A single engine failure can crash a twin engine plane -- if it happens at the wrong time and the pilot fails to initiate the documented corrective action. That's the case with a LOT of failures. After the Lion Air crash, every 737 MAX pilot knows how to detect an deal with that problem so there's no excuse for a repeat (if the Ethiopian Airline crash was a repeat - which I'm not confident of given the witness reports that the plane was on fire on the way down to the crash site).
There are two AOA sensors on the 737 MAX - one on each side. The erroneous one may give a rational, yet wrong, signal. However, I suspect that the Boeing "patch" will add cross checking and perhaps more explicit alerts to the pilots when something seems "off".
In order to increase fuel efficiency on the 737 MAX, the engine fan diameter was increased. These "underwing" engines would have been too close to the ground if mounted as on other 737 models. Thus, the engineers moved the engines forward and upward to achieve necessary ground clearance. This, along with some other changes, moved the force of thrust forward which made the plane more prone to lift its nose too high and stall. To guard against this, Boeing introduced the Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System (MCAS) which activates automatically when the autopilot is off in some conditions which include when the angle of attack (AOA) is too high. The MCAS system, when needed, attempts to prevent a stall by adjusting the horizontal stabilizer trim upward and will do this over, I believe, about 10 seconds or until the pilot overrides it or the angle of attack is within limits. If the pilot activates the trim control switch on the yoke, MCAS will be disabled -- but, five seconds after the switch is released, MCAS will reengage if the conditions call for it (esp. AOA). When MCAS is altering the trim, the manual trim controls on each side of the center "console" will be spinning away and, if a pilot looks down, they will see that motion as there is a white stripe extending outward from the center in order to make the movement obvious.
The best speculation I've heard about the Lion Air crash was that there was a problem with one of the AOA sensors. There are two such sensors - one on both side of the 737 Max.
As in most crashes, due to the redundancy of systems and procedures, it's rarely one thing that causes a crash but rather a cascade of events.
There had been problems with at least one of the AOAs on previous flights but maintenance attempts appear not to have solved the problem. So, first there was a failure of maintenance, but of course AOA sensors will fail from time to time, so one can't blame the crash on that failure.
I've not heard how MCAS handled conflicting AOA sensor readings but I suspect this is one of the big areas of change that they will push in the April "patch". But, it's likely that the failing AOA caused the MCAS to activate when it shouldn't have and push the nose down by adjusting the trim - but this actually pushed the plane's nose down too far. When the pilots tried to correct, they ended up disabling MCAS (although perhaps not explicitly aware that they were doing so) only to have it start undoing what they had accomplished five seconds after they released the trim control on the yolk - and this was a vicious loop.
Had the pilot recognized what was happening, they simply would have ran the "runaway trim" procedure (which would have disabled MCAS and some other automatic trim controls completely via a switch on the center "console") and flown the plane manually with no problems. Unfortunately, the pilots likely didn't figure out what was causing the problem and failed to execute the necessary procedure. So, that was a pilot error (and, that's probably what will be determined to be the main problem here, with contributing factors).
There is much debate on why the Lion Air pilots may have failed to recognize what was going on. Many pilots and their union claim that they were not told about the existence of MCAS. Boeing hasn't been talking a lot, but they seem to assert that there was no need to train the pilots on MCAS beyond what the manuals/training did as it was a classic "runaway trim" scenario and the training was sufficient to cause the pilots to detect that case and initiate the proper procedure. Boeing did, however, issue documentation updates to operators worldwide soon after the Lion Air crash.
After Boeing issued the documentation updates, every 737 MAX pilot should have been fully aware of MCAS and what to do if was doing the wrong thing. This, coupled with the witness reports that the Ethiopian Airline 737 MAX that crashed was spewing smoke and fire from the back of the plane a
Plastic bags, for the same volume, also are lighter and less bulky. This makes them cheaper to transport and require less place for storage and less frequent restocking at the check stands.
Plastic bags also don't weaken when they get moist either from being set on a wet surface or because something inside leaks or condenses due to high humidity.
Not to say these makes them worthwhile, but those are advantages.
