> Deterrence only effects those who don't resepect the rule of law.
Those people includes most of us, in varying degrees. Ever broken the speed limit consciously? And slowed down and nevously glanced at the speedo when you saw a cop car in the rear view?
Deterrence does work, and for our sake, I am glad it does.
Actually five eggs were fertilized. Two died in-vitro, one developed into an embryo but died in-utero, two survived.
They fertilized five eggs. Three of them developed into embryos, and two of them thrived in Mrs. Thomas' uterus. Emma and Jacob Thomas were born Feb. 2, 2001.
From http://www.worldmag.com/subscriber/displayarticle. cfm?id=11198 The Thomases' doctor recommended that he fertilize as many as 20 of Mrs. Thomas' eggs,... He and his wife decided they would only fertilize as many eggs as they were willing to implant immediately. They fertilized five eggs. Three of them developed into embryos, and two of them thrived in Mrs. Thomas' uterus. Emma and Jacob Thomas were born Feb. 2, 2001.
What's it to you? Are you feeling cold in empathy? Or are you and your spouse volunteering to bring a few of them to term?
In the meantime, other are bringing them to term: http://www.worldmag.com/subscriber/displayarticle. cfm?id=11198 In May, Mr. Bush held a press conference with 21 formerly frozen IVF embryos. The children on stage with him shed light on one of the last hopes for an unwanted embryo: adoption.
Hope for one or more of those frozen embryos may rest with Matt and Andrea Thomas, whose IVF twins Emma and Jacob are now 4. They are praying about expanding their family, and considering embryo adoption as a possibility.
> Do you know of any doctor practicing in-vitro fertilization without creating extra embryos > that have no chance of ever being grown?
Adding to my previous post about this happening abroad, here's evidence of this in the US. From: http://www.worldmag.com/subscriber/displayarticle. cfm?id=11198 He and his wife decided they would only fertilize as many eggs as they were willing to implant immediately. They fertilized five eggs. Three of them developed into embryos, and two of them thrived in Mrs. Thomas' uterus. Emma and Jacob Thomas were born Feb. 2, 2001.
So there is no inevitablity about IVF creating 'extra-embryos-that-must-be-destroyed' - parents can override their doctor's preferences.
> > Wrong. I didn't use either term. > Perhaps not, but you supported [... yada yada ]
Enough. Stop being a fool. You were wrong - deal with it.
> > Wrong. To be against 'discarding' fertilized embryos and is not to > > be against in-vitro fertilization. > Do you know of any doctor practicing in-vitro fertilization without > creating extra embryos
Yes, it's done like this abroad: From http://www.ivf-infertility.com/ivf/standard/regula tions.php : Dr Samuel Marcus 11-Jun-2004 12:44... New Italian laws (2004) ban both freezing and destroying embryos, limit to three the number of eggs to be fertilized and state that all the created embryos must be transferred. Furthermore, they restrict the use of assisted conception treatments to infertile couples.
Embryo adoption is a possibility for existing embryos. See: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?story Id=4931567 A couple mentioned in the story had 9 extra embryos and donated them to another infertile couple, who committed to implanting all 9 extra embryos in separate IVF cycles (only one resulted in a child.)
> If they aren't going to use them, they're essentially in limbo. > Or they're destroyed. I suppose you could theoretically support some > hypothetical in-vitro procedure where only one embryo is created at a > time, and then implanted, but the fact is that that's not how it's > done. Wrong again - it's real, not hypothetical, see Italian law above. Also from http://slate.msn.com/id/2120222/#Correction : Five days ago, Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan., suggested that the United States should follow countries that "limit the number" of eggs fertilized in vitro to "one or two at a time."
> Okay, then say "fetal stem cells", not "embryonic stem cells".
Wrong. I didn't use either term.
> Except that to be against the destruction of a fetus is to be against > abortion, but to be against the destruction of an embryo is to be > against in vitro fertilization.
Wrong. To be against 'discarding' fertilized embryos and is not to be against in-vitro fertilization.
> If you're against in vitro, then fine, but if you're okay with in > vitro, and if the process neccessitates the creation of extra embryos > that are going to get destroyed anyway, and the owners of those embryos
Wrong again. "the owners"? Remember Dred Scott? The law has been wrong before: http://www.historicaldocuments.com/DredScott.htm " Dred Scott sued his owner, John F. A. Sanford on three counts of assault."
