Yes, the NHS has homeopathic hospitals, but as you can note from the link you provide, they are all historic entities, all founded well over a hundred years ago, and all are scheduled for closure. None of them are newly created entities, none of them are reactions to modern upticks in belief in pseudoscience.
Sure, doctors fuck up, but that's medical malpractice in whatever country you want to use as an example.
Not providing basic medicine for those who can't afford it because "socialism is bad" is just the government wantonly murdering its citizens for political points.
You know how much a months worth of insulin costs a patient in the UK? About $15. And that's if it's deemed they can afford to pay $15 - if they can't, it's free.
In the US, life saving medical attention can bankrupt you - in the UK, it's free. *Thats* proper welfare.
If they supplied their own tool, i.e. the digger, then yes they could get paid 50x more than what they were.
But the vast majority of them didn't supply their own tool - the employer did.
The employees job improved significantly, however, in that they no longer had to carry out back breaking manual labour, they could work in better comfort as most diggers have enclosed cabs, they can work longer hours due to less physical fatigue and they can do the same work at older ages.
My brother in law started his working life as a hod carrier at 16. He is completely screwed now physically as a result, and it's only automation that has allowed him to continue working in the building industry and earning a wage the only way he knows how.
But let's ignore all that, because "automation is bad".
Yeah, you are still misremembering - the original outrage was over Dropboxes use of the Accessibility APIs, which it needed for some of its functionality. When people bitched about that, and the level of access that gave apps, Apple hid them behind admin permissions, so Dropbox started requiring admin privileges to add itself to the Accessibility list.
You may not have noticed it, but if you denied Dropbox the Accessibility rights, things did actually break - I can't remember exactly what it was as it was so long ago, but the requirement was legitimate (as Apple didn't offer the functionality any other way, and nor did they offer the ability to grant apps a limited set of Accessibility rights - it was all or nothing, so Dropbox had to go for all).
The dialogs that Dropbox used in all cases during this were 100% proper OS level ones, they were never fake, and they were never Dropbox generated, nor were they app dialogs styled to look like OS ones.
The reason people cried "fake dialog" was because Apple was using an older set of Cocoa or Carbon APIs, which generated a dialog which looked different to the ones people were used to seeing, but it was still a legitimate OS level dialog for requesting permissions.
American didn't actually force Boeings hand, because when they split their order between Airbus and Boeing, they ordered the A320NEO and "whatever aircraft Boeing come up with as a 737NG replacement". It was pretty unprecedented.
At that time, Boeing still had the narrow body replacement under study - they could easily have continued with a clean sheet.
So no, it wasn't American that forced Boeings hand.
It was, however, the thousands of other orders Airbus were picking up from 737 customers...
You do realise that they didn't do what you suggested, right? The original claim was that the security dialog was fake, but it was quickly proven to be a proper OS supplied one - the issue was rather that OSX had something like 10 different styles for the same dialog, and people made the assumption that the one Dropbox used was faked.
As I said in my first reply to you, that doesn't hold water (even though its the go-to answer by Boeing fans) because Boeing aircraft have suffered the same pilot induced stall in the same way.
Apparently having the control column buried in your ribs isn't enough.
The real cause of AF447 is that the crew didn't believe the information that the aircraft was giving them - they didn't identify the exit from the initial sensor mismatch condition, and as a result did not carry out the proper procedure for it. This confusion continued on, and became more serious to the point where any attempt to correct the situation resulted in the crew becoming more and more confused - the pilot did not keep the sidestick all the way back for the entire descent, they attempted several times to push it forward but that resulted in stall warnings being triggered and the pilot reverting the stick to a position where they did not get the stall warning, making the assumption that the stall warning was part of the issue. Unfortunately, the stall warning was correct.
So yeah, it was a lot more complex than "they held the stick all the way back, and a Boeing aircraft would have been fine"...
The NTSB came to its own conclusions regarding its investigation (they blamed both, but primarily the airlines training), but AA wanted Airbus to pay all the compensation and costs of the crash, as well as publicly assuming responsibility, so as to preserve AAs reputation.
They could have made the MAX fully fly by wire, with envelope protection - the problem is, they would have lost the type rating it would share with the rest of the 737 family (and 767 and 777), meaning that pilots would have to be retrained to fly the MAX and they couldnt cross-fleet between the versions without that extra training.