Unfortunately, job descriptions rarely map cleanly to individuals, particularly those with exceptional skills in a few areas.
I've known Software Engineers that had zero interest in being "leaders" or "architects" - perhaps because they eschewed conflict, were somewhat antisocial, didn't like being responsible for other peoples' work, or just didn't like doing that sort of work. However they were absolutely awesome at some particular aspect of their job such as having an unparalleled ability to track down and eradicate concurrency related heisenbugs which occur extremely rarely and leave core files that are quite inscrutable. These bugs can hold up releases by months, piss off Fortune 50 customers who have spent big bucks on your product, and harm the reputation of the company. Noticing and resolving them quickly (hopefully before Alpha) is generally far more important than any new feature in a release.
There, unfortunately, often isn't a proper standard job description for such people but they can be the most valuable employee on your staff and almost impossible to replace and worth twice as much salary as the typical "conformant" Level X (who is striving to get to Level Y). They are not likely to be promoted because that puts them in a situation they would find untenable - for example, having to engage in conflict over designs - and be doing less of the more valuable work they love to do and are excellent at. These people tend to be stuck at Level X, get great bonuses every year, and end up at the top of their pay grade -- yet they are way underpaid compared to their actual contributions.
Like we should have stopped building railroads after the first fatal accident and stopped building airplanes after the first crash killed someone and stopped the space program after the Apollo 1 fire and stopped production of all monoclonal antibodies after the first patient died from side effects?
We learn from each accident and improve. You are including accidents from the relative infancy of nuclear power. For example, at the time of the accident, Chernobyl was an ancient plant of ancient design with idiot operators.
Anthropogenic climate change is likely to be much more dangerous to humans than nuclear power is even if every kWh of energy used by humans were produced by modern nuclear power plants. As well, accidents arising from nuclear power plants have tiny scope compared to the worldwide impact of climate change. Generating power via nuclear fission is an excellent way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Probably 99% of adult US residents can't easily read and understand US income tax laws - yet they are required, under the threat of fine and incarceration, to follow them.
No one is required to agree to a TOS on a commercial website and, if they wish, they can have a lawyer review the TOS before agreeing.
In reality, I think most people (excluding those who are illiterate, and/or suffering from some forms of mental illness, and/or intellectually disabled) are just too lazy and/or unmotivated to read and understand most TOSs rather than "unable" to do so. Note that having to look up a phrase in a dictionary doesn't mean you are unable to understand a document containing that phrase -- and the next time you run across that phrase you then already know what it means. Note that having to refer to Section (x)(1)(II)(A) of a contract when it's mentioned by reference elsewhere in the contract may be time consuming, but it does not render the one "unable" to understand the contract. Long ago I used to read TOSs all the way through and never had a problem understanding them. Occasionally, I will still read one all the way through just to keep tabs on what tends to be in them and still have little trouble understanding them -- yes, it's a lot of work and if I actually insisted on reading every one, there are a lot of sites I wouldn't patronize as the cost of reading and understanding the TOS far exceeds the value of the site to me (although not, perhaps, to others).
Although, of course, I can't predict reliably how a court may interpret potentially ambiguous terms. However, the simpler the agreement is, the more likely there are to be ambiguous terms. For example, does the term "supplier" just refer to the subsidiary providing the service or does it apply to successor companies and parent company? Much of the complexity that makes a TOS harder to read is attempting to eliminate ambiguity -- as is the case in most legal documents. If the TOSs were more easily read, the resulting ambiguity would result in more class actions suits attempting to exploit that ambiguity.
Courts tend to apply the doctrine of contra proferentem to contractual interpretation, especially in contracts of adhesion ("take it or leave it" or "standard form" contracts) or in situations where the drafting party has more power and expertise than the non-drafting party (both true in the case of most TOSs). Under this doctrine, ambiguous terms/clauses are interpreted in favor of the non-drafting party. As a result, the drafting party must be very careful to remove any ambiguity that could be interpreted against them -- and this results in much more complex contracts.
Note also that "being unable to understand a contract" is quite different from "preferring that a contract's terms were different".
