The basic story is correct. I didn't have time to do more thorough research for better links.
This is a better article, in some ways: US banks owe billions in pay, pensions to execs-WSJ. Quote: "For instance, nine banks paid out an estimated $50 billion in bonuses in 2007..."
That's Billion, not million.
In one way, Windows 98 had better file system security. You could set
permissions so that access required entry of another password besides the
log-on password.
In my opinion, the big advantage of BSD and OS X over Windows is that
BSD and OS X were written to be secure. In contrast, Microsoft manages
development in such a way that the programmers are not allowed to finish their
work. That makes Microsoft a lot of money, since it creates a market for
another, supposedly fixed, operating system. This works only because most
purchasers have little technical knowledge.
The discussions at the time led to the impression that there is a huge
amount of sloppiness. I don't have time to provide more information.
Here is a quote from a comment in the Slashdot story, "Explaining The Windows/UNIX Cultural
Divide": 'Each Microsoft application is written "to the metal",
reimplementing huge pieces of code that should be abstracted into layers.'
There is a long article in Rolling Stone magazine this month, The Great American Bubble Machine, alleging that banks control the U.S. government and that Goldman Sachs is one of the leaders of the corruption. Anyone wanting to know more about how the financial corruption of the U.S. government is operated should read the article. The article alleges that Goldman Sachs will use any manipulation whatsoever to get money.
According to the Rolling Stone article, Goldman Sachs makes money mostly through corruption, not investment insight. Your tax money may be their profit: Goldman Sachs takes $12B Bailout, Hands out $14B Bonuses. (The article lists British pounds, the Digg article lists dollars.)
The corruption is not new. For example, see the May 13, 2002 article in Business Week, How Corrupt Is Wall Street? New revelations have investors baying for blood, and the scandal is widening Quote: "Consider Enron, which has paid $323 million to Wall Street in underwriting fees since 1986, according to Thomson. Goldman, Sachs & Co. (GS ) pocketed $69 million of that..." Enron, of course, went bankrupt when it was discovered the company was dishonest.
Beginning in 2002, Warren Buffett began very publicly calling derivatives "financial weapons of mass destruction". That particular part of the corruption was caused by the removal of laws designed to prevent fraud, at the beginning of George W. Bush's first term. Nothing was done to reinstate the laws, and that's why we are suffering now. Why was nothing done? Numerous articles say the corruption was allowed to happen because Goldman Sachs people control the U.S. government's Federal Reserve Bank. To give a small indication of the level of corruption, the "Federal Reserve Bank" is not federal, there is nothing in reserve, and it is not a bank.
Nope. It's true, Nokia bought Trolltech. Quote: 'Eirik Chambe-Eng,
Chief Troll and co-founder of Trolltech continues "We are thrilled to join
forces with Nokia." '
I wonder if the people who work with Qt (cutie) will continue the
tradition of calling themselves "trolls"? A troll is
"an imaginary creature of human-like form, very ugly and
evil-tempered".
I doubt very much that the people who work with Qt are ugly and
evil-tempered. What I think they meant is that, originally, they had a feeling
of not belonging.
I wonder if they will continue calling themselves trolls now that they
are part of Nokia.
I wonder how people at Symantec feel about "David Hall, a Product Manager for Symantec" getting himself on Slashdot, where everyone can discuss how unpleasant their involvement with Symantec has been?
If Symantec wants management consulting, I volunteer: Futurepower Technological Due Diligence. But that's just volunteering some time. I wouldn't work for them unless they wanted a full re-organization of management.
"The XP firewall is just fine unless you're hosting internet services on your box."
I don't agree with that. If you have malware, the Microsoft Windows XP firewall allows the malware to communicate with the outside world with complete freedom.
"I used Windows Live OneCare for a while, and it seemed to work OK. But, it didn't really provide much above and beyond what the free stuff provides,..."
