Oh give me a break. I didn't try to change the subject. He said that a defense contractor plant that manufactures parts of satellites is a WMD plant. To any reasonable person, he's equating satellites to WMDs.
One of his points was that the presence of Lockheed-Martin's defense facility in Denver influenced the Columbine murderers. He specifically called it a WMD plant. But LMart only builds rockets to launch communications satellites. When confronted of this, MM points to the fact that the rockets have USAF logos to say that they do, in fact, make WMD's.
Which is extraordinarly weak, even for Mike.
Michael Moore claimed that a military communications satellite is a fucking weapon of mass destruction. That's when I tuned out Bowling for Columbine, and decided to never waste money on his crap again. (When confronted about it, his "proof" that it was a WMD was the USAF logo painted on the side of a rocket.)
Michael Moore hates America. Why should anyone listen to his American hating, Halliburton stock owning fat ass?
what about Pegasus then? How did it manage to survive? It was a modern ship and yet seemed to have networked computers. Clearly they managed to secure their networks because they survived encounters with the Cyclons.
Why not watch the show? They explain all of this.
Gaius Baltar devised a brilliant new command and navigation program that was installed on all computers in the fleet. Six put in a backdoor in this program that allowed Cylons to r00t the new system and disable them. That's why the entire Colonial Fleet was sitting ducks, except for Galactica (because the "Old Man" refused to have the network computers needed to run the new software) and Pegasus (which was being refit and hadn't had the new software installed yet).
IANAD, so, can any harm happen with an excess of red blood cells? Maybe this will lead to a future where some could supercharge their blood to maximize oxygen carrying ability.
Yes. The condition is called polycythemia, and most of the incidents involve the increased viscosity of blood leading to thrombus formation-- possibly causing heart attacks and strokes.
You don't seem to be reading what I'm writing. That's fine, this is/. after all.
My breakeven analysis was on R&D costs (hence being a pretty good representation of risk involved) not on the breakeven on total cost out the door.
Of course, breakeven costs have to include the actual cost of manufacturing. Airbus themselves have said that for the first dozen or so frames that they deliver, they're actually losing money-- because of the costs of rewiring, the costs of compensation for the delay to the airlnes, the cost of parking the planes.
Especially, when you seem to want to avoid doing any quantitative analysis of the facts.
What am I avoiding? Your ridiculous back-of-the-envelope "calculations"? Back-of-the-envelope still implies at least a semblance of realistic estimation, which you completely avoid by assuming that frames cost nothing to build, and the frames sell at anything near list price.
When you have sold 34% percent of amount to breakeven before any of your customers have booked hardly a single revenue mile that isn't that risky in the airline business IMHO.
The 787 has likely booked well past breakeven before the first pieces are snapped together. The fact that the order clock for the A380 is actually moving backwards does not bode well, wouldn't you say? And don't you think that it's just a tad bit risky that the largest customer for your plane, the one that has accounted for 1/3 of the order book, is starting to publicly gripe about the delays AND the weight problems? That seems pretty gloomy to me.
Yes it would be more helpful for Airbus stock price if they were making more money.... but Wall Street is never happy.
You are aware that Airbus is not a publicly held entity, right?
If anyone though that the A380 was going to do Chicago to Dallas or Los Angeles to New York City runs they were deluding themselves. Using the right tool for the right job. Bulk movements internation can be run "hub and spoke". Over shorter distances "hub and spoke" isn't necessary (with the computational planning resources available these days airlines can take on more complicated logistics. )
Again, you oversimplify my point. I'm saying that the airlines that have been using the VLAs are downgauging their fleet sizes. They are saying that VLAs are not the right tool for most of the jobs out there. Only the Middle Eastern airlines, in general, are going the opposite way. It's questionable whether this expansion is sustainable or not... particularly with the increasing violence in the region.
The 747-8 isn't going ship for two years. That gives Airbus two years to clean up the two year mess they created when by being late. At the time of 747-8 the A380 will have many thousands of real revenue flights hours logged and the 747-8 will have none. During this rapid rise of 747-8 orders they have both paper airplanes and Airbus has created more and more doubt. That cloud should dissapate not that it is delivered.
Again, talk to Emirates about the weight and efficiency issues with the A380. They are not pleased. Btw, hasn't the 747-400.... a 12 year old plane... matched the A380 in recent years of sales?