I don't recall commercial airlines delaying flights simply because a passenger never checks in (either themselves or their luggage - which I assume is the case here). It happens on most every flight and that's why if a flight is fully booked on a large plane, it will almost always end up with standby passengers. The passenger's actions certainly didn't inconvenience other passengers -- they have no idea the seat was booked. It may also offer a great convenience to another passenger -- the one who snagged the seat on a standby basis and made it to their wealthy mom's bedside minutes before she expired thereby fulfilling the requirement of her will that only those who have visited her in person within the 24 hours before her death inherit anything.
The one exception I've seen to the delaying for one or more passengers is when those passenger have an incoming connecting flight and that flight is delayed. In that case I've seen outgoing flights held for a while so, yes, if the passenger just takes his carry-on (having no checked baggage) from the incoming flight and never appears for the outgoing flight, that flight might have been delayed longer than if he had traveled on through. Of course, I didn't RTFA so I don't know if that happened here.
Those aren't damages as the airline didn't incur any loss from the passenger's action - the airline happily sold tickets for N legs, the passenger only used N-1 legs thereby saving the airline money and, perhaps, giving them an opportunity to even make a lot of additional money if they sold the unclaimed seat to a full fare standby passenger.
Suppose I buy a gallon of milk from the store knowing that I'm only going to use three quarts of it but the one-gallon package is cheaper than three one-quart packages (or one half-gallon package plus a one-quart package). I do this knowing that I will throw out the last quart (perhaps I have very regular "milk usage requirements" and know that I'm scheduled to go out of town for a few months after only consuming 3/4 of the gallon package). Did the dairy or the market suffer any economic damages from my decision not to use the "last leg" of the milk and take advantage of volume buying?
Sure, the market and I don't have a contract, but even in a breach of contract case, the aggrieved party is generally only due their actual damages.
The airline saved money on fuel by not hauling the passenger and his luggage on the last leg. Perhaps, they even filled that seat with a last minute full-fare standby passenger. Even if they were legally correct, what damages did they incur by the passenger breaching their contract?
There are large databases maintained by many federal agencies/organizations. These include NOAA, Census Bureau and NASA. Some provide FTP access, some provide an API, and some require going through a web interface -- and some provide all three. Some of these can easily result in downloads of many gigabytes, sometimes zipped up into one custom file for your request. Yet, not one that I've run across even requires registration, let alone paying anything.
So, why would the courts charge for access to public data that is much more central to the proper functioning of a society?
It's like the courts really haven't gotten beyond the notion of paper archives with costly human workers digging through dusty file cabinets to retrieve the data and copy it onto dead trees. That's a little scary since these are the same organizations that are our last resort for civil and criminal justice.
At this point in time, FB's behavior is notorious and well known to anyone who uses, or might use, it and has an IQ above (Fahrenheit) room temperature.
No one is forced to use FB. It's not an essential service. People will decide to use it, or not.
The problem, if there is one, will solve itself as younger people gravitate to other platforms and FB's name becomes more mired in mud.
I didn't get that either so I did the unthinkable - I skimmed the article and found this (before I gave up)...
Some university leaders said they were concerned that certain measures taken to address surging student demand may disadvantage people who are already unrepresented in computer science — including women, African-Americans, Latinos and low-income, first-generation college students.
Some universities now require incoming students to get accepted into computer science majors before they arrive on campus — and make it nearly impossible for other undergraduates to transfer into the major. That approach can favor incoming students from schools with resources like advanced programming courses. It can also favor male students — because women on average are less likely to have taken a computer science course in high school.
“When you put any kind of barrier in place in terms of access to computer science majors, it tends to reduce the number of women and students of color in the program,” said Maria Klawe, president of Harvey Mudd College, a private college in Claremont, Calif., that has become a national model for diversity in computer science.
Although, it seems any decision on the part of female students to eschew available computer science courses in high school isn't a "problem". Surely very few, and no public, high schools let boys take such classes while preventing girls from taking them. Perhaps girls and boys tend to choose different courses in high school, but that's a free will choice of each student.