Another poor-quality product from Microsoft? As many others have said, Microsoft makes more money if the malware is not actually removed.
Also: "Last semester I removed DNS hijackers from 3 Mac OS X laptops at my college's help desk, despite how awesome BSD is."
I'm guessing that the cost of just installing and maintaining Windows anti-virus and anti-spyware software is more than 100 times the cost of removing problems from Mac OS X. That doesn't count the cost of having spyware and virus problems in Microsoft Windows, which is certainly more than 100 times more expensive than that. That is an estimate that reflects our experience. If that estimate is accurate, the cost of maintaining Microsoft Windows XP against malware is more than 10,000 times the cost of maintaining Mac OS X against malware.
The fundamental problem is that Microsoft makes more money if there are security problems in Windows.
OpenBSD doesn't require anti-virus and anti-spyware programs partly because it was written to be secure. Apple's Mac OS X is based on BSD, and users rarely have problems with that operating system being insecure.
Amazingly, Microsoft is not only supplying insecure software, it is charging for programs to fix the insecurities!!! See Windows Live OneCare.
Microsoft charges Microsoft Windows users $50 for software to fix problems in Windows! Windows Live OneCare has "Antivirus and antispyware all in one". More: "Two-way firewall helps stop hackers in their tracks". Hmmm, Microsoft, if Windows needs a "Two-way firewall", and it certainly does, why do you supply a one-way firewall with Windows???
See Windows Live OneCare Gripes. Quote: "Create the problem, then charge people money to solve it." Another quote: "Why should Microsoft profit from the plague of viruses and Spyware? Shouldn't it have designed Windows better to begin with? And if it has indeed found a way to protect Windows, isn't it a tad exploitative to charge for it? Microsoft has no convincing answer for these questions . .."
Another quote: "McAfee, Symantec and Microsoft (with Windows Live OneCare) all set your credit card up for automatic renewals when you purchase their security software on-line.... the gripe is that you can't opt out of this during the purchase. OneCare is the most difficult of the three to opt out of. In fact, you can't. Instead you must must cancel your subscription altogether by calling 866-663-2273."
To me, it seems like this: Testing... Testing... How much abuse will computer users accept?
"... it is certainly stable playing MP4 profiles it supports..."
Agreed. And unstable or inoperable with other MP4 files. I'm told that even on the Mac, the free open source VLC Media player is often better.
Quicktime on the PC has been very buggy in my experience. That has given the entire trademark a negative connotation.
My original point was intended to be that Apple has damaged its reputation with its poor handling of Quicktime, in much the same way that Sun damaged its reputation with its poor handling of Java.
Thanks for clarifying some of the issues.
I've gotten the impression, possible in error, that the Quicktime code is so sloppy that the corporate will at Apple to fix it is just not there.
I hope I'm wrong. I'm told that QuickTime is stable playing MPEG4 files, for example. I'm told that the implementation of QuickTime RTP (Real Time Protocol) has been buggy over several versions.
QuickTime does not behave well when a packet is lost.
Apple changes the QuickTime API without documenting it well.
QuickTime has historically been more stable on the Mac than the PC. I've had a problems with it on the PC.
I've done that also. Sometimes Microsoft Office corrupts its own files and then refuses to open them! If that happens, the only fix I've found is to open the Microsoft Office.DOC file in Open Office and save it again as a.DOC file. That fixes the corruption.
So Open Office is a necessary tool for Microsoft Office users.
Why distribute a.DOC file? The.ODF, Open Document Format, is the
international standard.
In my opinion: The.DOC format is proprietary and buggy, and very
expensive due to forced upgrades and general proprietary quirkiness. The.DOC
format is supplied by a company that makes more money if it spaces
improvements over ten versions, rather than making all improvements in one
version. The.DOC format is supplied by a company that makes more money if the.DOC format is implemented in an abusive manner. Why open yourself to abuse?
