Every site has *something* to lose - if it's not user credentials or personally identifiable information, then it's reputation or simply the ability for a third party to inject ads or crypto mining scripts into the page.
We have all seen the fall out of ISPs injecting ads into pages - Comcast and others have done it - so if you want to be *certain* your page reaches your audience as you intend them to receive it, http is no longer good enough (and hasn't been for years).
I opened my account mid-2001, I can date it via the job I had when I opened it (I was introduced to Slashdot by a colleague) so I know I haven't got it wrong.
That's assuming they are dumped into the sea in the first place - we never actually see the landing... they could have their third barge in use without us knowing it...
The photo of a booster on it's side above may be an inflatable made as a decoy.
I'm actually convinced (not seriously) that Musk is recovering these "soft water landing" disposable boosters so he can have a private, secret stash of rockets somewhere, almost certainly called "Moonraker 1" and "Moonraker 2"...
Yeah, that page is wrong (or rather, you are misinterpreting it) - but it was right (or rather, your interpretation of it) up to a few years ago.
Today, the only abortion referral across the NHS is to a Marie Stopes clinic - they got the NHS contract a few years ago, the NHS doesn't carry out "normal" abortions any more (only more complex cases where there are complications or other factors, and then they are not treated as abortions but treatments).
My wife is a GP locum (worked across the UK until middle of last year, when we left the UK), she hasn't done a referral to an NHS abortion clinic in several years, they all go to Marie Stopes regardless of where she is working in the UK.
To be fair, during the 60s, 70s and 80s, many northern "powerhouses" were instrumental in attempts by unions to dictate terms to successive governments - which is why the 1980s coal miners strike was so decisive, in that the unions involved were utterly destroyed while attempting to repeat a crippling strike they had carried out a decade prior.
It really isn't all about how London fucked over the North, the North were doing a good deal of the fucking themselves - they simply lost in the end.
I get the joke (and it's one I'm going to steal, thanks!), but in case anyone thinks you are serious...
Abortions aren't done by the NHS, the doctor simply refers you to Marie Stopes and pays the bill - your abortion is booked on a time table set by Marie Stopes local clinics.
That doesn't answer anything at all - if Norway was going to foot the bill for this decree, they would have said so at the same time, but they haven't.
Norway has no domestic airliner production industry they can indirectly subsidise either, so they have to rely on external companies delivering on their decree.
The "invention" that will arise here is not of an aircraft designed to fulfil these requirements, but rather that there will be no sectors flown direct from Norway under 1.5 hours - airlines will simply fly you to a hub further away and then you fly on to your destination.
Yes, JFK did that - but he didn't say "do it with economics that work for both airline and aircraft manufacturer", he and his successors basically just threw money at it until it happened, and then it was cancelled.
When you can't simply throw money at a problem, the problem becomes a lot harder to solve.
Will airlines be willing to bear the cost of a $40billion development? Would they buy aircraft priced at $150million each when they paid $30million before?
Is Norway going to subsidise development and operational cost increases?
The problem with switching an aircraft over to electric power involves a metric which isn't really that much of an issue with cars or boats - weight.
Batteries weigh the same at the start of the flight as they do at the end of the flight - so the aircraft has to carry more weight further.
It also has to land with that extra weight, each and every time.
So the airframe needs to be stronger, which inevitably means more weight.
In airline terms, weight is everything. Boeing and Airbus get to pat themselves on the back when they remove a single metric tonne of weight from an aircraft such as the 787 or A350, so when you take an aircraft such as an ATR-72 and tell it to fly around and land with an extra 1.5 tonnes of weight for it's entire lifespan, it's going to be an issue.
22 years to move to an all electric platform in a 1.5 hour sector goal is a huge ask, imho.
A subsequent tanker contract might have been legitimately won by Boeing, but the original contract which started the whole thing most definitely was won through an intention to subsidise and corruption, as was the next contract - the final contract was well down the road of those two.