Similarly, I don't see it as a "problem" that women are under represented in commercial fishing and logging (two of the most dangerous professions in the country) or in plumbing and construction laborer (dirty and hard jobs respectively) -- I don't see a lot of women clamoring to get into these fields and finding that they are excluded based on gender (vs. strength or willingness to take physical risks or willingness to get dirty and work in unpleasant weather conditions -- all of which would be their choices).
The President typically proposes a budget and makes aspiration speeches about what he thinks the country should focus on and accomplish. Each year he can propose a budget with whatever funds for NASA they request so that is, in a sense, unlimited. I think it's reasonable to look at this through that lens. For example when JFK said "We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard...", he hadn't gotten approval in the budget for all funds necessary to do so.
As well, the NASA administrator was incorrect in, apparently, claiming that it wouldn't be possible to attempt a manned space flight to Mars by 2020. First, an "attempt" is only that -- I can "attempt" to fly to Mars by flapping my arms very fast (and I'll happily take the contract to perform that attempt - for a mere $100M). Second, I didn't see any requirement that a "manned" space flight to Mars even required that the person survive past launch - in fact, I'll bet you could find some rich terminally ill person who would happily pay to launch on a flight to Mars with just ten days of supplies (O2, food, water) and a "sleepy pill" (or helium or nitrogen -- whatever works best) to use just before the O2 ran out. Given the way Trump makes deals (even when in the rare instances where he keeps his side of the bargain), one should just ask what fine print is in the agreement before claiming attempting such a mission by 2020 is not possible.
Of course, if Linux really became a popular desktop OS for ordinary users, this old family friend would now fall victim "Linux National Support Center" scam. The reason these don't seem to exist is because there are so few Linux desktop users except techies that Linux scams are not as profitable as Windows scams.
Although since that was eliminated for most nominees by the Democrats when they had the majority and then, predictably, eliminated even for Supreme Court nominees by Republicans, I don't imagine the legislative filibuster is long for this world.
The WARN act in California only applies to layoffs/closures/relocations of more than some number/percentage of workers. It does not apply, for example, to individual "for cause" which is commonly used to get around the WARN acts - suddenly workers who have been getting good performance reviews for years, without warning, are told that their performance isn't good enough and they are being let go.Of course, this happens in waves that look suspiciously like layoffs by another name.
For a fresh out, I look at GPA quite closely - but more importantly, the source of the GPA. I do like pretty close to a 4.0 GPA (depending on the school) for "in major" courses but for "out of major" courses such as that Literature course you took to satisfy general education, I will accept a 3.0 without hesitation. In fact, this gives me more information about you than a 4.0 across the board would - it's likely you really enjoyed the "in major" classes and focused on them and likely were not obsessed with grades (hence the "B"s in "out of major" courses). The 4.0 student might have just been obsessed with grades and been good at getting them and perhaps took easier sections/classes to keep their GPA up. I also tend to be more forgiving of a lower GPA ("in major" or "out of major") if it was dragged down by Freshman grades as it suggests that you screwed up in your Freshman year, figured out what you were doing "wrong", and corrected course (it also suggests that you may be fairly good at beer pong and that might be useful should some friendly inter-group rivalry erupt late some Friday night).
Obviously I'm not going to reject the 4.0 student just because of their perfect GPA and grades are only a hint that starts a conversation -- unless you have a 3.0 or less "in major" from anything but a very elite school in which case you'll likely not get an interview.
If a girl under 18 sneaks into the bar and you do her, even with her consent, your "She must have been 21 because she was in the bar" defense won't save you.
There are guys who even checked a girl's convincing fake ID and relied on that as proof of her being over 18 yet have ended up convicted of statutory rape (although, I doubt police would get away with fake ids in a sting operation -- that would likely be crossing the entrapment threshold).
Probably they didn't want to create a chain reaction rear end accident. By running a traffic break behind the Tesla before then slowing down and bringing the Tesla to a halt by slowing a patrol car down in front if it, they cars behind were already slowed down a bit, there was more of a gap between following cars and the Tesla, and drivers behind anticipated that something was going on ahead. This reduced the chances of someone crashing into the Tesla when it stopped in the middle of a traffic lane for no apparent reason in the early morning hours on a freeway.