Neither Boeing nor Airbus can work on two new platforms at the same time
Are you being sarcastic, or do you seriously believe this? Boeing is currently working on the 777F, the 739ER, the 787, the 747-8. It's almost certain that they are working on Y1 (the 737 replacement) and Y3 (the 777/747 replacement). Airbus, as of a few years ago, was working on the A320E, the A340-500 and -600, the A330F, the A380 and the A350. While you can make the argument that derivatives are significantly easier than new build airliners, (to which I would agree) the equipment manufacturers are mor
Does it make you feel bigger to use swearwords? What is your problem?
Airlines were interested in the Sonic Cruiser until 9/11 when the entire industry was rocked. Subsequently, the rise in the price of oil made it too costly to sacrifice speed for efficiency.
In contrast... the A350? Airbus launched it, touted that it would defeat both the 787 AND the 777... and subsequently does neither.
So, to recap, you fucking clown, it's not a case of my country versus your country nut company versus that company, each goimg through the normal cycle of business operation in that segment of industry.
Why not point your vitriol at the people who claim that those who don't think the A380 is the greatest thing since sliced bread is due to the "not invented here" syndrome?
There is nothing in your analysis that says that the A380 won't hit breakeven. It is highly likely that the A380 will not become a the principle profit driver for Airbus like the 747 became for Boeing. However, there is nothing in what you have presented that says it cannot even hit breakeven.
Airbus themselves have stated that currently, the breakeven for the A380 is on the order of 420 frames. Only 270 or so sales to go!
So at $300 Million per copy that is profitable with solely the orders on the books right now. Haven't even brought in revenues of future versions of the airplane. In my book making a profit on selling something is not a financial blunder.
No one is going to buy the A380 for $300m. Launch discounts for even the perfect airliner are typically 40-60%. A third of the orders for the A380 are from Emirates, and you know that they aren't paying top dollar for these birds.
In addition, suppose Airbus does manage to make a small profit from the A380. This will be after over a decade of development and sales. Do you think that Airbus invested all of its resources (time, money, engineers, sales, etc) on a program that just barely makes its money back?
I'm just doing a back-of-the-envelope walk through the numbers to show that this "paltry" number of 144 probably represent something very close to breakeven for the program (and perhaps profitibiliy).
Again, Airbus themselves contradicts you.
The second large fallacy is that all this talk "market decides" doesn't seem to take into account what the market (the airlines) considers as factors. The A380 is only 20% larger. Errr, show me an airline that doesn't mind 20% swings in load factor on their planes.
You are oversimplifying my point. There was absolutely no competitor to the 747 in 1969-1995ish. In that time, the 747 has had to compete with the A340-600 and the 777-300ER. And has lost more of those competitions than it has won. Airlines are in general going for smaller rathern than larger. The fact that the 747-8 has outperformed the A380 in sales the last two years is proof of that. I'm not saying that NO one is going to buy these planes. But I don't think it's a stretch by any means to say that Airbus will not be able to triple its orderbook for the A380 in any reasonable period of time.
Finally, what economics class taught you that the market wants one vendor????????????????
What reading comprehension class did you fail? When did I ever say the market wants one vendor?
And finally,
Unless you can point to how Airbus implodes in the next 2 years solely based on the delay in 380 revenue.
I can point to one big example. The Airbus A350. This mini-debacle following the debacle of the A380 is proof that Airbus has lost its way. How many versions of the A350/A350XWB have there been? The 787 and the A350 (original version) have been offered for practically the same amount of time. The 787 will be rolling out its first aircraft in July. The A350? Sometime in 2014. Youd on't think the financial pressures of the A380 had ANYTHING to do with THIS particular mess?
I think it's quite a waste of time to argue with someone who so clearly admits that he has no idea what he is talking about. Let the market decide, I'm pretty sure that the A380 will be a success (as will be the 747-8).
So you're telling me that I shouldn't bother arguing with you? Could you maybe point to one fallacy in my argument?
The market has decided. 144 orders in 7 years; with 20 recent cancellations and multiple deferrals of deliveries. A few airlines (like Emirates which bought a third of the backlog) will buy this plane, but it will likely beat out the L-1011 as the biggest (financial) blunder in aviation history.