Dred Scott lost. From here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v._Sanford "* No Negroes, not even free Negroes, could ever become citizens of the United States. They were "beings of an inferior order" not included in the phrase "all men" in the Declaration of Independence nor afforded any rights by the Constitution."
> are okay with them being used for scientific purposes instead of being > destroyed, then why shouldn't they be able to be used for scientific > purposes? What gives you the right to dictate what someone else can do?
Conscience - speaking on behalf of those that cannot speak for themselves. Remember, you and me were both embryos once.
A. Is it really hard for you to read the article? Here's some help: "FDA granting approval to the first ever transplant of fetal stem cells into..."
B. Is it really hard for you to think the issue through? The distinction between embryo and fetus is an arbitrary one - at both stages, it is a human being, distinct from the mother and father.
I'll second that. I'm no Linux guru, but just bought a 'Medion' Laptop from Aldi. It has a second 'non-booting' media-centre which is really a second Linux boot partition with a build of Busybox.
This Linux media center boots up in 10 seconds. That is counting from after the BIOS check completes, till the media centre interface is ready. With BIOS check included, it's under 15 seconds.
The Linux media centre includes 'PowerCinema Linux' to play DVDs. The Aldi box contains a leaflet mentioning the GPL, and has this link for downloading the source code: www.gocyberlink.com/pcmlinuxgpl_medion.htm
Well put. I'm reluctant to post here too, but really shouldn't be.
It's people like the guy you replied to, that are the real hypocrites. They won't extend the same protection to other fetuses, that they themselves had enjoyed. They are remarkably selfish, won't consider all sides of an issue, or to think issues through, preferring to live in secondhand emotions and artificial fury.
If someone suffering failing kidneys stole his son's kidneys, this guy should not object to the transplant, as long as the murderer did his time. Particulary if his son was 'culled' during non-REM sleep, when one has no conscious awareness (which some people use to justify foeticide.)
The movie you're talking of is 'John Q', starring Denzel Washington - a good movie.
Maybe one day this will be built into 'augmented reality' spectacles : you see an old colleague after years, and your glasses mark him up as "Mark Jones"
From the Link Grammer link you provided: http://bobo.link.cs.cmu.edu/link/ As of December 2004, we are releasing the parser under a new license; the license allows unrestricted use in commercial applications, and is also compatible with the GNU GPL (General Public License). You can view the license here. We are also releasing version 4.1b, which is identical to version 4.1 (released in 2000) except that the licensing statements reflect the new license.
$50 part? Did you even read the article? We're talking about an airliner that's already a year late, designed with redundancy stripped out from a crucial system (cabin pressurization controllers), and bugs in the controllers, possibly leading to a expensive and timeconsuming recertification process, perhaps even a redesign of pressurization system.
Just the time delays could cost Airbus billions as foreign airlines and governments sign deals for the new generation aircraft from Airbus and Boeing.
Of course the Greek crash (due to pressure loss) is related to this topic. The Greek jetliner was a 737. The article even quotes the engineer who helped design the 737's pressurization system as unhappy with Airbus' new design.
Concentrating on the evidence out there:
Most passenger jets have two cabin-pressure valves, with separate motors operating each. Because aircraft makers want redundancy on safety systems, the planes have three motors for each valve, with different chips controlling each motor....
Early on, the company elected to go with four outflow valves on the A380, with only one motor on each valve, which is slightly larger than a cabin window. Each motor uses a TTTech controller chip, and there is no manual override system.
"Just there, I would not be happy," said Chris Lomax, a retired engineer who helped design the cabin-pressurization systems for Boeing's 737 and 747. "If all four valves [on the A380] were driven wide open, it would be nip and tuck for the crew to get their [oxygen] mask on and begin a descent."
And this is what Mangan found: TTTech's chip originally was designed for use in autos, and the company is trying to get it certified as an existing, "commercial off-the-shelf" product that is acceptable for the A380, according to court records.
Mangan, however, alleges that the chip is being customized for aviation purposes, and thus must undergo stringent testing before being approved by regulators....
Mangan said he found serious flaws early last year in TTTech's computer chips and the software for the A380's cabin-pressurization system, according to legal documents. The system was executing "unpredictable" commands when it received certain data, possibly causing the pressure valves to open accidentally.
Because all four motors in the A380's cabin-pressurization system use the same type of flawed TTTech chip, Mangan says, "if one fails, they all fail."... Within days of firing Mangan last fall, TTTech sued him in civil court to try to force him to retract his statements to aviation authorities about the potential defect.
