Boeing did use off-the-shelf fasteners for the 787s roll out - they didnt plan ahead properly with their supplier of aviation grade fasteners and came up short, so decided to use commercial non-aviation grade fasteners just so they could roll something out for the 7/8/07 unveiling. Of course, the airplane didnt fly for another three years and was eventually written off as unsaleable due to the amount of rework it had undergone...
Who said anything about there being an expectation of alcohol in the urine? As you note, alcohol is metabolised into certain chemicals, and its those chemicals in the waste water which is the issue. You will find that there are loads of other things astronauts on the ISS cant eat for precisely the same reasons, this article was just about alcohol because its something most people can relate to.
Isn't this sort of thing just kowtowing to Trumps use of "failing" every time he mentions the New York Times in tweets or press conferences? We all know why he does that - spread enough misinformation about a companies situation and eventually enough people get spooked to make it true. The numbers don't show a failing company, they merely show a transitional one.
There was no water reclamation on the Apollo flights though - urine was dumped overboard and airborne moisture was simply captured. Thus Aldrins communion wine wouldnt have had any negative effects.
You call my reply "banal" and then add fuck all to the discussion. Did you just want to feel important by putting someone down or are you just an every day idiot?
The probes these days do orders of magnitude more science per mission than the Voyagers ever did. And they do it at a much finer grained quality as well.
As well as sacking an acting-AG that wouldnt support him without question.
As well as taking a combative stance toward the judicial system that threw out his EO.
As well as positioning himself in opposition to all the mainstream media, and siding with a horrific shit of a news outlet.
As well as dumping 90% of the experience of the National Security Council, and putting the former chairman of that shit of a news outlet onto the Principle Committee of the NSC.
As well as pissing off major foreign leaders.
As well as inviting un-vetted guests, including foreign nationals, to stand over him while he reads top secret intelligence on North Korea and south east asia.
Those are just some of the other things he has done in his first not-even-a-month in office.
And lets not talk about his child-like attitude on Twitter...
A good opportunity to replace the sewer as well. Its not like this isn't done all the time - in my city they just replaced the south bound mainline railway bridge overnight with no disruption with a complete new bridge (and not a second bridge build alongside the first). Why? Because of the bridge strikes that had weakened the old one.
These sorts of things are done all the time - railway bridges over motorways, replaced in one night due to the disruption a longer replacement would take.
Yes, because US companies were so on the ball and utterly ethical in that area before the EPA came into being in the 1970s... or rather, who the fuck knows what happened to the hundreds of thousands of tonnes of PCBs manufacturered in the US between the 1930s and 1970s.
It doesnt take much to list hundreds of sites where US companies took a "typically Chinese approach" to much worse chemicals than PCBs.
You can say that again - in 2013, roughly a third of all Indian MPs (158 of 543) were under investigation for serious criminal charges, a third of all lawmakers (1,448 of 4,835) were also under investigation on serious criminal charges. Nearly half of those MPs were under investigation were being investigated for crimes such as murder and abduction.
Its one of the most corrupt governmental systems that also calls itself a democracy...
Lets not forget that a caste system is still extremely prevalent in India, so some people have utterly no hope of being elected or being represented in government.
Why focus on China - Chinese PCB total production compares as just 2% of US production, and 4% of European production and less than 1% of total PCB production overall, with many unlicensed factories producing in eastern Europe after WW2. As mass production generally started in the 1930s in the US and Europe, where did all that early stuff go...?
Yes, because being forced into union membership is a human right you simply *must* have foisted on you, and absolutely everything Thatcher did was wrong...
Its *not* the equivalent of a supplier offering a company a better deal, its the equivalent of a brand new supplier *requiring* the company to switch WHETHER IT WANTS TO OR NOT. And and the same time, requiring the company to alter the old suppliers contracts so the old supplier now has to supply through the new supplier.
You have to be one dumb shit to not understand that. Or a union leader. Same thing really.
And please do continue with the "projecting" crap, its quite entertaining.
Of course its interfering - if the union didnt force the change to the contract, the company wouldn't change the contract. Thats the very definition of interference. The union requires the company to do something that neither the company nor the employee would have done voluntarily. Interference.
And the employee may continue to work unhindered for another 10 years under their existing contract - don't act like the company was about to fire the worker at any moment and the union is swooping in like a super hero to save the workers position at the very last moment.
Considering that you have to rely on lying by omission to defend your position, its clear you are projecting.