Now that the 747 is no longer the largest passenger aircraft, size suddenly is a showstopper because apparently people would rather walk than fly with a few hundred other people on the same plane.
No American carrier flies the 747, with the exception of Northwest and United-- airlines with large networks in Asia. Perhaps the apathy towards the A380 in America is because there is no market for it in the United States-- not blind patriotism.
Meanwhile, even the Asian carriers are downgrading from the 747-400 to the smaller 777-300ER, or smaller. It does seem like the VLA market is shrinking, no? The only carriers that are buying the A380 in huge numbers don't even fly the 747 (Emirates with very close to 1/3 of the entire order book for the A380, for instance). You have to wonder what they are going to do with all of this excess capacity-- if it was so urgent, then why don't they have larger planes in their fleet already, considering they are already available?
And let's look at the trendlines. 144 or so orders in 7 years. FedEx, UPS, and ILFC have all cancelled their A380 freighter orders. Virgin Atlantic has already delayed delivery (of an already delayed plane) because they don't have a need for it. Ethiad is rumored to be considering delaying as well. Malaysian can't even afford the planes, and is considering at least delaying the order.
So, just because Boeing has conceded that the aircraft is minimal it has to be the truth? There is no chance they are only saying this because they don't have one?
The sales figures for the A380 say all that needs to be said about the market demand for VLAs.
Do you actually realize that everything you say about the A380 was said about the 747 in it's early day? Everybody said too big, too much hassle at the airports, the danger when two collide, Boeing will never get it's money back, much less get a return on invest etc. etc.
The 747 very nearly bankrupted Boeing.
And look how far the 747 came. How on earth can you, most likely not in the business, not employed at airbus, with no real insights in the market, know that this plane will not make money for airbus? That's a bold statement. Again remember: The 747 was late, the development much more expensive that planned and was suffering from major problems in the first years (mainly the inadequate engines). It still became a stunning success.
OK, let's compare the A380 to the 747. The 747 was late, true. By a matter of weeks, not years like the A380 is. The delay was due to problems with powerplant, not airframe. In contrast, the engines for the A380 have proven to be even more reliable and more efficient than expected. Of course, Airbus had nothing to do with the design and construction of the engines, so it's not that's not terribly surprising. Meanwhile, the A380 frame has had a debacle of textbook proportions with regards to its wiring. It's wing test failed and requires additional bracing because it is too weak. The plane by all accounts is something on the order of 5 tons overweight. And, it's been delayed for 2 years with no guarantees that there will be another delay.
Let's compare markets. The 747 was nearly twice the size of its nearest competitor when it debuted in 1969. The A380 is about 20% larger in terms of seat capacity compared to the 747-8. The 747-8 is far lighter and far more efficient than the A380. The 747 in 1969 was also the longest ranged airliner in its time, and most airlines actually bought the plane for its range and not its size. The A380, unfortunately, does not have that distinction.
I have no connection to the airline industry, true. I also have no connection to the automobile industry and yet I can recognize a carwreck when I see one. The A380 is a monumental carwreck. How anyone cannot see that, and how that person blames patriotism (I'm not an American, btw) for criticism a terrible plane program, is beyond me. Let's compare the A380 to something that is actually more apt, the Concorde. An amibitious piece of engineering that was a financial disaster for the European companies that supported it. It only sold to 2 airlines, and the final planes were sold for ridiculous sums (like 1 pound). The plane was late, was too expensive, not efficient enough, and unwanted.
144 orders in 7 years. That's all that needs to be said.
For a country that prides itself on making everything bigger, there sure is a lot of not-invented-here antipathy and patriotic vitriol against the first major upsizing of passenger airplanes in a long time.
What fresh nonsense is this? Let's face it, by any standard, the A380 in the last 2 years or so has been a disappointment. Something on the order of $8-10B in 2000 valuations were originally invested in this program. The result is a plane that is late, overweight, and not selling great. Airbus has lost money because it cannot deliver the planes on time, has to keep 20 or so airframes parked in Toulouse because they can't deliver them to customers, and has to pay compensation to the airlines that had expected to be flying the bird by now. Airbus's problems with the A380 has detrimentally impacted the A350; essentially, Airbus as conceded the fastest growing market segment in commercial aviation to the 787 because it has had it's hands tied down trying to correct the sinking ship on the A380.