His company initially sued to stop him talking to aviation authorities!?
It is also important to remember the national commercial considerations in this mix -- Airbus has previously successfully challenged jurisdiction of a case before a US court under the United States Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act. The grounds were that Airbus was a corporation which was more than 50 per cent foreign-government owned. There is a potential for conflict when governments make aircraft primarily for sale abroad, and also certify it to fly.
> Judge ordered all sides to shut up while the investigation is ongoing. Just as TTTTech and Airbus would like it -- all hush hush, while the airliner-with-reduced-safety-features gets ready to fly.
This guy has done the right thing - Airbus will probably be forced to make changes - because of him going public. Perhaps you snigger at 'Slashdot soldiers'. That doesn't matter to anyone else in the long term.
> Look, judge doesn't side with anybody.... > Yes, the investigation IS ONGOING. Look, you say, but you have nothing to show! On the other hand, the case is a year old and the gag on the case was issued last year, and the airbus is getting ready to fly. Things like signature forgeries Mangan is alleging, would be trivial to prove or disprove as you yourself say - so who do they have working on this, Inspector Costeau?
Or it can follow a malfunction in the pressurization equipment, although such systems have built-in redundancies to prevent such problems.
You see these "built-in redundancies" mentioned there? The new system this guy is working on won't have them.
Now he's chief engineer for the company designing that one crucial control, so he's the domain expert. If he thinks there is a problem, industry is ignoring it, and the judge is siding with them and issuing a gag order, he did the right thing by following his conscience.
As you darkly imply, he may have sacrified his career because of his troublemaker status. Worthwhile price to pay to follow your conscience.
> Making PDFs Read/Write would torpedo a LOT of current practices.
We do the same thing in our workplace too.
Someone already mentioned writing to PDFs in Acrobat professional. IIRC, this is limited to minor changes - correcting words, inserting new pages, etc).
However, there is software to create Word documents _from_ PDFs. Once someone has a word file, he can edit it as much as he likes, and reexport it as PDF.
Some links from Google are below (search term: "create PDF from Word" -- look at the 'Sponsored Links'):
"Unlike U.S. laws that shield whistle-blowers from corporate retaliation, Austrian laws offer no such protection. Last year an Austrian judge imposed an unusual gag order on Mangan, seeking to stop him from talking about the case.
Mangan posted details about the case anyway in his own Internet blog. The Austrian court fined him $185,000 for violating the injunction....
To help pay living expenses and legal fees, Mangan sold his house in Kansas. With only about $300 left in his bank account, Mangan missed a Sept. 8 deadline to pay his $185,000 fine and faces up to a year in jail. Next month he's likely to be called before a judge on his criminal case.
The family expected to be evicted this month from their apartment, but their church in Vienna took up a collection to pay their rent....
TTTech has offered to drop its legal action against Mangan, court records show, and pay him three months of severance, if he retracts his statements. But Mangan has refused.
Mangan said he was looking for a new job. He has contacted dozens of aerospace firms in the U.S. and Europe, but none have returned his calls. "Nobody wants to touch me," he said."
Slashdot Mirror
> Deterrence only effects those who don't resepect the rule of law.
Those people includes most of us, in varying degrees. Ever broken the speed limit consciously? And slowed down and nevously glanced at the speedo when you saw a cop car in the rear view?
Deterrence does work, and for our sake, I am glad it does.
+ microphone + FM radio + auto-switching from music to phone answering ... all in wraparound stereo headphone form factor. Sounds sweet.
t tp%3A%2F%2Fcgi.ebay.com%2Fws%2F&fkr=1&from=R8&sati tle=omiz&category0=
http://search.ebay.com/search/search.dll?cgiurl=h
(Searched Ebay for "Omiz")
Supply has always been greater than demand.
Demand is now slowly growing but still miniscule.
Yes, we are obligated to not destroy frozen embryos - keep them frozen, or bring them to term.
Actually five eggs were fertilized. Two died in-vitro, one developed into an embryo but died in-utero, two survived.
They fertilized five eggs. Three of them developed into embryos, and two of them thrived in Mrs. Thomas' uterus. Emma and Jacob Thomas were born Feb. 2, 2001.
Wow! for... babies!?! :-o
:-)
It's got one heck of a bite! Thanks for the link
You are wrong.
. cfm?id=11198 ...