The best way to send documents that will not be changed is as.PDF
files. That's a simple menu choice in Open Office. Or, use PDF
Creator from any application.
Microsoft's ODF Support Falls Short It's just another
proprietary format, from a company that makes money by locking people into
proprietary formats.
"Out of the box OpenOffice.org version 3 opens Microsoft Office
2007 documents, but often odf-converter-integrator converts with better quality." I haven't
tested that myself.
"Or was this an error of the heating system, or what?"
I don't know the answer, and I don't find anyone claiming to know. I'm guessing that there is a subtle design error. If I could hold a Thales pitot in my hand I might be qualified to theorize why it fails. But I would not be qualified to design a better one, although maybe I could help do the design.
I've been studying how the world deals with issues such as this one. There are cover-ups as money is spent to influence and confuse the media. But now there is a huge difference from 20 years ago. Now the pilots, who don't want to lose their lives, have a voice. There are numerous blogs with many interesting comments. For example, now the media is being fed the apparent lie that the problems with the pitot sensors are new. But someone posted this TFU [technical follow-up], showing a report from December of 1995: TFU 34.13.00.005. Here is someone asking a question about that: Question: The problem was known since 1995. Why such long time for correcting the default?
None of the authors of articles for news agencies seem to have any technical knowledge. In the past it didn't matter, since the rich didn't want you to know. In the past people had to accept whatever the news media said.
Since the Thales sensors are being replaced, the smart thing would be to get one that has just been removed and examine it.
Remember that the Wall Street Journal authors apparently have no knowledge whatsoever of technical things. That doesn't stop them from writing articles about technical things, however.
Air France didn't begin replacing the malfunctioning pitot tubes in the Airbus until April 2009, and the tubes were not replaced yet in the crashed aircraft. The computers were not at fault apparently; there is no reason to suspect a computer malfunction.
Notice that the Wall Street Journal article, Computer Failures Are Probed in Jet Crash, says exactly that: "... seemingly beginning with malfunctioning airspeed sensors..." The "airspeed sensors" are the pitot tubes, which in the Airbus have been known for many years to collect ice in unusual conditions, and to stop giving reliable data.
The computers did what they were programmed to do, apparently. They stopped operating when they calculated that the data was bad. At that point the pilots needed to fly the plane themselves. However, the aircraft was operating in what is known in the aircraft industry as the coffin corner". There was apparently no way a human could fly the aircraft safely at the speeds necessary to get the craft to France in time, since in a severe thunderstorm the airspeed could not be known accurately enough to prevent overstressing the aircraft.
The Wall Street Journal apparently has NO new information. Here is a quote from the article: "The Air France crash could become the first since the 1980s in which U.S. and European investigators try to piece together a probable cause in a high-profile crash without the help of information from at least one of the plane's black boxes -- the digital recorders containing detailed flight data and cockpit conversations from the flight." There is apparently NO honest reason for the Wall Street Journal to publish an article now, claiming "Computer Failures".
Quote from a June 25, 2009 Aviation Week article, EASA: No Action Soon On A330 Pitot Tubes published three days ago: "The pitot tubes have come under fire in the wake of the crash of AF447 because the accident aircraft, an A330-200, broadcast maintenance messages just before all contact was lost, indicating inconsistent speed information and potential problems with the pitot tube."
Should the Wall Street Journal be trusted for financial information? Apparently the publication did NOTHING to stop the present corruption in the financial departments of the U.S. government. Warren Buffett very publically called derivatives "financial weapons of mass destruction" beginning in 2002. The corruption was caused by the removal of laws designed to prevent fraud, at the beginning of George W. Bush's first term.
Apparently the Wall Street Journal always serves the profit of its advertisers and others in the U.S. financial industry. If publishing the article at this time and in the way it did indicates anything other than ignorance, it could be theorized that someone connected with the publication has investments in Air France or Airbus Industries.