Meanwhile, Boeing has conceded that the very large aircraft (VLA) market is minimal and not worth investing tons of money into. It has spent a nominal sum to upgrade the 747 with the 747-8. The result? Airbus has about 144 orders for the A380 in 7 years, and Boeing has over 80 in less than 2.
Is it anti-Europeanism that makes these facts true? No, it's reality. The A380 has been an absolute disaster. It's possible that the market will turn around and Airbus will certainly move a few more frames. But it will never make back the money is spent on the A380. Maybe it's just the Americans that pride itself on being able to make a buck?
I wouldn't worry so much... because there's really nothing you can do right now. Unless the timing of the admissions cycle has changed drastically in 10 years, your application has probably already been reviewed. Deadlines for regular admission are, for most of these schools, Jan 1.... and when I was applying, I heard back from some schools in early March.
That said, I applied early action to MIT, was deferred (and devastated)... and ended up getting in during the regular admissions process.. and about to celebrate 5 years of freedom this June.
Questioning is fine. He didn't question, he stated... and saying that global warming and other disasters are the cause of an evil environmentalist cabal isn't especially scientific.
You clearly did not read State of Fear. Without editorializing my opinion on global warming, what Crichton does is offer a case that global warming is not a slam-dunk scientific case as the media makes it out to be. He fashions what he admits is a fantasy tale involving conspiracy around this idea, but never... EVER.. does he state that global warming is complete fiction and environmental catastrophe is part of a conspiracy of maniacs.
He then states his opinion on global warming in the appendix, and provides references to support his beliefs. Some of it is compelling. The RealClimate people focus on one graph that he uses which utilizes an extrema of data points, and then justifies itself to complete bash the rest of his arguments. That certainly isn't scientific.
And so is bashing a man's opinions without reading his work.
That, of course, means we'd get five times the R&D for the same money we're paying today if we paid for it outright rather than granting monopolies. Or we'd get the same level of R&D at a fifth of the price.
I'm a former pharmaceutcal researcher and current med student. As such, I've heard the propaganda from both sides. (most on the academic side of medicine have a very low view of big pharma). Here's what I've managed to gleam..
Yes, currently marketing costs > research costs. Why is this such a bad thing? If you don't market, you don't sell. PERIOD. Studies have shown that spending money on advertising actually decreases overall health care costs because it brings patients into clinics or their primary care physicians when they otherwise would not have gone. (This study was probably backed by PhRMA, but the point still holds true.)
Pharmaceutical companies spend billions of dollars researching drugs that never make it to clinical trial. Once they do, most drugs will fail. Of those, only a fraction of those that get FDA approval will actually make money back. And of those, only a handufl of them will be the billion-dollar-a-year blockbuster drugs.
Look at the big pharmaceutical companies out there... Merck and Pfizer in particular. Those companies spend billions of dollars a year in R&D and what do they have to show for it? The pipelines are drying up, and they have very little prospects for future blockbuster drugs. In 5-10 years, these companies will either cease to exist as independent entities or will have to spend a king's ransom to buy other companies with more promising outlooks. And this is why drug costs are so insanely high; because the risk is so insanely high, with small chance for reward.
And those that point to the US healthcare system as part of the problem with regards to pharma costs... almost all of the novel new drug development WORLDWIDE has migrated to the US. Companies like Glaxo and Novartis have relocated their research operations to the US. France, with its supposedly superior education and health care system, currently boasts (I believe) only 1 pharma company in the top 10. In turn, the US market ends up having to subsidize drug developments costs for the rest of the world thanks to cost controls and the threat of patent irrelevancy. The system it broken, but it's not the US system; it's the rest of the world.
As far as solution... unfortunately I have no idea. Ideally there would be some sort of separation between the R&D side (the chemists) and the clinical trial side. There must be some way, either clinically, chemically, or computationally, to eliminate drugs from the developmen process that will not succeed in clinical trial. I know that my former employer put a lot of effort into its advanced technology division to do just that.... whether or not they are successful is still up in the air.
But it's not just a simple matter of greedy pharmaceuticals taking advantage of the helpless. And until this fact is acknowledged, an equitable, reasonable solution to the health care mess will never be found.
and in the case of the Hubble Space Telescope the only shuttle which had large enough cargo bay to fit the Hubble was Columbia.