Slashdot Mirror
Yep -- and the fatality rate per passenger mile was much higher "back in the day".
A single engine failure can crash a twin engine plane -- if it happens at the wrong time and the pilot fails to initiate the documented corrective action. That's the case with a LOT of failures. After the Lion Air crash, every 737 MAX pilot knows how to detect an deal with that problem so there's no excuse for a repeat (if the Ethiopian Airline crash was a repeat - which I'm not confident of given the witness reports that the plane was on fire on the way down to the crash site).
There are two AOA sensors on the 737 MAX - one on each side. The erroneous one may give a rational, yet wrong, signal. However, I suspect that the Boeing "patch" will add cross checking and perhaps more explicit alerts to the pilots when something seems "off".
My lay person's understanding...
In order to increase fuel efficiency on the 737 MAX, the engine fan diameter was increased. These "underwing" engines would have been too close to the ground if mounted as on other 737 models. Thus, the engineers moved the engines forward and upward to achieve necessary ground clearance. This, along with some other changes, moved the force of thrust forward which made the plane more prone to lift its nose too high and stall. To guard against this, Boeing introduced the Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System (MCAS) which activates automatically when the autopilot is off in some conditions which include when the angle of attack (AOA) is too high. The MCAS system, when needed, attempts to prevent a stall by adjusting the horizontal stabilizer trim upward and will do this over, I believe, about 10 seconds or until the pilot overrides it or the angle of attack is within limits. If the pilot activates the trim control switch on the yoke, MCAS will be disabled -- but, five seconds after the switch is released, MCAS will reengage if the conditions call for it (esp. AOA). When MCAS is altering the trim, the manual trim controls on each side of the center "console" will be spinning away and, if a pilot looks down, they will see that motion as there is a white stripe extending outward from the center in order to make the movement obvious.
The best speculation I've heard about the Lion Air crash was that there was a problem with one of the AOA sensors. There are two such sensors - one on both side of the 737 Max.
As in most crashes, due to the redundancy of systems and procedures, it's rarely one thing that causes a crash but rather a cascade of events.
There had been problems with at least one of the AOAs on previous flights but maintenance attempts appear not to have solved the problem. So, first there was a failure of maintenance, but of course AOA sensors will fail from time to time, so one can't blame the crash on that failure.
I've not heard how MCAS handled conflicting AOA sensor readings but I suspect this is one of the big areas of change that they will push in the April "patch". But, it's likely that the failing AOA caused the MCAS to activate when it shouldn't have and push the nose down by adjusting the trim - but this actually pushed the plane's nose down too far. When the pilots tried to correct, they ended up disabling MCAS (although perhaps not explicitly aware that they were doing so) only to have it start undoing what they had accomplished five seconds after they released the trim control on the yolk - and this was a vicious loop.
Had the pilot recognized what was happening, they simply would have ran the "runaway trim" procedure (which would have disabled MCAS and some other automatic trim controls completely via a switch on the center "console") and flown the plane manually with no problems. Unfortunately, the pilots likely didn't figure out what was causing the problem and failed to execute the necessary procedure. So, that was a pilot error (and, that's probably what will be determined to be the main problem here, with contributing factors).
There is much debate on why the Lion Air pilots may have failed to recognize what was going on. Many pilots and their union claim that they were not told about the existence of MCAS. Boeing hasn't been talking a lot, but they seem to assert that there was no need to train the pilots on MCAS beyond what the manuals/training did as it was a classic "runaway trim" scenario and the training was sufficient to cause the pilots to detect that case and initiate the proper procedure. Boeing did, however, issue documentation updates to operators worldwide soon after the Lion Air crash.
After Boeing issued the documentation updates, every 737 MAX pilot should have been fully aware of MCAS and what to do if was doing the wrong thing. This, coupled with the witness reports that the Ethiopian Airline 737 MAX that crashed was spewing smoke and fire from the back of the plane a
A description of alternate law as it applies to aviation can be found here although this focuses on Airbus.