Winning the last contract legitimately doesn't wipe the slate clean of those won unlawfully.
And who really cares how Airbus was created - Id rather live in a world where Airbus exists than one where Boeing is the monopolistic company.
Airbus has sold a comparable number of A320 family aircraft as Boeing has the 737, and they did it while Boeing enjoyed a 20 year head start. How's that not a successful product?
Airbus has sold 854 A350XWB aircraft, how is that not a successful product?
Airbus isn't going anywhere, and they are due to overtake Boeing in deliveries in 2019 - their market share is increasing rather than decreasing.
Emirates makes you fly to Dubai *because* so few countries allow fifth freedom rights - the right to fly O&D passengers between two countries of which neither is the country of the airline.
Therefore, apart from a few routes, Emirates *has* to fly you via the UAE, or they don't have a viable airline at all.
Emirates fleet and network is the product of other countries protectionism, rather than a grand desire to make people visit Dubai.
You seem to forget the military contracts the US throws Boeings way when it needs propping up - such as the tanker leasing deal Boeing got back in 2001, before it was revealed as a shitstorm of corruption (the USAF would have ende up paying more than four times what the tankers were worth, and then it was revealed that Boeing had paid off a governmental contracts negotiator to hand over Airbuses offer details on the rematch - people went to prison for that)...
Add to the fact that Boeing received subsidies from EU governments when they placed 787 assembly contracts with Spanish and Italian companies.
There's enough mud here to throw at both Airbus and Boeing, but some people try their hardest to make it seem like Airbus is alone out there - at least EU governments show a return on each airframe delivered.
The Japanese government paid for the design and development of the 787s wings - funny how no one remembers that.
Boeing also got massive tax relief from Washington State, but again, that's often never remembered.
Airbus receives its subsidies via repayable launch aid - it's still paying millions per airframe with each A320 family delivery, when the original forecast for that was 500 deliveries, and yet here we are where the 737 and A320 are about even on orders to date... EU government shave made massive profits on Airbus. Can't really same the same for Japan and Washington State for Boeing...
Airbus has already absorbed the A380 production cost, its not been on their books for years - they don't operate the same accounting as Boeing (where Boeing get to use "deferred production costs" to move current debt to later airframes), so there is no development costs to write off.
Airbus could write off the A380 tomorrow and the only financial cost they would incur is the physical cost to close the line.
Yeah, thats going to end soon as well - Boeing only has a total of 12 in its backlog and delivered more than 12 747s in 2017, so without new orders its doubtful the line will see 2020.
The 777 has been "certified for trans-ocean flights" from day one - its the only aircraft to achieve ETOPS 207, which gave it the ability to cross the Pacific, and that was well before the A380 came on the scenes.
The A380 comes into its own when you look at slot restricted airports - O&D (origin and destination) traffic from many of the worlds hubs has simply continued to grow, even in the "age of point to point", so people obviously want to travel to hubs for reasons other than going elsewhere afterward. The problem comes when these airports become so congested that they can't just accept another aircraft landing or take off - so you have to increase the size of the aircraft rather than add a second flight.
So yeah, it makes sense for some airlines to buy A380s, but those airlines it makes sense to do so have already bought it.
I don't get why people hate on the A380 for it's looks and then hold up the 747 as the counter example - to me, the 747 has always looked like it needed a nose job doing, it's simply got a massive disproportional snoz and I can't understand what people see in it.
Now, a plane like the Caravelle or the Comet - those were things of beauty. The Bombardier CSeries has nice proportions, as do the 787 and A350.
Slashdot Mirror
Every site has *something* to lose - if it's not user credentials or personally identifiable information, then it's reputation or simply the ability for a third party to inject ads or crypto mining scripts into the page.
We have all seen the fall out of ISPs injecting ads into pages - Comcast and others have done it - so if you want to be *certain* your page reaches your audience as you intend them to receive it, http is no longer good enough (and hasn't been for years).