Eh? The HST was launched onboard Discovery on STS-31. I'm no rocket scientist, but I assume that the scope had to fit into the cargo bay in order to be launched... =)
This drug works by decreasing the amount of sugar produced by the liver. In most type II diabetics the liver produces too much, for reasons we only partly understand. It also makes the pancreas produce more insulin in response to high blood sugar. This mechanism is also defective in type II diabetes, again for reasons poorly understood. It does these things by a new mechanism of action, and is the first drug that affects the first problem I listed above.
What about metformin? To quote.. "Its mode of action appears to be reduction of hepatic gluconeogenesis..."
en e-ink device designed by apple that can display videos, view books and newspapers on and with a collapsible screen that is larger than the device itself.
Video on e-paper? You do realize that the refresh rate on those things are at best on the order of hundreds of milliseconds...
If it was wrong then for Clinton to oppose ESC research, then it's still wrong for Bush to do it now. The Bush administration is the current impediment to scientific progress in this area, which is why there's so much criticism against him for it and not Clinton.
Fair enough. But I didn't hear anyone call Clinton "submental," like the dean of my med school did today. The fact of the matter is, people have an illusion that things under Clinton were peace, progress and prosperity, and all of the world's ills are due to the man in the White House. Which might be true, but the arguments that are made for it are patently absurd and absolutely short-sighted.
But who cares, right? The majority of Americans will just go right on believing what's spoon fed to them by the media.
Clinton tried for years to open up stem-cell research using embryos from pregnancy clinics, but the Republican dominiated congress ammended or voted down any law he put forth. People are right to place the blame on the republicans (and religious right) for the lack of funding for stem-cell research. Putting it all on the current "head" of the party isn't exactly correct, but not completely off base.
Clinton signed into law the Dickey amendment. He could have vetoed the bill, or even decided not to sign it (which would have made it into law but would have at least shown that he disagreed with the premise). He did neither. In his subsequent 5+ years in office, he did nothing to reverse this.
Whatever Clinton's feelings are now, or what he says now, is irrelevant. The irrefutable fact is that Bush opened up more opportunities for embryonic stem cell research than had existed when he entered office.
The President objects to things he doesn't understand.
Look, I'm not going to go around and pretend like our current US President is doing a great job. But it's tiring to see a supposedly intelligent, educated base like Slashdot fall for the Democrat propaganda machine.
Under Clinton, you couldn't do any research on ESC using federal funds-- at all. This is a bill that Clinton signed into law in 1995. In fact, Bush's rules are less stringent than Clinton's, and yet all we do is demonize Bush for his stance on stem cells. Why is that?
Slashdot Mirror
Hm. You have nothing to say to refute my argument, so you resort to name-calling. Classic.
http://www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel040403.as p
Actually, it's what he said. My interpretation has nothing to do with it; he specifically said that the Denver LMart facility produced WMD's.
One of his points was that the presence of Lockheed-Martin's defense facility in Denver influenced the Columbine murderers. He specifically called it a WMD plant. But LMart only builds rockets to launch communications satellites. When confronted of this, MM points to the fact that the rockets have USAF logos to say that they do, in fact, make WMD's. Which is extraordinarly weak, even for Mike.
Michael Moore claimed that a military communications satellite is a fucking weapon of mass destruction. That's when I tuned out Bowling for Columbine, and decided to never waste money on his crap again. (When confronted about it, his "proof" that it was a WMD was the USAF logo painted on the side of a rocket.) Michael Moore hates America. Why should anyone listen to his American hating, Halliburton stock owning fat ass?
Why not watch the show? They explain all of this.
Gaius Baltar devised a brilliant new command and navigation program that was installed on all computers in the fleet. Six put in a backdoor in this program that allowed Cylons to r00t the new system and disable them. That's why the entire Colonial Fleet was sitting ducks, except for Galactica (because the "Old Man" refused to have the network computers needed to run the new software) and Pegasus (which was being refit and hadn't had the new software installed yet).
In other words, Watch The Fucking Show.
Yes. The condition is called polycythemia, and most of the incidents involve the increased viscosity of blood leading to thrombus formation-- possibly causing heart attacks and strokes.
Of course, breakeven costs have to include the actual cost of manufacturing. Airbus themselves have said that for the first dozen or so frames that they deliver, they're actually losing money-- because of the costs of rewiring, the costs of compensation for the delay to the airlnes, the cost of parking the planes.