But Boeing was chasing the grandfathering that makes variants such as the MAX so cheap to invest in, as it doesn't mean they have to do a full recertification, just a partial recertification, which takes less time and is cheaper.
The problem with your interpretation of the cause of AF447, and that you think Boeings control systems would have highlighted the inputs, is kind of tempered by the fact that Boeing aircraft have also suffered fatal stalls from pilots pulling the stick all the way back and keeping it there, which kind of indicates that that conclusion is wrong somewhat...
Because it would cost too much - the MAX series was Boeing *reacting* to Airbuses launch of the A320NEO family. Boeing had had a study ongoing for years about launching a clean sheet 737 replacement, and were going down that road for introducing in the mid 2020s, but then Airbus launched the NEO and airlines started their fleet renewal processes as a result.
Boeing was caught so off guard that, when a customer no one thought would ever buy Airbus again (due to bad blood after a crash - AA wanted Airbus to take all the blame, Airbus said nope, your pilots were to blame, AA didn't place another order with Airbus as a result) placed an order for the NEO and split it by also placing an order with Boeing, they ordered "130 Airbus A320NEO aircraft AND 130 Boeing aircraft (whatever Boeing comes up with as a 737 replacement)"...
Make no mistake, the MAX is a reaction - otherwise they would have lost a lot more of the market than they already did by the procrastination they did over the A320NEO launch.
Boeing considered raising the landing gear, but considered it too costly as it meant changes to the centre wing box and associated structure, so they bodged it with an engine higher on the wing and software to compensate for the negative handling characteristics. And then they didnt tell anyone who actually flew the aircraft...
There were many reasons the last Scottish referendum failed, including membership of the EU (Sturgeon and Salmond insisted they would gain independent membership due to continuation policy, the EU said no), a monetary union in the Pound with the UK including policy decisions, which the UK said no to, and a reliance on North Sea oil and gas revenues, which was to form the backbone of an independent Scottish budget, but dropped through the floor barely a year later.
The last campaign for Scottish independence was astoundingly similar to the Leave EU campaign - a lot of bullshit and hand waving that was never going to happen.
And none of this changes the fact that Sturgeon would definitely and readily accept a 51/49 split in favour of independence, dragging the 49% out of the UK, without a hint of the irony about the Brexit vote.
This does amuse me - Nicola Sturgeon is outraged that the UK as a whole is exiting the EU when Scotland voted to remain BUT she would have no problem taking a 51/49 split in favour of Scottish independence and dragging the 49% out of the UK.
It's almost as if she's a politician with the ability to ignore things she doesn't like!
Every time a story like this comes up and a comment like yours comes up as a result, it always leaves me wondering why the US can't solve the actual fucking problem, rather than dicking around the periphery
For example, in this case the problem is "stores don't allow people to use cash", and comments indicate it's a way to exclude those who can't use anything but cash - the poorer people in society, apparently.
Why is that? Why don't the poor in your country have access to banking? In the country that I come from, banks are legally obliged to provide free no-frills accounts with debit cards, no credit facility, electronic payments, direct debit payments and both online and counter access. Everyone, including the homeless, can have a bank account in my country.
So wouldn't that be a better solution? Fix the access to banking, as that seems to be the real problem here?
Entirely depends on your jurisdiction, and in many places the local police do not get the income from cameras, so those jurisdictions tend to use them as they should be used.
Not every country does it like the US, where traffic police are seen as a revenue source by their management.
There are plenty of places in the western world which provide the same service as you describe, a dedicated school run service, exclusive to school children, but without using dedicated, purpose built school busses, and they seem to work just fine...
Is that a clear enough response to your post?
For my entire school life, in three different locations, I was bussed to school and back home again on a normal coach contracted out from a coach company to do the school run. In the UK. And nothing has changed in the UK since then.
So why can the UK make it seemingly work just fine?
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, the NHS has homeopathic hospitals, but as you can note from the link you provide, they are all historic entities, all founded well over a hundred years ago, and all are scheduled for closure. None of them are newly created entities, none of them are reactions to modern upticks in belief in pseudoscience.
What makes food, air, water or housing basic necessities but not medicine? Sounds like you are making arbitrary distinctions there...
Sure, doctors fuck up, but that's medical malpractice in whatever country you want to use as an example.