From http://www.worldmag.com/subscriber/displayarticle
The Thomases' doctor recommended that he fertilize as many as 20 of Mrs. Thomas' eggs,
He and his wife decided they would only fertilize as many eggs as they were willing to implant immediately. They fertilized five eggs. Three of them developed into embryos, and two of them thrived in Mrs. Thomas' uterus. Emma and Jacob Thomas were born Feb. 2, 2001.
What's it to you? Are you feeling cold in empathy? Or are you and your spouse volunteering to bring a few of them to term?
. cfm?id=11198
In the meantime, other are bringing them to term:
http://www.worldmag.com/subscriber/displayarticle
In May, Mr. Bush held a press conference with 21 formerly frozen IVF embryos. The children on stage with him shed light on one of the last hopes for an unwanted embryo: adoption.
Hope for one or more of those frozen embryos may rest with Matt and Andrea Thomas, whose IVF twins Emma and Jacob are now 4. They are praying about expanding their family, and considering embryo adoption as a possibility.
> Do you know of any doctor practicing in-vitro fertilization without creating extra embryos
. cfm?id=11198
> that have no chance of ever being grown?
Adding to my previous post about this happening abroad, here's evidence of this in the US. From: http://www.worldmag.com/subscriber/displayarticle
He and his wife decided they would only fertilize as many eggs as they were willing to implant immediately. They fertilized five eggs. Three of them developed into embryos, and two of them thrived in Mrs. Thomas' uterus. Emma and Jacob Thomas were born Feb. 2, 2001.
So there is no inevitablity about IVF creating 'extra-embryos-that-must-be-destroyed' - parents can override their doctor's preferences.
> > Wrong. I didn't use either term. ... yada yada ]
a tions.php : ...
y Id=4931567
4 7
> Perhaps not, but you supported
[
Enough. Stop being a fool. You were wrong - deal with it.
> > Wrong. To be against 'discarding' fertilized embryos and is not to
> > be against in-vitro fertilization.
> Do you know of any doctor practicing in-vitro fertilization without
> creating extra embryos
Yes, it's done like this abroad:
From http://www.ivf-infertility.com/ivf/standard/regul
Dr Samuel Marcus
11-Jun-2004 12:44
New Italian laws (2004) ban both freezing and destroying embryos, limit to three the number of eggs to be fertilized and state that all the created embryos must be transferred. Furthermore, they restrict the use of assisted conception treatments to infertile couples.
Embryo adoption is a possibility for existing embryos. See: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?stor
A couple mentioned in the story had 9 extra embryos and donated them to another infertile couple, who committed to implanting all 9 extra embryos in separate IVF cycles (only one resulted in a child.)
> Even if they aren't destroyed, they can only legally be used
> by the people who created them.
Included adopted out. See also : http://www.legis.state.la.us/lss/lss.asp?doc=1084
> If they aren't going to use them, they're essentially in limbo.
> Or they're destroyed. I suppose you could theoretically support some
> hypothetical in-vitro procedure where only one embryo is created at a
> time, and then implanted, but the fact is that that's not how it's
> done.
Wrong again - it's real, not hypothetical, see Italian law above. Also from http://slate.msn.com/id/2120222/#Correction :
Five days ago, Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan., suggested that the United States should follow countries that "limit the number" of eggs fertilized in vitro to "one or two at a time."
> Okay, then say "fetal stem cells", not "embryonic stem cells".
d
Wrong. I didn't use either term.
> Except that to be against the destruction of a fetus is to be against
> abortion, but to be against the destruction of an embryo is to be
> against in vitro fertilization.
Wrong. To be against 'discarding' fertilized embryos and is not to be against in-vitro fertilization.
> If you're against in vitro, then fine, but if you're okay with in
> vitro, and if the process neccessitates the creation of extra embryos
> that are going to get destroyed anyway, and the owners of those embryos
Wrong again. "the owners"? Remember Dred Scott? The law has been wrong before:
http://www.historicaldocuments.com/DredScott.htm
" Dred Scott sued his owner, John F. A. Sanford on three counts of assault."
Dred Scott lost. From here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v._Sanfor
"* No Negroes, not even free Negroes, could ever become citizens of the United States. They were "beings of an inferior order" not included in the phrase "all men" in the Declaration of Independence nor afforded any rights by the Constitution."
> are okay with them being used for scientific purposes instead of being
> destroyed, then why shouldn't they be able to be used for scientific
> purposes? What gives you the right to dictate what someone else can do?
