Ok, the EU made their pointless point. The ONLY Operating system that can not ship with a Browser is Windows.
Apple = Free Pass Linux (every flavor) = Free Pass
What next EU?
Note pad? Word Pad? Calendar? Surely there must be some tiny two man software company in some backwater town that can't sell its Calendar because Windows already has one.
Yes some of Microsoft's business practices were egregious. But including a Browser was not one of them.
Will the EU take its winnings and go home now, or are we going to be subject to another 5 years of whining about imaginary sins of successful companies while they pour billions into Airbus.
I know that was supposed to be funny, but why not have a deflector that can be deployed in front of the engine For an instant, In an instant, and then retract.
Sure it blanks the engine, but it only needs to be there for a couple seconds.
This might be easier to do on tail-mounted engines, like 727's because the deflector (shaped like an air-brake) could deploy from the side of the aircraft.
But a pole protruding forward from the axis of engine could deploy near instantaneous deflectors which retract just as quickly to bounce birds around the intake.
I've often thought that equatorial regions near oceans are letting a huge energy resource go to waste while they suffer increased desertification.
Sun light could be used to pump sea water, evaporate it, and pump condensed briny water back to the sea. You could also use solar powered RO, but that might be more expensive due to the media replacement needs.
Even if you did not get enough for western style irrigation you could use it to slow down or reverse the process of desertification, preserving marginal adjacent farm/grazing land.
If you extract moisture from already very dry are do you not create a dead zone down wind?
There is life everywhere in the desert, most of which is tuned to live on very little water, but all of which need water from some source occasionally.
Pushing humans into these areas where the only source of water is minimally moist seems rather pointless and ill advised.
All well and good to posture, but those having an iPhone under the only contract terms available have sunk costs and can't do a thing to recover them.
The phone is locked to ATT.
ATT subsidized the iPhone heavily and wants to recover their costs. Its understandable.
Yes, ATT should allow you to pay off your ETF (which by the way should ONLY include what they owe Apple for the phone) and let you start a new contract with a new phone.
"The far more likely scenarios, while being vigorously downplayed by the press and governments involved, are on board bombs or aircraft structural failure."
Airbus is still contesting the fact that a pilot was able to kick the tail off of an Airbus A300 in flight, and certainly don't want to admit turbulence caused the A330 to breakup.
Air France is vigorously Denying their pre-flight screening might have missed a bomb.
The far more likely scenarios, while being vigorously downplayed by the press and governments involved, are on board bombs or aircraft structural failure.
1) There was a bomb threat 2) This same type of aircraft had its tail torn off by simple wake turbulence on American Airlines flight 587
The fact that Airbus and Air France are groping around for ANY more politically acceptable explanation should be your first clue that they are in full out Spin Doctor mode.
Slashdot Mirror
Include all popular web browsers and the uninformed are just going to click the internet explorer link.
By uninformed you mean people who disagree with you.
Ok, the EU made their pointless point. The ONLY Operating system that can not ship with a Browser is Windows.
Apple = Free Pass
Linux (every flavor) = Free Pass
What next EU?
Note pad? Word Pad? Calendar?
Surely there must be some tiny two man software company in some backwater town that can't sell its Calendar because Windows already has one.
Yes some of Microsoft's business practices were egregious. But including a Browser was not one of them.
Will the EU take its winnings and go home now, or are we going to be subject to another 5 years of whining about imaginary sins of successful companies while they pour billions into Airbus.
We could hardly buy what they don't sell.
Declared is a far cry from Proven.
Sully's engines were not turning when it hit the water.
> and they're better at it than we'll ever be.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SR-71
How about cow catchers?
I know that was supposed to be funny, but why not have a deflector that can be deployed in front of the engine For an instant, In an instant, and then retract.
Sure it blanks the engine, but it only needs to be there for a couple seconds.
This might be easier to do on tail-mounted engines, like 727's because the deflector (shaped like an air-brake) could deploy from the side of the aircraft.