Plastic bags, for the same volume, also are lighter and less bulky. This makes them cheaper to transport and require less place for storage and less frequent restocking at the check stands.
Plastic bags also don't weaken when they get moist either from being set on a wet surface or because something inside leaks or condenses due to high humidity.
Not to say these makes them worthwhile, but those are advantages.
Unfortunately, job descriptions rarely map cleanly to individuals, particularly those with exceptional skills in a few areas.
I've known Software Engineers that had zero interest in being "leaders" or "architects" - perhaps because they eschewed conflict, were somewhat antisocial, didn't like being responsible for other peoples' work, or just didn't like doing that sort of work. However they were absolutely awesome at some particular aspect of their job such as having an unparalleled ability to track down and eradicate concurrency related heisenbugs which occur extremely rarely and leave core files that are quite inscrutable. These bugs can hold up releases by months, piss off Fortune 50 customers who have spent big bucks on your product, and harm the reputation of the company. Noticing and resolving them quickly (hopefully before Alpha) is generally far more important than any new feature in a release.
There, unfortunately, often isn't a proper standard job description for such people but they can be the most valuable employee on your staff and almost impossible to replace and worth twice as much salary as the typical "conformant" Level X (who is striving to get to Level Y). They are not likely to be promoted because that puts them in a situation they would find untenable - for example, having to engage in conflict over designs - and be doing less of the more valuable work they love to do and are excellent at. These people tend to be stuck at Level X, get great bonuses every year, and end up at the top of their pay grade -- yet they are way underpaid compared to their actual contributions.
Like we should have stopped building railroads after the first fatal accident and stopped building airplanes after the first crash killed someone and stopped the space program after the Apollo 1 fire and stopped production of all monoclonal antibodies after the first patient died from side effects?
We learn from each accident and improve. You are including accidents from the relative infancy of nuclear power. For example, at the time of the accident, Chernobyl was an ancient plant of ancient design with idiot operators.
Anthropogenic climate change is likely to be much more dangerous to humans than nuclear power is even if every kWh of energy used by humans were produced by modern nuclear power plants. As well, accidents arising from nuclear power plants have tiny scope compared to the worldwide impact of climate change. Generating power via nuclear fission is an excellent way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
The Chernobyl New Safe Confinement structure which was moved over the original concrete "sarcophagus" is not made of concrete.
Probably 99% of adult US residents can't easily read and understand US income tax laws - yet they are required, under the threat of fine and incarceration, to follow them.
No one is required to agree to a TOS on a commercial website and, if they wish, they can have a lawyer review the TOS before agreeing.
In reality, I think most people (excluding those who are illiterate, and/or suffering from some forms of mental illness, and/or intellectually disabled) are just too lazy and/or unmotivated to read and understand most TOSs rather than "unable" to do so. Note that having to look up a phrase in a dictionary doesn't mean you are unable to understand a document containing that phrase -- and the next time you run across that phrase you then already know what it means. Note that having to refer to Section (x)(1)(II)(A) of a contract when it's mentioned by reference elsewhere in the contract may be time consuming, but it does not render the one "unable" to understand the contract. Long ago I used to read TOSs all the way through and never had a problem understanding them. Occasionally, I will still read one all the way through just to keep tabs on what tends to be in them and still have little trouble understanding them -- yes, it's a lot of work and if I actually insisted on reading every one, there are a lot of sites I wouldn't patronize as the cost of reading and understanding the TOS far exceeds the value of the site to me (although not, perhaps, to others).
Although, of course, I can't predict reliably how a court may interpret potentially ambiguous terms. However, the simpler the agreement is, the more likely there are to be ambiguous terms. For example, does the term "supplier" just refer to the subsidiary providing the service or does it apply to successor companies and parent company? Much of the complexity that makes a TOS harder to read is attempting to eliminate ambiguity -- as is the case in most legal documents. If the TOSs were more easily read, the resulting ambiguity would result in more class actions suits attempting to exploit that ambiguity.