Other similar incidents concerning the Airbus 330 are being investigated, according to a June 25, 2009 Associated Press news release, US panel probes 2 incidents involving Airbus A330s. The Wall Street Journal has access to the Associated Press, obviously. Why did it publish its misleading article two days later, which appears to blame the "computers"? The REAL story is apparently that apparently such incidents with the Airbus are common.
Quoting from your comment: "Opponents of this bill hate capitalism, pure and simple." Many people think there is another problem. The system is being created to accomplish fraud, not capitalism.
Someone posted a link in another Slashdot story to a Rolling Stone article in the issue on the newsstands now: The Great American Bubble Machine, that discusses hidden purposes behind the present design of cap and trade.
Slashdot Mirror
The basic story is correct. I didn't have time to do more thorough research for better links.
This is a better article, in some ways: US banks owe billions in pay, pensions to execs-WSJ. Quote: "For instance, nine banks paid out an estimated $50 billion in bonuses in 2007..." That's Billion, not million.
In one way, Windows 98 had better file system security. You could set permissions so that access required entry of another password besides the log-on password.
In my opinion, the big advantage of BSD and OS X over Windows is that BSD and OS X were written to be secure. In contrast, Microsoft manages development in such a way that the programmers are not allowed to finish their work. That makes Microsoft a lot of money, since it creates a market for another, supposedly fixed, operating system. This works only because most purchasers have little technical knowledge.
Here are some articles about that: 63,000 known bugs in Windows 2000. Microsoft's explanation: Microsoft disputes reports of 63,000 bugs in Windows 2000.
Here is a sarcastic story about Windows XP: Windows XP Beta 02. Only 106,500 Bugs.
The discussions at the time led to the impression that there is a huge amount of sloppiness. I don't have time to provide more information.
Here is a quote from a comment in the Slashdot story, "Explaining The Windows/UNIX Cultural Divide": 'Each Microsoft application is written "to the metal", reimplementing huge pieces of code that should be abstracted into layers.'
"OneCare has been discontinued. The scanning engine it was based on, along with definition updates, are now available free."
OneCare Live costs $50, according to Microsoft. Didn't you read what I wrote?
"Are you referring to the repeal of Glass-Steagall?"
No. It was a lot more subtle than that.
I don't have time now to find references. Maybe later.
The laws of the U.S. government should not allow a trading market designed in such a way that proprietary source code gives an advantage.
There is a long article in Rolling Stone magazine this month, The Great American Bubble Machine, alleging that banks control the U.S. government and that Goldman Sachs is one of the leaders of the corruption. Anyone wanting to know more about how the financial corruption of the U.S. government is operated should read the article. The article alleges that Goldman Sachs will use any manipulation whatsoever to get money.
This Slashdot comment, The Investment Banking cohorts JPMorgan Chase and Goldman Sachs are the **huge** winners, discusses some of the issues. The Slashdot comment links to the Rolling Stone article, but that copy of the article has been removed.
According to the Rolling Stone article, Goldman Sachs makes money mostly through corruption, not investment insight. Your tax money may be their profit: Goldman Sachs takes $12B Bailout, Hands out $14B Bonuses. (The article lists British pounds, the Digg article lists dollars.)
The corruption is not new. For example, see the May 13, 2002 article in Business Week, How Corrupt Is Wall Street? New revelations have investors baying for blood, and the scandal is widening Quote: "Consider Enron, which has paid $323 million to Wall Street in underwriting fees since 1986, according to Thomson. Goldman, Sachs & Co. (GS ) pocketed $69 million of that..." Enron, of course, went bankrupt when it was discovered the company was dishonest.
Beginning in 2002, Warren Buffett began very publicly calling derivatives "financial weapons of mass destruction". That particular part of the corruption was caused by the removal of laws designed to prevent fraud, at the beginning of George W. Bush's first term. Nothing was done to reinstate the laws, and that's why we are suffering now. Why was nothing done? Numerous articles say the corruption was allowed to happen because Goldman Sachs people control the U.S. government's Federal Reserve Bank. To give a small indication of the level of corruption, the "Federal Reserve Bank" is not federal, there is nothing in reserve, and it is not a bank.
