time that you would get from no car at all. I think your assessment of them "working great" requires a comparison that is not in evidence.
Were these engineers contracted out to Boeing to design their MCAS system for the 737max?
Seriously, the design pattern of a life critical system that makes decisions based on one set of or type of sensor is asinine. Boeing should have had the MCAS's AoA indicator cross checked with velocity, GPS, and engine data. Tesla should have the wiper controls visual sensor crosschecked with a humidifier, and the lane sensor crosschecked with a LIDAR. Isn't this just basic stuff here. I don't consider myself a genius, but this seems fairly obvious.
Ever flown a flight simulator? Recording a record time in a Red Bull race with an unfamiliar plane might be hard. All these trained pilots, who had flown MANY different planes to get to where they were in their careers, had to do was not hit the ground. I tell you with all confidence that *I* could do that with ease. . . AS LONG AS. . . the MCAS doesn't intervene.
There is/was/and will not be anything wrong with Boeing's physical design. They had a problem with their marketing design. Boeing wanted to market it as an airplane that didn't require new training for the pilots, so that added a dangerous augmentation system to the controls.
A design factor of any flight intervention system is that it be able to be overpowered by a human with his hands on the controls. I've flown badly trimmed planes more than once. It isn't that difficult to keep them from nosing into the ground.
The mindset and assumptions of engineers working on life-critical systems are what makes the engineers. That's why they are paid. The evidence supports the notions that Boeing engineers are NOT ok.
That added the MCAS to make it FEEL like flying the older 737. It would work just fine, but with a different feel. If you join a flying club, you'll have to get checked out in the Cherokee, even if you've been flying that Cessna for decades. The Cherokee will have a different feel when you abruptly apply power.
Boeing's reason for adding the MCAS was *stupider* than, because the airplane wouldn't work without it. It was because they didn't want to have to say that the pilots would need a little extra training.
Slashdot Mirror
Pull it out?
My instructor had me stick the checklist under my shoulder harness.
First you argue that oversight will be subverted by cronyism.
Then you claim that oversight is removed by cronyism.
In neither case is capitalism the problem. The problem is businesses seeking to subvert the concentration of power within government.
The worst part is your wilful ignorance that despite some major flaws, the US has been the biggest exporter of democratic governments and liberty that the world has ever seen.
And there never has been any major catastrophes in socialist countries (other than the socialism itself). Sure thing, bud. Just keep smokin' what your smokin' as we watch the Venezualans cooking their pets over trash fires.
Unless there is some tiny print on all those tickets that say, "We're not responsible for crashing planes" or "Liablitily limited to $1M(US), collectible at Boeing Headquarters."
Because they weren't "sealed". They found the stuff behind maintenance access panels when they went to perform maintenance.
OMG!! You found step three!
1: Infect plane with virus
2:Demand ransom
3: (plane crashes)
4: Profit!
Stupid /. editor.
OMG!! You found step three!
1: Infect plane with virus
2:Demand ransom
3:
4: Profit!
You mean like the one that requires me to carry a nearly useless ELT? Even though ADS-B has been mandated?
It's beyond belief how Boeing could not only fail to learn from Airbus' mistakes,
This, more than anything else. The FAA reports the results of EVERY accident they investigate for this sole reason, so that we can all learn from those that have gone before us. How someone that claimed to be a professional engineer and be put in charge of a flight system that would affect the lives of hundreds of people at a time, could be so ignorant of standard best practices baffles me.
In the experimental aircraft community, we have a gentleman name Bob Nuckolls who run Aeroelectric.com. Publishes an excellent manual on aircraft wiring, and keeps an email list to answer builder's questions. Any engineer involved in flight systems that don't follow his tenants is an idiot. The first one is, "Any system required for safe completion of the flight should be as reliable as the wing spars." No electric sensor is that reliable.
A cryptographical document, signed with the companies private key?
It's 2019. This part isn't exactly rocket science.
Then how do you explain that every comparative study shows that conservatives contribute more to charities than leftists. Government redistribution is not "caring".
So, now we are outlawing specific kinds of speech? Danger is close.
No. It is already here wreaking havoc.
Where I'm all for avoiding things like yelling "fire in a theater" or "inflaming an actual riot"
I'd like to address this, as it is often used as an example of a restriction on freedom of speech. It is not.
"Freedom of speech" is not synonymous with "freedom from judgement of the consequences of your speech". "Fire in a theater" is ok. . . if the theater is nearly empty, or everyone ignores me. But, if there are people trampled in a mad rush for the door, then that happened as a consequence of my actions, just as sure as if I had stood at the front and started shooting at the crowd.
Once you remove "speech" from the equation, this whole debate gets simpler. Yelling "kill the Jews", becomes "instigating a riot". "Kill the crackers" becomes "inciting violence".
You mean they took a page from the American playbook (the "Patriot Act")?
How would the videos of military bomb attacks be taken? There were a lot of those passed around during the Iraq war, filmed from the perspective of the bomber.
Do you have a good idea how resourceful "Backhoe Joe" is?
Your opinion has no value even if it does have your real identity attached.
The content of an that opinion, however. . .
Norway also has a ridiculous level of taxes on vehicles. A level that makes them prohibitively expensive. So even if the batteries only worked half of the time, that is infinitely better than the none of the time that you would get from no car at all. I think your assessment of them "working great" requires a comparison that is not in evidence.
They even said, if there had been cars there, the Tesla likely would have noticed them and not blithely crashed head on.
And if the AoA sensor was reading wrong, the pilot likely would have taken control and not let the plane crash. Those "likely" sure are dangerous.
Were these engineers contracted out to Boeing to design their MCAS system for the 737max?
Seriously, the design pattern of a life critical system that makes decisions based on one set of or type of sensor is asinine. Boeing should have had the MCAS's AoA indicator cross checked with velocity, GPS, and engine data. Tesla should have the wiper controls visual sensor crosschecked with a humidifier, and the lane sensor crosschecked with a LIDAR. Isn't this just basic stuff here. I don't consider myself a genius, but this seems fairly obvious.
Ever flown a flight simulator? Recording a record time in a Red Bull race with an unfamiliar plane might be hard. All these trained pilots, who had flown MANY different planes to get to where they were in their careers, had to do was not hit the ground. I tell you with all confidence that *I* could do that with ease. . . AS LONG AS. . . the MCAS doesn't intervene.
There is/was/and will not be anything wrong with Boeing's physical design. They had a problem with their marketing design. Boeing wanted to market it as an airplane that didn't require new training for the pilots, so that added a dangerous augmentation system to the controls.
A design factor of any flight intervention system is that it be able to be overpowered by a human with his hands on the controls. I've flown badly trimmed planes more than once. It isn't that difficult to keep them from nosing into the ground.
The mindset and assumptions of engineers working on life-critical systems are what makes the engineers. That's why they are paid. The evidence supports the notions that Boeing engineers are NOT ok.
Not "to make things work".
That added the MCAS to make it FEEL like flying the older 737. It would work just fine, but with a different feel. If you join a flying club, you'll have to get checked out in the Cherokee, even if you've been flying that Cessna for decades. The Cherokee will have a different feel when you abruptly apply power.
Boeing's reason for adding the MCAS was *stupider* than, because the airplane wouldn't work without it. It was because they didn't want to have to say that the pilots would need a little extra training.
If it's dry, you're doing it wrong.
Try writing the alphabet with your tongue. Which alphabet doesn't really matter.
If she agreed to either sex or a second date, she's a 5 in all categories. Otherwise, she was a cold, pretentious catfish that showed late.
Nothing could possibly go wrong with that.