"Lying by omission" - oh yay, we have another alt-fact twat trying to change the topic of the discussion...
Thats the unions problem - if they aren't getting people to voluntarily sign up, then theres something wrong with their offering, surely...?
Unions seem to have survived here in the UK and Europe, where practices such as enforced union membership is illegal and unions only act for and on behalf of voluntary members, so that makes your argument somewhat moot really doesn't it?
You are simply demonstrating that you cant discuss anything rationally.
The employee in this case has already agreed a contract with their employer, one which doesn't involve the union. You seem to be blatantly ignoring that fact.
The union is *forcing* the employer to alter that contract, to the benefit of the union, without the employees agreement. You also seem to be blatantly ignoring that fact.
The union is interfering in the contracts between two other parties. Another thing you seem to be blatantly ignoring.
That interference should be illegal.
And you also seem to think that the only fair contract is one a union comes up with - an employee could never negotiate for themselves a decent contract...
It should be illegal for unions to require memberships and dues - its interference in a contract you have with your employer.
Bear in mind here that Im talking about shops unionising, not a worker joining a unionised shop - the two have different arguments to be made. An employee could be working somewhere for 10 years and is forced out because the union has required 100% membership - I don't get why that is legal and ethical in the US?!
Oh, and lets not forget here that we aren't talking about the employer shopping around for labour contracts - its a given group of their workers saying "we now want to be represented by this union leadership", which is fine, they are individually handing their contracts over to the union to manage. Its then the union saying "ok, we require you to fire anyone who doesn't pay us dues" that is the disgusting part.
In any sane, ethical setup, an employee should be able to say "you don't represent me, I want nothing to do with you" and still be safe in their job. Which they can't do because of union bullying.
So no, its not equal to when a company purchases components or raw materials - the union is bullying their way in on all the employees, whether they like it or not.
And lets not pretend that its the company offering terms, the company has no choice in this at all - the union, the NLRA and the Taft-Hartly Act force the employer to accept the union terms. The company can't reject the union - thats also illegal, the union has protections in most states against anti-union activities by the company.
The NLRA isn't irrelevant at all - its the thing which over rules prior court rulings to specifically allow the union to force the company to do something. Without it, union shops and union security agreements (woah, sounds like protection money...) would be illegal because they interfere with individual employee rights. The NLRA and the Taft-Hartly Act basically allows the union to interfere in the contracts of people who want nothing to do with the union.
So yeah, the union shop or union security agreement setup in the US is fucking disgusting and should be illegal.
The government already meddles to allow this - its called the National Labor Relations Act, and the Taft-Hartly act to basically overturn previous court rulings that closed union shops were illegal. They no longer call them "closed shops", but rather "union security agreements" but they are basically the same thing - the union gets dues from *all* workers, even those who do not want to join.
If a union vote doesnt pass with 100% of the workforces approval, why should it be the exclusive supplier? Because, the union will argue, its influence is diminished if it isn't - and so the rights of individual workers are trampled on because they are forced to pay dues to an entity they want nothing to do with.
It is not right, and its a setup you will find illegal in most of the rest of the world, where individual employee rights are respected. The UK made closed shops illegal in 1990.
An employee should be legally free to engage in his or her job without outside interference from a third party, even if that third party has contracts with other people in the workplace.
Why should someone have to switch jobs to avoid the union? Why shouldnt they have the fucking *right* not to have to join the union at a workplace?! How is that not the union interfering in someones private life?!
The problem here, and one most non-US readers wont get so I will spell it out and repeat some of what you say, is that in the US most unionisation through majority vote means *total* workforce unionisation, whether individuals want it or not.
Even if you, as a worker, disagree with the union, in most states you are *required* to at least pay dues to the union if you want to continue to work at that employer, even if you never engage with the union in any way. Thats not something that has been foisted on the unions, thats something the unions have wanted - mandated whole workforce dues payments increase their funding.
So yes, unionisation is a right, but its a right which is forced on a lot of people who don't want it and whose only recourse is to quit and find a different job.
So I agree with you that unions should only have to represent members in good standing who pay their union dues, its the laws requiring or allowing 100% union shops against individual employees wishes that need to be gotten rid of.
Slashdot Mirror
Boeing did use off-the-shelf fasteners for the 787s roll out - they didnt plan ahead properly with their supplier of aviation grade fasteners and came up short, so decided to use commercial non-aviation grade fasteners just so they could roll something out for the 7/8/07 unveiling. Of course, the airplane didnt fly for another three years and was eventually written off as unsaleable due to the amount of rework it had undergone...