MOD PARENT UP. Good explanation. Statistics often assume randomness, and often events are not actually random.
Nope. It's true, Nokia bought Trolltech. Quote: 'Eirik Chambe-Eng, Chief Troll and co-founder of Trolltech continues "We are thrilled to join forces with Nokia." '
I wonder if the people who work with Qt (cutie) will continue the tradition of calling themselves "trolls"? A troll is "an imaginary creature of human-like form, very ugly and evil-tempered".
I doubt very much that the people who work with Qt are ugly and evil-tempered. What I think they meant is that, originally, they had a feeling of not belonging.
I wonder if they will continue calling themselves trolls now that they are part of Nokia.
Before you read too far, realize that Nokia owns Qt. It is not surprising that Nokia products use Qt.
I wonder how people at Symantec feel about "David Hall, a Product Manager for Symantec" getting himself on Slashdot, where everyone can discuss how unpleasant their involvement with Symantec has been?
I suppose he was not smart enough to see that coming.
If Symantec wants management consulting, I volunteer: Futurepower Technological Due Diligence. But that's just volunteering some time. I wouldn't work for them unless they wanted a full re-organization of management.
"The XP firewall is just fine unless you're hosting internet services on your box."
..."
I don't agree with that. If you have malware, the Microsoft Windows XP firewall allows the malware to communicate with the outside world with complete freedom.
"I used Windows Live OneCare for a while, and it seemed to work OK. But, it didn't really provide much above and beyond what the free stuff provides,
Another poor-quality product from Microsoft? As many others have said, Microsoft makes more money if the malware is not actually removed.
Also: "Last semester I removed DNS hijackers from 3 Mac OS X laptops at my college's help desk, despite how awesome BSD is."
I'm guessing that the cost of just installing and maintaining Windows anti-virus and anti-spyware software is more than 100 times the cost of removing problems from Mac OS X. That doesn't count the cost of having spyware and virus problems in Microsoft Windows, which is certainly more than 100 times more expensive than that. That is an estimate that reflects our experience. If that estimate is accurate, the cost of maintaining Microsoft Windows XP against malware is more than 10,000 times the cost of maintaining Mac OS X against malware.
"... it's lowering the cost of using the platform without lowering the income of Microsoft."
Microsoft charges for protection against problems in Microsoft sofware: Microsoft Windows Live OneCare.
Here's a problem with ESET's Nod32 discussed on March 9, 2009: NOD32 was deleting very critical and required Windows files.
."
... the gripe is that you can't opt out of this during the purchase. OneCare is the most difficult of the three to opt out of. In fact, you can't. Instead you must must cancel your subscription altogether by calling 866-663-2273."
The fundamental problem is that Microsoft makes more money if there are security problems in Windows.
OpenBSD doesn't require anti-virus and anti-spyware programs partly because it was written to be secure. Apple's Mac OS X is based on BSD, and users rarely have problems with that operating system being insecure.
Amazingly, Microsoft is not only supplying insecure software, it is charging for programs to fix the insecurities!!! See Windows Live OneCare.
Microsoft charges Microsoft Windows users $50 for software to fix problems in Windows! Windows Live OneCare has "Antivirus and antispyware all in one". More: "Two-way firewall helps stop hackers in their tracks". Hmmm, Microsoft, if Windows needs a "Two-way firewall", and it certainly does, why do you supply a one-way firewall with Windows???
See Windows Live OneCare Gripes. Quote: "Create the problem, then charge people money to solve it." Another quote: "Why should Microsoft profit from the plague of viruses and Spyware? Shouldn't it have designed Windows better to begin with? And if it has indeed found a way to protect Windows, isn't it a tad exploitative to charge for it? Microsoft has no convincing answer for these questions . .