Not providing basic medicine for those who can't afford it because "socialism is bad" is just the government wantonly murdering its citizens for political points.
You know how much a months worth of insulin costs a patient in the UK? About $15. And that's if it's deemed they can afford to pay $15 - if they can't, it's free.
In the US, life saving medical attention can bankrupt you - in the UK, it's free. *Thats* proper welfare.
The US has people dying because they can't afford basic necessities such as insulin - your welfare programs suck.
If they supplied their own tool, i.e. the digger, then yes they could get paid 50x more than what they were.
But the vast majority of them didn't supply their own tool - the employer did.
The employees job improved significantly, however, in that they no longer had to carry out back breaking manual labour, they could work in better comfort as most diggers have enclosed cabs, they can work longer hours due to less physical fatigue and they can do the same work at older ages.
My brother in law started his working life as a hod carrier at 16. He is completely screwed now physically as a result, and it's only automation that has allowed him to continue working in the building industry and earning a wage the only way he knows how.
But let's ignore all that, because "automation is bad".
Yeah, you are still misremembering - the original outrage was over Dropboxes use of the Accessibility APIs, which it needed for some of its functionality. When people bitched about that, and the level of access that gave apps, Apple hid them behind admin permissions, so Dropbox started requiring admin privileges to add itself to the Accessibility list.
You may not have noticed it, but if you denied Dropbox the Accessibility rights, things did actually break - I can't remember exactly what it was as it was so long ago, but the requirement was legitimate (as Apple didn't offer the functionality any other way, and nor did they offer the ability to grant apps a limited set of Accessibility rights - it was all or nothing, so Dropbox had to go for all).
The dialogs that Dropbox used in all cases during this were 100% proper OS level ones, they were never fake, and they were never Dropbox generated, nor were they app dialogs styled to look like OS ones.
The reason people cried "fake dialog" was because Apple was using an older set of Cocoa or Carbon APIs, which generated a dialog which looked different to the ones people were used to seeing, but it was still a legitimate OS level dialog for requesting permissions.
American didn't actually force Boeings hand, because when they split their order between Airbus and Boeing, they ordered the A320NEO and "whatever aircraft Boeing come up with as a 737NG replacement". It was pretty unprecedented.
At that time, Boeing still had the narrow body replacement under study - they could easily have continued with a clean sheet.
So no, it wasn't American that forced Boeings hand.
It was, however, the thousands of other orders Airbus were picking up from 737 customers...
Airbuses last two new aircraft programs didn't suffer worldwide fleet groundings, and they certainly didn't suffer multiple crashes...
AF447s root cause (pitot icing issues) was caused by a known issue that had already been notified to airlines with a recommendation.
You do realise that they didn't do what you suggested, right? The original claim was that the security dialog was fake, but it was quickly proven to be a proper OS supplied one - the issue was rather that OSX had something like 10 different styles for the same dialog, and people made the assumption that the one Dropbox used was faked.
I know exactly how it works, I'm type rated on the A320 and the 737...
Where are you getting 5-12Mbps as 4G?! I'm getting 45-70Mbps from my 4G hotspot!
As I said in my first reply to you, that doesn't hold water (even though its the go-to answer by Boeing fans) because Boeing aircraft have suffered the same pilot induced stall in the same way.
Apparently having the control column buried in your ribs isn't enough.
The real cause of AF447 is that the crew didn't believe the information that the aircraft was giving them - they didn't identify the exit from the initial sensor mismatch condition, and as a result did not carry out the proper procedure for it. This confusion continued on, and became more serious to the point where any attempt to correct the situation resulted in the crew becoming more and more confused - the pilot did not keep the sidestick all the way back for the entire descent, they attempted several times to push it forward but that resulted in stall warnings being triggered and the pilot reverting the stick to a position where they did not get the stall warning, making the assumption that the stall warning was part of the issue. Unfortunately, the stall warning was correct.
So yeah, it was a lot more complex than "they held the stick all the way back, and a Boeing aircraft would have been fine"...
The NTSB came to its own conclusions regarding its investigation (they blamed both, but primarily the airlines training), but AA wanted Airbus to pay all the compensation and costs of the crash, as well as publicly assuming responsibility, so as to preserve AAs reputation.