To Ice 9, and then we are all fucked.
Do you have any evidence that airlines are trying to shut down general aviation, because it's something I have never, ever heard of.
Show me a Bitcoin exchange that offers credit.
Don't hurry, I can wait.
I opened my account mid-2001, I can date it via the job I had when I opened it (I was introduced to Slashdot by a colleague) so I know I haven't got it wrong.
That's assuming they are dumped into the sea in the first place - we never actually see the landing... they could have their third barge in use without us knowing it...
The photo of a booster on it's side above may be an inflatable made as a decoy.
Musk is Illuminati!!!!!!!!
I'm actually convinced (not seriously) that Musk is recovering these "soft water landing" disposable boosters so he can have a private, secret stash of rockets somewhere, almost certainly called "Moonraker 1" and "Moonraker 2"...
Yeah, that page is wrong (or rather, you are misinterpreting it) - but it was right (or rather, your interpretation of it) up to a few years ago.
Today, the only abortion referral across the NHS is to a Marie Stopes clinic - they got the NHS contract a few years ago, the NHS doesn't carry out "normal" abortions any more (only more complex cases where there are complications or other factors, and then they are not treated as abortions but treatments).
My wife is a GP locum (worked across the UK until middle of last year, when we left the UK), she hasn't done a referral to an NHS abortion clinic in several years, they all go to Marie Stopes regardless of where she is working in the UK.
To be fair, during the 60s, 70s and 80s, many northern "powerhouses" were instrumental in attempts by unions to dictate terms to successive governments - which is why the 1980s coal miners strike was so decisive, in that the unions involved were utterly destroyed while attempting to repeat a crippling strike they had carried out a decade prior.
It really isn't all about how London fucked over the North, the North were doing a good deal of the fucking themselves - they simply lost in the end.
I get the joke (and it's one I'm going to steal, thanks!), but in case anyone thinks you are serious...
Abortions aren't done by the NHS, the doctor simply refers you to Marie Stopes and pays the bill - your abortion is booked on a time table set by Marie Stopes local clinics.
Mind posting the name of your dealer, because they have some fiiiiiiiiiiine shit by the sounds of it...
That doesn't answer anything at all - if Norway was going to foot the bill for this decree, they would have said so at the same time, but they haven't.
Norway has no domestic airliner production industry they can indirectly subsidise either, so they have to rely on external companies delivering on their decree.
Which isn't going to happen.
The "invention" that will arise here is not of an aircraft designed to fulfil these requirements, but rather that there will be no sectors flown direct from Norway under 1.5 hours - airlines will simply fly you to a hub further away and then you fly on to your destination.
Yes, JFK did that - but he didn't say "do it with economics that work for both airline and aircraft manufacturer", he and his successors basically just threw money at it until it happened, and then it was cancelled.
When you can't simply throw money at a problem, the problem becomes a lot harder to solve.
Will airlines be willing to bear the cost of a $40billion development? Would they buy aircraft priced at $150million each when they paid $30million before?
Is Norway going to subsidise development and operational cost increases?
I don't, i think it's wildly optimistic.
The problem with switching an aircraft over to electric power involves a metric which isn't really that much of an issue with cars or boats - weight.
Batteries weigh the same at the start of the flight as they do at the end of the flight - so the aircraft has to carry more weight further.
It also has to land with that extra weight, each and every time.
So the airframe needs to be stronger, which inevitably means more weight.
In airline terms, weight is everything. Boeing and Airbus get to pat themselves on the back when they remove a single metric tonne of weight from an aircraft such as the 787 or A350, so when you take an aircraft such as an ATR-72 and tell it to fly around and land with an extra 1.5 tonnes of weight for it's entire lifespan, it's going to be an issue.
22 years to move to an all electric platform in a 1.5 hour sector goal is a huge ask, imho.