Another quote: "McAfee, Symantec and Microsoft (with Windows Live OneCare) all set your credit card up for automatic renewals when you purchase their security software on-line.
To me, it seems like this: Testing... Testing... How much abuse will computer users accept?
A quick Google search shows Symantec products are not much different: Norton - From Symantec - Problems, Problems, Problems..
Or, Multiple serious problems with symantec endpoint 11 - Please help.
Or, Norton Internet Security 2009 has caused me problems. (Norton.com is owned by Symantec, of course.)
You know there are problems when Symantec provides a Removal Tool.
"... it is certainly stable playing MP4 profiles it supports..."
Agreed. And unstable or inoperable with other MP4 files. I'm told that even on the Mac, the free open source VLC Media player is often better.
Quicktime on the PC has been very buggy in my experience. That has given the entire trademark a negative connotation.
My original point was intended to be that Apple has damaged its reputation with its poor handling of Quicktime, in much the same way that Sun damaged its reputation with its poor handling of Java.
Thanks for clarifying some of the issues.
I've gotten the impression, possible in error, that the Quicktime code is so sloppy that the corporate will at Apple to fix it is just not there.
"Well, you're wrong."
I hope I'm wrong. I'm told that QuickTime is stable playing MPEG4 files, for example. I'm told that the implementation of QuickTime RTP (Real Time Protocol) has been buggy over several versions.
QuickTime does not behave well when a packet is lost.
Apple changes the QuickTime API without documenting it well.
QuickTime has historically been more stable on the Mac than the PC. I've had a problems with it on the PC.
My understanding is that Apple doesn't want to work on QuickTime because it is buggy and no one wants to fix it.
Very impressive. Thanks PosgreSQL developers.
I've done that also. Sometimes Microsoft Office corrupts its own files and then refuses to open them! If that happens, the only fix I've found is to open the Microsoft Office .DOC file in Open Office and save it again as a .DOC file. That fixes the corruption.
So Open Office is a necessary tool for Microsoft Office users.
Why distribute a .DOC file? The .ODF, Open Document Format, is the
international standard.
.DOC format is proprietary and buggy, and very
expensive due to forced upgrades and general proprietary quirkiness. The .DOC
format is supplied by a company that makes more money if it spaces
improvements over ten versions, rather than making all improvements in one
version. The .DOC format is supplied by a company that makes more money if the .DOC format is implemented in an abusive manner. Why open yourself to abuse?
.PDF
files. That's a simple menu choice in Open Office. Or, use PDF
Creator from any application.
In my opinion: The
The best way to send documents that will not be changed is as
Microsoft's ODF Support Falls Short It's just another proprietary format, from a company that makes money by locking people into proprietary formats.
"Out of the box OpenOffice.org version 3 opens Microsoft Office 2007 documents, but often odf-converter-integrator converts with better quality." I haven't tested that myself.
References:
OpenDocument Format Alliance. OpenDocument Format Alliance on Wikipedia
OpenDocument software
OpenDocument
OpenDocument adoption
Yes, they are heated. Here is a brochure: Thales Airbus sensors and probes.
"Or was this an error of the heating system, or what?"
I don't know the answer, and I don't find anyone claiming to know. I'm guessing that there is a subtle design error. If I could hold a Thales pitot in my hand I might be qualified to theorize why it fails. But I would not be qualified to design a better one, although maybe I could help do the design.
Apparently there are no problems with the Goodrich pitot sensors. (PDF file)
I've been studying how the world deals with issues such as this one. There are cover-ups as money is spent to influence and confuse the media. But now there is a huge difference from 20 years ago. Now the pilots, who don't want to lose their lives, have a voice. There are numerous blogs with many interesting comments. For example, now the media is being fed the apparent lie that the problems with the pitot sensors are new. But someone posted this TFU [technical follow-up], showing a report from December of 1995: TFU 34.13.00.005. Here is someone asking a question about that: Question: The problem was known since 1995. Why such long time for correcting the default?