They could have made the MAX fully fly by wire, with envelope protection - the problem is, they would have lost the type rating it would share with the rest of the 737 family (and 767 and 777), meaning that pilots would have to be retrained to fly the MAX and they couldnt cross-fleet between the versions without that extra training.
But Boeing was chasing the grandfathering that makes variants such as the MAX so cheap to invest in, as it doesn't mean they have to do a full recertification, just a partial recertification, which takes less time and is cheaper.
The problem with your interpretation of the cause of AF447, and that you think Boeings control systems would have highlighted the inputs, is kind of tempered by the fact that Boeing aircraft have also suffered fatal stalls from pilots pulling the stick all the way back and keeping it there, which kind of indicates that that conclusion is wrong somewhat...
Because it would cost too much - the MAX series was Boeing *reacting* to Airbuses launch of the A320NEO family. Boeing had had a study ongoing for years about launching a clean sheet 737 replacement, and were going down that road for introducing in the mid 2020s, but then Airbus launched the NEO and airlines started their fleet renewal processes as a result.
Boeing was caught so off guard that, when a customer no one thought would ever buy Airbus again (due to bad blood after a crash - AA wanted Airbus to take all the blame, Airbus said nope, your pilots were to blame, AA didn't place another order with Airbus as a result) placed an order for the NEO and split it by also placing an order with Boeing, they ordered "130 Airbus A320NEO aircraft AND 130 Boeing aircraft (whatever Boeing comes up with as a 737 replacement)"...
Make no mistake, the MAX is a reaction - otherwise they would have lost a lot more of the market than they already did by the procrastination they did over the A320NEO launch.
Boeing considered raising the landing gear, but considered it too costly as it meant changes to the centre wing box and associated structure, so they bodged it with an engine higher on the wing and software to compensate for the negative handling characteristics. And then they didnt tell anyone who actually flew the aircraft...
There were many reasons the last Scottish referendum failed, including membership of the EU (Sturgeon and Salmond insisted they would gain independent membership due to continuation policy, the EU said no), a monetary union in the Pound with the UK including policy decisions, which the UK said no to, and a reliance on North Sea oil and gas revenues, which was to form the backbone of an independent Scottish budget, but dropped through the floor barely a year later.
The last campaign for Scottish independence was astoundingly similar to the Leave EU campaign - a lot of bullshit and hand waving that was never going to happen.
And none of this changes the fact that Sturgeon would definitely and readily accept a 51/49 split in favour of independence, dragging the 49% out of the UK, without a hint of the irony about the Brexit vote.
This does amuse me - Nicola Sturgeon is outraged that the UK as a whole is exiting the EU when Scotland voted to remain BUT she would have no problem taking a 51/49 split in favour of Scottish independence and dragging the 49% out of the UK.
It's almost as if she's a politician with the ability to ignore things she doesn't like!
Yup, because banks *never* charge businesses for their services...
Every time a story like this comes up and a comment like yours comes up as a result, it always leaves me wondering why the US can't solve the actual fucking problem, rather than dicking around the periphery
For example, in this case the problem is "stores don't allow people to use cash", and comments indicate it's a way to exclude those who can't use anything but cash - the poorer people in society, apparently.
Why is that? Why don't the poor in your country have access to banking? In the country that I come from, banks are legally obliged to provide free no-frills accounts with debit cards, no credit facility, electronic payments, direct debit payments and both online and counter access. Everyone, including the homeless, can have a bank account in my country.
So wouldn't that be a better solution? Fix the access to banking, as that seems to be the real problem here?
Entirely depends on your jurisdiction, and in many places the local police do not get the income from cameras, so those jurisdictions tend to use them as they should be used.
Not every country does it like the US, where traffic police are seen as a revenue source by their management.
The US wouldnt exist if it werent for the support of the French during your war of independence.
I think France has done more than enough for the US, you ungrateful prick.
We don't really have class action suites in the UK, but there might be enforcement action by our consumer rights organisations.
Ok, let me rephrase my comment then...
There are plenty of places in the western world which provide the same service as you describe, a dedicated school run service, exclusive to school children, but without using dedicated, purpose built school busses, and they seem to work just fine...
Is that a clear enough response to your post?
For my entire school life, in three different locations, I was bussed to school and back home again on a normal coach contracted out from a coach company to do the school run. In the UK. And nothing has changed in the UK since then.
So why can the UK make it seemingly work just fine?