Courts tend to apply the doctrine of contra proferentem to contractual interpretation, especially in contracts of adhesion ("take it or leave it" or "standard form" contracts) or in situations where the drafting party has more power and expertise than the non-drafting party (both true in the case of most TOSs). Under this doctrine, ambiguous terms/clauses are interpreted in favor of the non-drafting party. As a result, the drafting party must be very careful to remove any ambiguity that could be interpreted against them -- and this results in much more complex contracts.
Note also that "being unable to understand a contract" is quite different from "preferring that a contract's terms were different".
I don't recall commercial airlines delaying flights simply because a passenger never checks in (either themselves or their luggage - which I assume is the case here). It happens on most every flight and that's why if a flight is fully booked on a large plane, it will almost always end up with standby passengers. The passenger's actions certainly didn't inconvenience other passengers -- they have no idea the seat was booked. It may also offer a great convenience to another passenger -- the one who snagged the seat on a standby basis and made it to their wealthy mom's bedside minutes before she expired thereby fulfilling the requirement of her will that only those who have visited her in person within the 24 hours before her death inherit anything.
The one exception I've seen to the delaying for one or more passengers is when those passenger have an incoming connecting flight and that flight is delayed. In that case I've seen outgoing flights held for a while so, yes, if the passenger just takes his carry-on (having no checked baggage) from the incoming flight and never appears for the outgoing flight, that flight might have been delayed longer than if he had traveled on through. Of course, I didn't RTFA so I don't know if that happened here.
Those aren't damages as the airline didn't incur any loss from the passenger's action - the airline happily sold tickets for N legs, the passenger only used N-1 legs thereby saving the airline money and, perhaps, giving them an opportunity to even make a lot of additional money if they sold the unclaimed seat to a full fare standby passenger.
Suppose I buy a gallon of milk from the store knowing that I'm only going to use three quarts of it but the one-gallon package is cheaper than three one-quart packages (or one half-gallon package plus a one-quart package). I do this knowing that I will throw out the last quart (perhaps I have very regular "milk usage requirements" and know that I'm scheduled to go out of town for a few months after only consuming 3/4 of the gallon package). Did the dairy or the market suffer any economic damages from my decision not to use the "last leg" of the milk and take advantage of volume buying?
Sure, the market and I don't have a contract, but even in a breach of contract case, the aggrieved party is generally only due their actual damages.
The airline saved money on fuel by not hauling the passenger and his luggage on the last leg. Perhaps, they even filled that seat with a last minute full-fare standby passenger. Even if they were legally correct, what damages did they incur by the passenger breaching their contract?
There are large databases maintained by many federal agencies/organizations. These include NOAA, Census Bureau and NASA. Some provide FTP access, some provide an API, and some require going through a web interface -- and some provide all three. Some of these can easily result in downloads of many gigabytes, sometimes zipped up into one custom file for your request. Yet, not one that I've run across even requires registration, let alone paying anything.
So, why would the courts charge for access to public data that is much more central to the proper functioning of a society?
It's like the courts really haven't gotten beyond the notion of paper archives with costly human workers digging through dusty file cabinets to retrieve the data and copy it onto dead trees. That's a little scary since these are the same organizations that are our last resort for civil and criminal justice.
At this point in time, FB's behavior is notorious and well known to anyone who uses, or might use, it and has an IQ above (Fahrenheit) room temperature.
No one is forced to use FB. It's not an essential service. People will decide to use it, or not.
The problem, if there is one, will solve itself as younger people gravitate to other platforms and FB's name becomes more mired in mud.
I didn't get that either so I did the unthinkable - I skimmed the article and found this (before I gave up)...
Although, it seems any decision on the part of female students to eschew available computer science courses in high school isn't a "problem". Surely very few, and no public, high schools let boys take such classes while preventing girls from taking them. Perhaps girls and boys tend to choose different courses in high school, but that's a free will choice of each student.
Similarly, I don't see it as a "problem" that women are under represented in commercial fishing and logging (two of the most dangerous professions in the country) or in plumbing and construction laborer (dirty and hard jobs respectively) -- I don't see a lot of women clamoring to get into these fields and finding that they are excluded based on gender (vs. strength or willingness to take physical risks or willingness to get dirty and work in unpleasant weather conditions -- all of which would be their choices).