None of the authors of articles for news agencies seem to have any technical knowledge. In the past it didn't matter, since the rich didn't want you to know. In the past people had to accept whatever the news media said.
Since the Thales sensors are being replaced, the smart thing would be to get one that has just been removed and examine it.
Remember that the Wall Street Journal authors apparently have no knowledge whatsoever of technical things. That doesn't stop them from writing articles about technical things, however.
Air France didn't begin replacing the malfunctioning pitot tubes in the Airbus until April 2009, and the tubes were not replaced yet in the crashed aircraft. The computers were not at fault apparently; there is no reason to suspect a computer malfunction.
Notice that the Wall Street Journal article, Computer Failures Are Probed in Jet Crash, says exactly that: "... seemingly beginning with malfunctioning airspeed sensors..." The "airspeed sensors" are the pitot tubes, which in the Airbus have been known for many years to collect ice in unusual conditions, and to stop giving reliable data.
The computers did what they were programmed to do, apparently. They stopped operating when they calculated that the data was bad. At that point the pilots needed to fly the plane themselves. However, the aircraft was operating in what is known in the aircraft industry as the coffin corner". There was apparently no way a human could fly the aircraft safely at the speeds necessary to get the craft to France in time, since in a severe thunderstorm the airspeed could not be known accurately enough to prevent overstressing the aircraft.
The Wall Street Journal apparently has NO new information. Here is a quote from the article: "The Air France crash could become the first since the 1980s in which U.S. and European investigators try to piece together a probable cause in a high-profile crash without the help of information from at least one of the plane's black boxes -- the digital recorders containing detailed flight data and cockpit conversations from the flight." There is apparently NO honest reason for the Wall Street Journal to publish an article now, claiming "Computer Failures".
Quote from a June 25, 2009 Aviation Week article, EASA: No Action Soon On A330 Pitot Tubes published three days ago: "The pitot tubes have come under fire in the wake of the crash of AF447 because the accident aircraft, an A330-200, broadcast maintenance messages just before all contact was lost, indicating inconsistent speed information and potential problems with the pitot tube."
Should the Wall Street Journal be trusted for financial information? Apparently the publication did NOTHING to stop the present corruption in the financial departments of the U.S. government. Warren Buffett very publically called derivatives "financial weapons of mass destruction" beginning in 2002. The corruption was caused by the removal of laws designed to prevent fraud, at the beginning of George W. Bush's first term.
Apparently the Wall Street Journal always serves the profit of its advertisers and others in the U.S. financial industry. If publishing the article at this time and in the way it did indicates anything other than ignorance, it could be theorized that someone connected with the publication has investments in Air France or Airbus Industries.
Other similar incidents concerning the Airbus 330 are being investigated, according to a June 25, 2009 Associated Press news release, US panel probes 2 incidents involving Airbus A330s. The Wall Street Journal has access to the Associated Press, obviously. Why did it publish its misleading article two days later, which appears to blame the "computers"? The REAL story is apparently that apparently such incidents with the Airbus are common.
Here
"It drastically reduces, to the extent of almost eliminating, the duration and severity of the cold."
Interesting. I get those same results from the NyQuil mixture of drugs.
It isn't sensible to buy NyQuil, because there are many manufacturers of the same mixture that charge much less.
Since it is no longer possible to buy Zicam in the U.S., there may be times when you would be interested in trying an alternative.
Quoting from your comment: "Opponents of this bill hate capitalism, pure and simple." Many people think there is another problem. The system is being created to accomplish fraud, not capitalism.
Someone posted a link in another Slashdot story to a Rolling Stone article in the issue on the newsstands now: The Great American Bubble Machine, that discusses hidden purposes behind the present design of cap and trade.
MOD PARENT UP. Interesting reading.