What am I avoiding? Your ridiculous back-of-the-envelope "calculations"? Back-of-the-envelope still implies at least a semblance of realistic estimation, which you completely avoid by assuming that frames cost nothing to build, and the frames sell at anything near list price.
The 787 has likely booked well past breakeven before the first pieces are snapped together. The fact that the order clock for the A380 is actually moving backwards does not bode well, wouldn't you say? And don't you think that it's just a tad bit risky that the largest customer for your plane, the one that has accounted for 1/3 of the order book, is starting to publicly gripe about the delays AND the weight problems? That seems pretty gloomy to me.
You are aware that Airbus is not a publicly held entity, right?
Again, you oversimplify my point. I'm saying that the airlines that have been using the VLAs are downgauging their fleet sizes. They are saying that VLAs are not the right tool for most of the jobs out there. Only the Middle Eastern airlines, in general, are going the opposite way. It's questionable whether this expansion is sustainable or not... particularly with the increasing violence in the region.
Again, talk to Emirates about the weight and efficiency issues with the A380. They are not pleased. Btw, hasn't the 747-400.... a 12 year old plane... matched the A380 in recent years of sales?
Are you being sarcastic, or do you seriously believe this? Boeing is currently working on the 777F, the 739ER, the 787, the 747-8. It's almost certain that they are working on Y1 (the 737 replacement) and Y3 (the 777/747 replacement). Airbus, as of a few years ago, was working on the A320E, the A340-500 and -600, the A330F, the A380 and the A350. While you can make the argument that derivatives are significantly easier than new build airliners, (to which I would agree) the equipment manufacturers are mor
Airlines were interested in the Sonic Cruiser until 9/11 when the entire industry was rocked. Subsequently, the rise in the price of oil made it too costly to sacrifice speed for efficiency.
In contrast... the A350? Airbus launched it, touted that it would defeat both the 787 AND the 777... and subsequently does neither.
Why not point your vitriol at the people who claim that those who don't think the A380 is the greatest thing since sliced bread is due to the "not invented here" syndrome?
Airbus themselves have stated that currently, the breakeven for the A380 is on the order of 420 frames. Only 270 or so sales to go!
No one is going to buy the A380 for $300m. Launch discounts for even the perfect airliner are typically 40-60%. A third of the orders for the A380 are from Emirates, and you know that they aren't paying top dollar for these birds.
In addition, suppose Airbus does manage to make a small profit from the A380. This will be after over a decade of development and sales. Do you think that Airbus invested all of its resources (time, money, engineers, sales, etc) on a program that just barely makes its money back?
Again, Airbus themselves contradicts you.
You are oversimplifying my point. There was absolutely no competitor to the 747 in 1969-1995ish. In that time, the 747 has had to compete with the A340-600 and the 777-300ER. And has lost more of those competitions than it has won. Airlines are in general going for smaller rathern than larger. The fact that the 747-8 has outperformed the A380 in sales the last two years is proof of that. I'm not saying that NO one is going to buy these planes. But I don't think it's a stretch by any means to say that Airbus will not be able to triple its orderbook for the A380 in any reasonable period of time.
What reading comprehension class did you fail? When did I ever say the market wants one vendor?
And finally,
I can point to one big example. The Airbus A350. This mini-debacle following the debacle of the A380 is proof that Airbus has lost its way. How many versions of the A350/A350XWB have there been? The 787 and the A350 (original version) have been offered for practically the same amount of time. The 787 will be rolling out its first aircraft in July. The A350? Sometime in 2014. Youd on't think the financial pressures of the A380 had ANYTHING to do with THIS particular mess?
So you're telling me that I shouldn't bother arguing with you? Could you maybe point to one fallacy in my argument?
The market has decided. 144 orders in 7 years; with 20 recent cancellations and multiple deferrals of deliveries. A few airlines (like Emirates which bought a third of the backlog) will buy this plane, but it will likely beat out the L-1011 as the biggest (financial) blunder in aviation history.
No American carrier flies the 747, with the exception of Northwest and United-- airlines with large networks in Asia. Perhaps the apathy towards the A380 in America is because there is no market for it in the United States-- not blind patriotism.