The President typically proposes a budget and makes aspiration speeches about what he thinks the country should focus on and accomplish. Each year he can propose a budget with whatever funds for NASA they request so that is, in a sense, unlimited. I think it's reasonable to look at this through that lens. For example when JFK said "We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard...", he hadn't gotten approval in the budget for all funds necessary to do so.
As well, the NASA administrator was incorrect in, apparently, claiming that it wouldn't be possible to attempt a manned space flight to Mars by 2020. First, an "attempt" is only that -- I can "attempt" to fly to Mars by flapping my arms very fast (and I'll happily take the contract to perform that attempt - for a mere $100M). Second, I didn't see any requirement that a "manned" space flight to Mars even required that the person survive past launch - in fact, I'll bet you could find some rich terminally ill person who would happily pay to launch on a flight to Mars with just ten days of supplies (O2, food, water) and a "sleepy pill" (or helium or nitrogen -- whatever works best) to use just before the O2 ran out. Given the way Trump makes deals (even when in the rare instances where he keeps his side of the bargain), one should just ask what fine print is in the agreement before claiming attempting such a mission by 2020 is not possible.
Of course, if Linux really became a popular desktop OS for ordinary users, this old family friend would now fall victim "Linux National Support Center" scam. The reason these don't seem to exist is because there are so few Linux desktop users except techies that Linux scams are not as profitable as Windows scams.
Then wouldn't the officials who approved the extension be just as criminally liable as the executives of TEPCO?
You are forgetting the filibuster.
Although since that was eliminated for most nominees by the Democrats when they had the majority and then, predictably, eliminated even for Supreme Court nominees by Republicans, I don't imagine the legislative filibuster is long for this world.
And a rocket won't be needed -- the TBM can just bore its way to Mars.
The WARN act in California only applies to layoffs/closures/relocations of more than some number/percentage of workers. It does not apply, for example, to individual "for cause" which is commonly used to get around the WARN acts - suddenly workers who have been getting good performance reviews for years, without warning, are told that their performance isn't good enough and they are being let go.Of course, this happens in waves that look suspiciously like layoffs by another name.
For a fresh out, I look at GPA quite closely - but more importantly, the source of the GPA. I do like pretty close to a 4.0 GPA (depending on the school) for "in major" courses but for "out of major" courses such as that Literature course you took to satisfy general education, I will accept a 3.0 without hesitation. In fact, this gives me more information about you than a 4.0 across the board would - it's likely you really enjoyed the "in major" classes and focused on them and likely were not obsessed with grades (hence the "B"s in "out of major" courses). The 4.0 student might have just been obsessed with grades and been good at getting them and perhaps took easier sections/classes to keep their GPA up. I also tend to be more forgiving of a lower GPA ("in major" or "out of major") if it was dragged down by Freshman grades as it suggests that you screwed up in your Freshman year, figured out what you were doing "wrong", and corrected course (it also suggests that you may be fairly good at beer pong and that might be useful should some friendly inter-group rivalry erupt late some Friday night).
Obviously I'm not going to reject the 4.0 student just because of their perfect GPA and grades are only a hint that starts a conversation -- unless you have a 3.0 or less "in major" from anything but a very elite school in which case you'll likely not get an interview.
If a girl under 18 sneaks into the bar and you do her, even with her consent, your "She must have been 21 because she was in the bar" defense won't save you.
There are guys who even checked a girl's convincing fake ID and relied on that as proof of her being over 18 yet have ended up convicted of statutory rape (although, I doubt police would get away with fake ids in a sting operation -- that would likely be crossing the entrapment threshold).
Probably they didn't want to create a chain reaction rear end accident. By running a traffic break behind the Tesla before then slowing down and bringing the Tesla to a halt by slowing a patrol car down in front if it, they cars behind were already slowed down a bit, there was more of a gap between following cars and the Tesla, and drivers behind anticipated that something was going on ahead. This reduced the chances of someone crashing into the Tesla when it stopped in the middle of a traffic lane for no apparent reason in the early morning hours on a freeway.
At least that's my guess.