But a pole protruding forward from the axis of engine could deploy near instantaneous deflectors
which retract just as quickly to bounce birds around the intake.
Yup. I've never seen a bird fly under a power line.
Not.
So, at least in this instance, there was basically nothing you could do about it except have trained pilots well-versed in emergency procedures.
I think the story is focused on changing the idea that there is basically nothing you can do.
The search for deterrent measures should not be limited to ground based systems.
We should not have to forever live with engine technology that can't handle that which occurs naturally in its normal operating environment.
We should not have to de-bird large areas just to handle air traffic.
The focus is to manage the problem so that it does not require every pilot execute emergency procedures on a daily basis.
"As all persons are held innocent until they shall have been declared guilty,
Declared is a far cry from Proven.
Quote:
This is obviously contrary to the constitutional principle of presumption of innocence.
Question:
Does France have such a presumption?
Not trolling, I really don't know.
First and foremost check to be sure the problem is not closer to home.
Seriously, what goes around comes around.
I've often thought that equatorial regions near oceans are letting a huge energy resource go to waste while they suffer increased desertification.
Sun light could be used to pump sea water, evaporate it, and pump condensed briny water back to the sea. You could also use solar powered RO, but that might be more expensive due to the media replacement needs.
Even if you did not get enough for western style irrigation you could use it to slow down or reverse the process of desertification, preserving marginal adjacent farm/grazing land.
Really? Is that how they do it?
Amazing what you can carry on the back of a Camel.
If you extract moisture from already very dry are do you not create a dead zone down wind?
There is life everywhere in the desert, most of which is tuned to live on very little water, but all of which need water from some source occasionally.
Pushing humans into these areas where the only source of water is minimally moist seems rather pointless and ill advised.
Would it work on mars?
No, you can't sell your iPhone right now for $400.
Sorry, take a look at the current prices for locked iPhones on Ebay. Falling like rocks.
All well and good to posture, but those having an iPhone under the only contract terms available have sunk costs and can't do a thing to recover them.
The phone is locked to ATT.
ATT subsidized the iPhone heavily and wants to recover their costs. Its understandable.
Yes, ATT should allow you to pay off your ETF (which by the way should ONLY include what they owe Apple for the phone) and let you start a new contract with a new phone.
What could be more fair?
And of course, there are no "jokes like these" in China or Russia. Why? Because they are not "inferior".
The fact that the GP feels obligated to define himself as "Western" suggests to me that he is, in fact, NOT.
RTFA: There are no wireless broadband providers available in the area, I already checked."
I think you are up the wrong tree barking.
You apparently missed this sentence:
"The far more likely scenarios, while being vigorously downplayed by the press and governments involved, are on board bombs or aircraft structural failure."
Airbus is still contesting the fact that a pilot was able to kick the tail off of an Airbus A300 in flight, and certainly don't want to admit turbulence caused the A330 to breakup.
Air France is vigorously Denying their pre-flight screening might have missed a bomb.
1) http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,25585013-952,00.html
2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_587
3: Google is your friend.
Need we grasp at straws this early?
The far more likely scenarios, while being vigorously downplayed by the press and governments involved, are on board bombs or aircraft structural failure.
1) There was a bomb threat
2) This same type of aircraft had its tail torn off by simple wake turbulence on American Airlines flight 587
The fact that Airbus and Air France are groping around for ANY more politically acceptable explanation should be your first clue that they are in full out Spin Doctor mode.
Why look to the infantessimaly small probability items when the 800 pound gorilla is still in the room: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor
No one opposes stem cell research.
Many oppose terminating fetal lives to harvest stem cells.
How is this germane to the case at hand, or were you just practicing your straw mans skills?
Quote:
" Two were legally blind, but can now read the big letters on an eye chart. "
So they are STILL Legally blind.
Legally blind is 20/200. http://ask.yahoo.com/20021031.html
The big letters are 20/200, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye_chart
So if that's the best they can do, they are STILL legally blind, and I'm Still and insensitive clod.
Car resales didn't kill the ...
Oh, wait a minute....