Meanwhile, even the Asian carriers are downgrading from the 747-400 to the smaller 777-300ER, or smaller. It does seem like the VLA market is shrinking, no? The only carriers that are buying the A380 in huge numbers don't even fly the 747 (Emirates with very close to 1/3 of the entire order book for the A380, for instance). You have to wonder what they are going to do with all of this excess capacity-- if it was so urgent, then why don't they have larger planes in their fleet already, considering they are already available?
And let's look at the trendlines. 144 or so orders in 7 years. FedEx, UPS, and ILFC have all cancelled their A380 freighter orders. Virgin Atlantic has already delayed delivery (of an already delayed plane) because they don't have a need for it. Ethiad is rumored to be considering delaying as well. Malaysian can't even afford the planes, and is considering at least delaying the order.
It doesn't seem like a real winner, does it?
The sales figures for the A380 say all that needs to be said about the market demand for VLAs.
The 747 very nearly bankrupted Boeing.
OK, let's compare the A380 to the 747. The 747 was late, true. By a matter of weeks, not years like the A380 is. The delay was due to problems with powerplant, not airframe. In contrast, the engines for the A380 have proven to be even more reliable and more efficient than expected. Of course, Airbus had nothing to do with the design and construction of the engines, so it's not that's not terribly surprising. Meanwhile, the A380 frame has had a debacle of textbook proportions with regards to its wiring. It's wing test failed and requires additional bracing because it is too weak. The plane by all accounts is something on the order of 5 tons overweight. And, it's been delayed for 2 years with no guarantees that there will be another delay.
Let's compare markets. The 747 was nearly twice the size of its nearest competitor when it debuted in 1969. The A380 is about 20% larger in terms of seat capacity compared to the 747-8. The 747-8 is far lighter and far more efficient than the A380. The 747 in 1969 was also the longest ranged airliner in its time, and most airlines actually bought the plane for its range and not its size. The A380, unfortunately, does not have that distinction.
I have no connection to the airline industry, true. I also have no connection to the automobile industry and yet I can recognize a carwreck when I see one. The A380 is a monumental carwreck. How anyone cannot see that, and how that person blames patriotism (I'm not an American, btw) for criticism a terrible plane program, is beyond me. Let's compare the A380 to something that is actually more apt, the Concorde. An amibitious piece of engineering that was a financial disaster for the European companies that supported it. It only sold to 2 airlines, and the final planes were sold for ridiculous sums (like 1 pound). The plane was late, was too expensive, not efficient enough, and unwanted.
144 orders in 7 years. That's all that needs to be said.
What fresh nonsense is this? Let's face it, by any standard, the A380 in the last 2 years or so has been a disappointment. Something on the order of $8-10B in 2000 valuations were originally invested in this program. The result is a plane that is late, overweight, and not selling great. Airbus has lost money because it cannot deliver the planes on time, has to keep 20 or so airframes parked in Toulouse because they can't deliver them to customers, and has to pay compensation to the airlines that had expected to be flying the bird by now. Airbus's problems with the A380 has detrimentally impacted the A350; essentially, Airbus as conceded the fastest growing market segment in commercial aviation to the 787 because it has had it's hands tied down trying to correct the sinking ship on the A380.
Meanwhile, Boeing has conceded that the very large aircraft (VLA) market is minimal and not worth investing tons of money into. It has spent a nominal sum to upgrade the 747 with the 747-8. The result? Airbus has about 144 orders for the A380 in 7 years, and Boeing has over 80 in less than 2.
Is it anti-Europeanism that makes these facts true? No, it's reality. The A380 has been an absolute disaster. It's possible that the market will turn around and Airbus will certainly move a few more frames. But it will never make back the money is spent on the A380. Maybe it's just the Americans that pride itself on being able to make a buck?
That said, I applied early action to MIT, was deferred (and devastated)... and ended up getting in during the regular admissions process.. and about to celebrate 5 years of freedom this June.
So.. don't worry so much.
You clearly did not read State of Fear. Without editorializing my opinion on global warming, what Crichton does is offer a case that global warming is not a slam-dunk scientific case as the media makes it out to be. He fashions what he admits is a fantasy tale involving conspiracy around this idea, but never... EVER.. does he state that global warming is complete fiction and environmental catastrophe is part of a conspiracy of maniacs.