Conscience - speaking on behalf of those that cannot speak for themselves. Remember, you and me were both embryos once.
A. Is it really hard for you to read the article?
Here's some help:
"FDA granting approval to the first ever transplant of fetal stem cells into..."
B. Is it really hard for you to think the issue through?
The distinction between embryo and fetus is an arbitrary one - at both stages, it is a human being, distinct from the mother and father.
> 30 seconds is a pretty long time to boot.
l
I'll second that. I'm no Linux guru, but just bought a 'Medion' Laptop from Aldi. It has a second 'non-booting' media-centre which is really a second Linux boot partition with a build of Busybox.
This Linux media center boots up in 10 seconds. That is counting from after the BIOS check completes, till the media centre interface is ready. With BIOS check included, it's under 15 seconds.
The Linux media centre includes 'PowerCinema Linux' to play DVDs.
The Aldi box contains a leaflet mentioning the GPL, and has this link for downloading the source code:
www.gocyberlink.com/pcmlinuxgpl_medion.htm
Laptop advert on Aldi website: http://www.aldi.com.au/product_03/product_421.htm
Well put. I'm reluctant to post here too, but really shouldn't be.
It's people like the guy you replied to, that are the real hypocrites. They won't extend the same protection to other fetuses, that they themselves had enjoyed. They are remarkably selfish, won't consider all sides of an issue, or to think issues through, preferring to live in secondhand emotions and artificial fury.
If someone suffering failing kidneys stole his son's kidneys, this guy should not object to the transplant, as long as the murderer did his time. Particulary if his son was 'culled' during non-REM sleep, when one has no conscious awareness (which some people use to justify foeticide.)
The movie you're talking of is 'John Q', starring Denzel Washington - a good movie.
Maybe one day this will be built into 'augmented reality' spectacles : you see an old colleague after years, and your glasses mark him up as "Mark Jones"
...hence proving the grandparent poster's point.
7 97609
Also, OO.org is LGPL and LinkGrammer has a BSD-ish license that allows free commercial use:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=165404&cid=13
From the Link Grammer link you provided:
http://bobo.link.cs.cmu.edu/link/
As of December 2004, we are releasing the parser under a new license; the license allows unrestricted use in commercial applications, and is also compatible with the GNU GPL (General Public License). You can view the license here. We are also releasing version 4.1b, which is identical to version 4.1 (released in 2000) except that the licensing statements reflect the new license.
Sun's license for OpenOffice is LGPL
http://www.openoffice.org/license.html
> I'm comfortable in my correctness, even if I can't convince all of you.
:-)... ...Slashdot exchanges are also part of real life.
Nothing wrong in not being able to convince people.
> Enough people... Hell, enough companies agree with me that "reference
> implementations" for tons of technologies exist.
Correct, but tangential to your point. Most reference implementations serve as an adjunct to a spec.
> Being right in real life is way better than being right on Slashdot.
Your disdain notwithstanding
Dude - you're a bad loser.
Your sarcasm has no point.
I didn't forget about it - I was talking about creating Word files from PDF :)
> we're not talking about Airbus forging
$50 part? Did you even read the article? We're talking about an airliner that's already a year late, designed with redundancy stripped out from a crucial system (cabin pressurization controllers), and bugs in the controllers, possibly leading to a expensive and timeconsuming recertification process, perhaps even a redesign of pressurization system.
Just the time delays could cost Airbus billions as foreign airlines and governments sign deals for the new generation aircraft from Airbus and Boeing.
Of course the Greek crash (due to pressure loss) is related to this topic. The Greek jetliner was a 737. The article even quotes the engineer who helped design the 737's pressurization system as unhappy with Airbus' new design.
...
...
...
...
Concentrating on the evidence out there:
Most passenger jets have two cabin-pressure valves, with separate motors operating each. Because aircraft makers want redundancy on safety systems, the planes have three motors for each valve, with different chips controlling each motor.
Early on, the company elected to go with four outflow valves on the A380, with only one motor on each valve, which is slightly larger than a cabin window. Each motor uses a TTTech controller chip, and there is no manual override system.
"Just there, I would not be happy," said Chris Lomax, a retired engineer who helped design the cabin-pressurization systems for Boeing's 737 and 747. "If all four valves [on the A380] were driven wide open, it would be nip and tuck for the crew to get their [oxygen] mask on and begin a descent."
And this is what Mangan found:
TTTech's chip originally was designed for use in autos, and the company is trying to get it certified as an existing, "commercial off-the-shelf" product that is acceptable for the A380, according to court records.