Boeing 787 was around a decade from initial "what can we do" to entry into service - the Airbus A350XWB was a little more at 11 years.
Neither manufacturer has a clean sheet design in the pipeline right now, so we probably wont see a new widebody until at least the 2030s.
BAE has no relationship with Airbus right now, they sold their shares to EADS a decade ago...
Who said anything about there being an expectation of alcohol in the urine? As you note, alcohol is metabolised into certain chemicals, and its those chemicals in the waste water which is the issue. You will find that there are loads of other things astronauts on the ISS cant eat for precisely the same reasons, this article was just about alcohol because its something most people can relate to.
Isn't this sort of thing just kowtowing to Trumps use of "failing" every time he mentions the New York Times in tweets or press conferences? We all know why he does that - spread enough misinformation about a companies situation and eventually enough people get spooked to make it true. The numbers don't show a failing company, they merely show a transitional one.
There was no water reclamation on the Apollo flights though - urine was dumped overboard and airborne moisture was simply captured. Thus Aldrins communion wine wouldnt have had any negative effects.
You call my reply "banal" and then add fuck all to the discussion. Did you just want to feel important by putting someone down or are you just an every day idiot?
The probes these days do orders of magnitude more science per mission than the Voyagers ever did. And they do it at a much finer grained quality as well.
Some people just don't like the truth...
Only if mass transit is worth using....
Yup, thats all hes done.
As well as sacking an acting-AG that wouldnt support him without question.
As well as taking a combative stance toward the judicial system that threw out his EO.
As well as positioning himself in opposition to all the mainstream media, and siding with a horrific shit of a news outlet.
As well as dumping 90% of the experience of the National Security Council, and putting the former chairman of that shit of a news outlet onto the Principle Committee of the NSC.
As well as pissing off major foreign leaders.
As well as inviting un-vetted guests, including foreign nationals, to stand over him while he reads top secret intelligence on North Korea and south east asia.
Those are just some of the other things he has done in his first not-even-a-month in office.
And lets not talk about his child-like attitude on Twitter...
A good opportunity to replace the sewer as well. Its not like this isn't done all the time - in my city they just replaced the south bound mainline railway bridge overnight with no disruption with a complete new bridge (and not a second bridge build alongside the first). Why? Because of the bridge strikes that had weakened the old one.
These sorts of things are done all the time - railway bridges over motorways, replaced in one night due to the disruption a longer replacement would take.
Yes, because US companies were so on the ball and utterly ethical in that area before the EPA came into being in the 1970s... or rather, who the fuck knows what happened to the hundreds of thousands of tonnes of PCBs manufacturered in the US between the 1930s and 1970s.
It doesnt take much to list hundreds of sites where US companies took a "typically Chinese approach" to much worse chemicals than PCBs.
You can say that again - in 2013, roughly a third of all Indian MPs (158 of 543) were under investigation for serious criminal charges, a third of all lawmakers (1,448 of 4,835) were also under investigation on serious criminal charges. Nearly half of those MPs were under investigation were being investigated for crimes such as murder and abduction.
Its one of the most corrupt governmental systems that also calls itself a democracy...
Lets not forget that a caste system is still extremely prevalent in India, so some people have utterly no hope of being elected or being represented in government.
Why focus on China - Chinese PCB total production compares as just 2% of US production, and 4% of European production and less than 1% of total PCB production overall, with many unlicensed factories producing in eastern Europe after WW2. As mass production generally started in the 1930s in the US and Europe, where did all that early stuff go...?
Yes, because being forced into union membership is a human right you simply *must* have foisted on you, and absolutely everything Thatcher did was wrong...
Its *not* the equivalent of a supplier offering a company a better deal, its the equivalent of a brand new supplier *requiring* the company to switch WHETHER IT WANTS TO OR NOT. And and the same time, requiring the company to alter the old suppliers contracts so the old supplier now has to supply through the new supplier.
You have to be one dumb shit to not understand that. Or a union leader. Same thing really.
And please do continue with the "projecting" crap, its quite entertaining.
Of course its interfering - if the union didnt force the change to the contract, the company wouldn't change the contract. Thats the very definition of interference. The union requires the company to do something that neither the company nor the employee would have done voluntarily. Interference.