At least 5 U-2s operated by Taiwanese pilots were shot down by China during the 1960s.
A subsequent tanker contract might have been legitimately won by Boeing, but the original contract which started the whole thing most definitely was won through an intention to subsidise and corruption, as was the next contract - the final contract was well down the road of those two.
Winning the last contract legitimately doesn't wipe the slate clean of those won unlawfully.
And who really cares how Airbus was created - Id rather live in a world where Airbus exists than one where Boeing is the monopolistic company.
Airbus has sold a comparable number of A320 family aircraft as Boeing has the 737, and they did it while Boeing enjoyed a 20 year head start. How's that not a successful product?
Airbus has sold 854 A350XWB aircraft, how is that not a successful product?
Airbus isn't going anywhere, and they are due to overtake Boeing in deliveries in 2019 - their market share is increasing rather than decreasing.
Emirates makes you fly to Dubai *because* so few countries allow fifth freedom rights - the right to fly O&D passengers between two countries of which neither is the country of the airline.
Therefore, apart from a few routes, Emirates *has* to fly you via the UAE, or they don't have a viable airline at all.
Emirates fleet and network is the product of other countries protectionism, rather than a grand desire to make people visit Dubai.
You seem to forget the military contracts the US throws Boeings way when it needs propping up - such as the tanker leasing deal Boeing got back in 2001, before it was revealed as a shitstorm of corruption (the USAF would have ende up paying more than four times what the tankers were worth, and then it was revealed that Boeing had paid off a governmental contracts negotiator to hand over Airbuses offer details on the rematch - people went to prison for that)...
Add to the fact that Boeing received subsidies from EU governments when they placed 787 assembly contracts with Spanish and Italian companies.
There's enough mud here to throw at both Airbus and Boeing, but some people try their hardest to make it seem like Airbus is alone out there - at least EU governments show a return on each airframe delivered.
As if Boeing has never received subsidies...
Oh wait, they did.
The Japanese government paid for the design and development of the 787s wings - funny how no one remembers that.
Boeing also got massive tax relief from Washington State, but again, that's often never remembered.
Airbus receives its subsidies via repayable launch aid - it's still paying millions per airframe with each A320 family delivery, when the original forecast for that was 500 deliveries, and yet here we are where the 737 and A320 are about even on orders to date... EU government shave made massive profits on Airbus. Can't really same the same for Japan and Washington State for Boeing...
Airbus has already absorbed the A380 production cost, its not been on their books for years - they don't operate the same accounting as Boeing (where Boeing get to use "deferred production costs" to move current debt to later airframes), so there is no development costs to write off.
Airbus could write off the A380 tomorrow and the only financial cost they would incur is the physical cost to close the line.
Yeah, thats going to end soon as well - Boeing only has a total of 12 in its backlog and delivered more than 12 747s in 2017, so without new orders its doubtful the line will see 2020.
The 777 has been "certified for trans-ocean flights" from day one - its the only aircraft to achieve ETOPS 207, which gave it the ability to cross the Pacific, and that was well before the A380 came on the scenes.
The A380 comes into its own when you look at slot restricted airports - O&D (origin and destination) traffic from many of the worlds hubs has simply continued to grow, even in the "age of point to point", so people obviously want to travel to hubs for reasons other than going elsewhere afterward. The problem comes when these airports become so congested that they can't just accept another aircraft landing or take off - so you have to increase the size of the aircraft rather than add a second flight.
So yeah, it makes sense for some airlines to buy A380s, but those airlines it makes sense to do so have already bought it.
I don't get why people hate on the A380 for it's looks and then hold up the 747 as the counter example - to me, the 747 has always looked like it needed a nose job doing, it's simply got a massive disproportional snoz and I can't understand what people see in it.
Now, a plane like the Caravelle or the Comet - those were things of beauty. The Bombardier CSeries has nice proportions, as do the 787 and A350.