Mangan, however, alleges that the chip is being customized for aviation purposes, and thus must undergo stringent testing before being approved by regulators.
Mangan said he found serious flaws early last year in TTTech's computer chips and the software for the A380's cabin-pressurization system, according to legal documents. The system was executing "unpredictable" commands when it received certain data, possibly causing the pressure valves to open accidentally.
Because all four motors in the A380's cabin-pressurization system use the same type of flawed TTTech chip, Mangan says, "if one fails, they all fail."
Within days of firing Mangan last fall, TTTech sued him in civil court to try to force him to retract his statements to aviation authorities about the potential defect.
His company initially sued to stop him talking to aviation authorities!?
It is also important to remember the national commercial considerations in this mix -- Airbus has previously successfully challenged jurisdiction of a case before a US court under the United States Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act. The grounds were that Airbus was a corporation which was more than 50 per cent foreign-government owned. There is a potential for conflict when governments make aircraft primarily for sale abroad, and also certify it to fly.
> Judge ordered all sides to shut up while the investigation is ongoing.
Just as TTTTech and Airbus would like it -- all hush hush, while the airliner-with-reduced-safety-features gets ready to fly.
This guy has done the right thing - Airbus will probably be forced to make changes - because of him going public. Perhaps you snigger at 'Slashdot soldiers'. That doesn't matter to anyone else in the long term.
> Look, judge doesn't side with anybody.
> Yes, the investigation IS ONGOING.
Look, you say, but you have nothing to show! On the other hand, the case is a year old and the gag on the case was issued last year, and the airbus is getting ready to fly. Things like signature forgeries Mangan is alleging, would be trivial to prove or disprove as you yourself say - so who do they have working on this, Inspector Costeau?
I understand the legal system adequately. You need to understand that doing the right thing trumps European legalities when lives are at stake.
2 005/08/16/MNGVAE8CRS1.DTL
Take a read of this - this happened a couple of weeks ago - a Greek airliner lost cabin pressure - everyone died:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/
Aviation experts puzzled by clues in Greek disaster
Crews well trained to handle cabin decompression
Or it can follow a malfunction in the pressurization equipment, although such systems have built-in redundancies to prevent such problems.
You see these "built-in redundancies" mentioned there? The new system this guy is working on won't have them.
Now he's chief engineer for the company designing that one crucial control, so he's the domain expert. If he thinks there is a problem, industry is ignoring it, and the judge is siding with them and issuing a gag order, he did the right thing by following his conscience.
As you darkly imply, he may have sacrified his career because of his troublemaker status. Worthwhile price to pay to follow your conscience.
> Making PDFs Read/Write would torpedo a LOT of current practices.
- ex.html
We do the same thing in our workplace too.
Someone already mentioned writing to PDFs in Acrobat professional. IIRC, this is limited to minor changes - correcting words, inserting new pages, etc).
However, there is software to create Word documents _from_ PDFs. Once someone has a word file, he can edit it as much as he likes, and reexport it as PDF.
Some links from Google are below (search term: "create PDF from Word" -- look at the
'Sponsored Links'):
http://www.solidpdf.com/pdf/_to_word_converter/42
http://www.verypdf.com/pdf2word/index.html
http://www.eprintdriver.com/PDFoptions/PDF-Writer
This does not look like a Boeing PR move. This looks like a honest-to-goodness engineer sticking to his ethics.
...
...
From the article:
"Unlike U.S. laws that shield whistle-blowers from corporate retaliation, Austrian laws offer no such protection. Last year an Austrian judge imposed an unusual gag order on Mangan, seeking to stop him from talking about the case.
Mangan posted details about the case anyway in his own Internet blog. The Austrian court fined him $185,000 for violating the injunction.
To help pay living expenses and legal fees, Mangan sold his house in Kansas. With only about $300 left in his bank account, Mangan missed a Sept. 8 deadline to pay his $185,000 fine and faces up to a year in jail. Next month he's likely to be called before a judge on his criminal case.
The family expected to be evicted this month from their apartment, but their church in Vienna took up a collection to pay their rent.
TTTech has offered to drop its legal action against Mangan, court records show, and pay him three months of severance, if he retracts his statements. But Mangan has refused.
Mangan said he was looking for a new job. He has contacted dozens of aerospace firms in the U.S. and Europe, but none have returned his calls. "Nobody wants to touch me," he said."