And the employee may continue to work unhindered for another 10 years under their existing contract - don't act like the company was about to fire the worker at any moment and the union is swooping in like a super hero to save the workers position at the very last moment.
"Lying by omission" - oh yay, we have another alt-fact twat trying to change the topic of the discussion...
Thats the unions problem - if they aren't getting people to voluntarily sign up, then theres something wrong with their offering, surely...?
Unions seem to have survived here in the UK and Europe, where practices such as enforced union membership is illegal and unions only act for and on behalf of voluntary members, so that makes your argument somewhat moot really doesn't it?
You are simply demonstrating that you cant discuss anything rationally.
The employee in this case has already agreed a contract with their employer, one which doesn't involve the union. You seem to be blatantly ignoring that fact.
The union is *forcing* the employer to alter that contract, to the benefit of the union, without the employees agreement. You also seem to be blatantly ignoring that fact.
The union is interfering in the contracts between two other parties. Another thing you seem to be blatantly ignoring.
That interference should be illegal.
And you also seem to think that the only fair contract is one a union comes up with - an employee could never negotiate for themselves a decent contract...
It should be illegal for unions to require memberships and dues - its interference in a contract you have with your employer.
Bear in mind here that Im talking about shops unionising, not a worker joining a unionised shop - the two have different arguments to be made. An employee could be working somewhere for 10 years and is forced out because the union has required 100% membership - I don't get why that is legal and ethical in the US?!
Oh, and lets not forget here that we aren't talking about the employer shopping around for labour contracts - its a given group of their workers saying "we now want to be represented by this union leadership", which is fine, they are individually handing their contracts over to the union to manage. Its then the union saying "ok, we require you to fire anyone who doesn't pay us dues" that is the disgusting part.
In any sane, ethical setup, an employee should be able to say "you don't represent me, I want nothing to do with you" and still be safe in their job. Which they can't do because of union bullying.
So no, its not equal to when a company purchases components or raw materials - the union is bullying their way in on all the employees, whether they like it or not.
And lets not pretend that its the company offering terms, the company has no choice in this at all - the union, the NLRA and the Taft-Hartly Act force the employer to accept the union terms. The company can't reject the union - thats also illegal, the union has protections in most states against anti-union activities by the company.
The NLRA isn't irrelevant at all - its the thing which over rules prior court rulings to specifically allow the union to force the company to do something. Without it, union shops and union security agreements (woah, sounds like protection money...) would be illegal because they interfere with individual employee rights. The NLRA and the Taft-Hartly Act basically allows the union to interfere in the contracts of people who want nothing to do with the union.
So yeah, the union shop or union security agreement setup in the US is fucking disgusting and should be illegal.
The government already meddles to allow this - its called the National Labor Relations Act, and the Taft-Hartly act to basically overturn previous court rulings that closed union shops were illegal. They no longer call them "closed shops", but rather "union security agreements" but they are basically the same thing - the union gets dues from *all* workers, even those who do not want to join.
If a union vote doesnt pass with 100% of the workforces approval, why should it be the exclusive supplier? Because, the union will argue, its influence is diminished if it isn't - and so the rights of individual workers are trampled on because they are forced to pay dues to an entity they want nothing to do with.
It is not right, and its a setup you will find illegal in most of the rest of the world, where individual employee rights are respected. The UK made closed shops illegal in 1990.
An employee should be legally free to engage in his or her job without outside interference from a third party, even if that third party has contracts with other people in the workplace.
Why should someone have to switch jobs to avoid the union? Why shouldnt they have the fucking *right* not to have to join the union at a workplace?! How is that not the union interfering in someones private life?!
The problem here, and one most non-US readers wont get so I will spell it out and repeat some of what you say, is that in the US most unionisation through majority vote means *total* workforce unionisation, whether individuals want it or not.
Even if you, as a worker, disagree with the union, in most states you are *required* to at least pay dues to the union if you want to continue to work at that employer, even if you never engage with the union in any way. Thats not something that has been foisted on the unions, thats something the unions have wanted - mandated whole workforce dues payments increase their funding.
So yes, unionisation is a right, but its a right which is forced on a lot of people who don't want it and whose only recourse is to quit and find a different job.
So I agree with you that unions should only have to represent members in good standing who pay their union dues, its the laws requiring or allowing 100% union shops against individual employees wishes that need to be gotten rid of.
If you want a good document store, then Postgresql and Marten is amazing...