He then states his opinion on global warming in the appendix, and provides references to support his beliefs. Some of it is compelling. The RealClimate people focus on one graph that he uses which utilizes an extrema of data points, and then justifies itself to complete bash the rest of his arguments. That certainly isn't scientific.
And so is bashing a man's opinions without reading his work.
I'm a former pharmaceutcal researcher and current med student. As such, I've heard the propaganda from both sides. (most on the academic side of medicine have a very low view of big pharma). Here's what I've managed to gleam..
Yes, currently marketing costs > research costs. Why is this such a bad thing? If you don't market, you don't sell. PERIOD. Studies have shown that spending money on advertising actually decreases overall health care costs because it brings patients into clinics or their primary care physicians when they otherwise would not have gone. (This study was probably backed by PhRMA, but the point still holds true.)
Pharmaceutical companies spend billions of dollars researching drugs that never make it to clinical trial. Once they do, most drugs will fail. Of those, only a fraction of those that get FDA approval will actually make money back. And of those, only a handufl of them will be the billion-dollar-a-year blockbuster drugs.
Look at the big pharmaceutical companies out there... Merck and Pfizer in particular. Those companies spend billions of dollars a year in R&D and what do they have to show for it? The pipelines are drying up, and they have very little prospects for future blockbuster drugs. In 5-10 years, these companies will either cease to exist as independent entities or will have to spend a king's ransom to buy other companies with more promising outlooks. And this is why drug costs are so insanely high; because the risk is so insanely high, with small chance for reward.
And those that point to the US healthcare system as part of the problem with regards to pharma costs... almost all of the novel new drug development WORLDWIDE has migrated to the US. Companies like Glaxo and Novartis have relocated their research operations to the US. France, with its supposedly superior education and health care system, currently boasts (I believe) only 1 pharma company in the top 10. In turn, the US market ends up having to subsidize drug developments costs for the rest of the world thanks to cost controls and the threat of patent irrelevancy. The system it broken, but it's not the US system; it's the rest of the world.
As far as solution... unfortunately I have no idea. Ideally there would be some sort of separation between the R&D side (the chemists) and the clinical trial side. There must be some way, either clinically, chemically, or computationally, to eliminate drugs from the developmen process that will not succeed in clinical trial. I know that my former employer put a lot of effort into its advanced technology division to do just that.... whether or not they are successful is still up in the air.
But it's not just a simple matter of greedy pharmaceuticals taking advantage of the helpless. And until this fact is acknowledged, an equitable, reasonable solution to the health care mess will never be found.
Eh? The HST was launched onboard Discovery on STS-31. I'm no rocket scientist, but I assume that the scope had to fit into the cargo bay in order to be launched... =)
What about metformin? To quote.. "Its mode of action appears to be reduction of hepatic gluconeogenesis..."
Video on e-paper? You do realize that the refresh rate on those things are at best on the order of hundreds of milliseconds...
Fair enough. But I didn't hear anyone call Clinton "submental," like the dean of my med school did today. The fact of the matter is, people have an illusion that things under Clinton were peace, progress and prosperity, and all of the world's ills are due to the man in the White House. Which might be true, but the arguments that are made for it are patently absurd and absolutely short-sighted.
But who cares, right? The majority of Americans will just go right on believing what's spoon fed to them by the media.
Clinton signed into law the Dickey amendment. He could have vetoed the bill, or even decided not to sign it (which would have made it into law but would have at least shown that he disagreed with the premise). He did neither. In his subsequent 5+ years in office, he did nothing to reverse this.
Whatever Clinton's feelings are now, or what he says now, is irrelevant. The irrefutable fact is that Bush opened up more opportunities for embryonic stem cell research than had existed when he entered office.
Look, I'm not going to go around and pretend like our current US President is doing a great job. But it's tiring to see a supposedly intelligent, educated base like Slashdot fall for the Democrat propaganda machine.
Under Clinton, you couldn't do any research on ESC using federal funds-- at all. This is a bill that Clinton signed into law in 1995. In fact, Bush's rules are less stringent than Clinton's, and yet all we do is demonize Bush for his stance on stem cells. Why is that?
Dude, even the simplest of google searches will likely yield you the answers you are looking for. Why are you wasting time with this?
Pressurization != high oxygen.
What about the subway bombings in Madrid, 2004 and London, 2005?