The best method to stop the bosses earning so much money from immoral transactions, they shouldn't wrote that software. but first agreeing with the system and its concepts and then later whining about it is, well, normal today, but still it is hypocritical. It is like whining about poisonous food and the destruction of agricultural resources and still buying the cheapest food in [your favorite discounter].
Rule 1: If you find something offending, then stop doing it yourself and stop supporting it. Rule 2: Don't run around telling everyone you are better, just because you were able to stop one mistake you made before.
First, I have to disagree. Facebook and AOL are two different situations. Facebook has a massive user base and it has a lot of gravity sucking in a lot of other people. Even though users have multiple accounts in different other social network platforms. Why is that so? Because these other platforms provide special services in certain domains. For example linked is not there to share you latest dog or pussy or "I am so drunk, look i fell in a pool and hit my head" photos.
AOL on the other side was a mee too e-mail and content-service. However, many people lived outside of AOL. And the user base outside of AOL was growing faster than AOL itself.
Second, I have to agree. Facebook alienated many people with its behavior. And as a commercial company they cannot stop, as their business model is based on selling your private information and information based on massive data mining on personal information. And while people have learned (at least partially) that it is better to control your personal information, they will be eager to switch to another service. For instance a distributed one. but only if it is as usable as FB.
As we all know that I Ikaros (engl. Icarus) flew too close to the sun. This is a bad name for a space craft or any other flying device to call it after an pilot who messed up.
The two padel problematic is known in the computer industry as the two mouse button problem. "Any common user tends to press the wrong button any now an then thats why Apple invented the single button mouse." said Steve Jobs and Apple CEO. The similarity to cars is quite obvious therefor apple is now introducing the iCar with one food pedal. The pedal fills the whole foot space on the driver side and is used to accelerate and decelerate.
Further more the iCar does not have a steering wheel as this could lead to additional problems. The new Apple solution is a pad field where you can drag an direction bar to the left or right for that purpose. In addition the whole system works with iAd, App Store and iTunes so you can hear your music on the road and add new functionality to your car. As planned for next year a combination of iNavi and the front and back side cameras allow you to just click on a registered location and the car moves you there without any complicated handling.
For your safety you can buy iNsurance from the Apple Care program.
Thanks to location based driving unholy and questionable locations can no longer being reached by point and click as they are not allowed to be in the Location Store. As an add-on you can use 10 user defined locations for your friends and family. While this looks very limiting, it is not. Companies which want you as customer can place free locations in iNavi for their customers.
As jobs state, this will be a great step forward for all customers of Apple products as iCar is the most integrated Apple product ever. And it has a fancy design with aluminum highlights and a dark glass finish.
The point is, they use statistical methods to predict outcomes of bids. And stochastics work the same for football (soccer for our US friends) and lottery and stock markets. You just have to find the correct influence factors. Most likely they used their usual influence factor finding method which didn't work. but they were not able to predict the last crashes so you could say their methods do not work for football and economics.
As theses teams are extremely different every world cup, historical data is not a good indicator. So they picked indicators of the quality coffee grounds and their results are as good.
There ability to predict economic set backs was not very good. And as these models all use the assumption that markets tend to stabilize, they are all biased by a theory which has been proven wrong centuries ago. A capitalistic market system is inherent unstable. The only thing you can really say about it is: Money gets accumulated up to a point where it cannot be invested into "real economy" products or services anymore, because the "real economy" is not growing fast enough to produce enough profit for the return of investments. At that point, people start to bid on outcomes and later they bid on outcomes of biddings and use money they will possibly collect in other biddings. This works well until someone starts to get cold feet. It has some similarities to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexico_(game) However, in that dice game you know for certain that a claim is impossible. In economics you do not have a upper bound. As trust is a psychological thing, it can be very, very unpredictable.
We have not enough engineers (especially computer scientists) in Germany. Just jump over the channel. However, a bachelor degree is not that well paid in Germany and it is not that easy to get a job with a bachelor (which is in Germany in most universities a 3 year thing, which is considered a better "Vordiplom" which was the mid studies exam in Germany in the last decades). So first get a master (bologna compatible version) and the you get a job here.
So instead of p^9 = p_falcon (where p is the value for not breaking down) it is 1-((1-p)^2) = p_falcon if I am not mistaken. It is a little late. However, I think the possibility of a breakdown is still higher than by a one engine design. And the mass is bigger. At least that is the line of argumentation for the Ariane 5 rocket and other single engine designs. (I know the Ariane 5 is also using two boosters as supplement).
It would be great if someone would have some real numbers for the equation. So we would be able to compare results and not just propulsion concept arguments, which can become very pointless. For example let say p_ariane = 0.99 and the falcon single engine is 0.9 than it would be as stable as the other system.
Redundancy does not work here, as you need all engines working perfectly to get it into orbit correctly. So if one engines fails, the missile is not going where it is supposed to go. And if it explodes, it will destroy the entire device. So it is not like you have redundant parts who can compensate for each other, like in redundant web-servers, it is more like an n-tier installation and if one tier fails the whole system is no longer usable.
The article compares tomatoes with apples. This rocket is designed as a cargo transportation system. Like Ariane 5 which is also a very low cost space transportation system. That's why they have a 50% market share in commercial space flight. However, the Ares I launch system is for people. Therefore the launch tower needs a way to deliver people to the top of the system. The rocket itself has also to be much more reliable than a cargo system.
And by the way, while looking at the missile photos it has 9 engines. This is like one of those ancient Russian designs, based on the fact that they cannot build a bigger engine. This is normally more expensive in testing and you get a higher possibility of failure. however they claim to be cheaper than Arianespace on launch basis. Ariane 5 approx USD 120 while Falcon 9 approx. USD 50.
Cumulative voting and vote-splitting is largely used in Germany on municipal contexts. So you could say that it has been evaluated now at least for 60 years and it worked perfectly. However, it is not used on state and federal level, but as we can vote there for different parties and not (only) for representatives which belong to parties, different social groups can vote for their party and get a fair share in the parliament.
CDU = conservatives/right wing/traditionalists
SPD = social democrats/becoming more and more conservative
Grüne = green party/for liberals and ecological motivated people
Linke = socialist party/party for the poor and for pacifists
FDP = neo liberal party/for those who have money and do not want to share their wealth as they do not see that they are also responsible for the poor in the country (as stated in the German constitution)
DVU/REP/NDP = very right wing nationalists/only present in parliaments in some eastern states of Germany
There are also a lot of other parties, however they didn't make it in any parliament. But there are parties for families, "true to the Bible"-Christians, or a party with yogic flyer called natural law party (however they dissolved 2004).
Last time was the soccer world championship I guess. But I think you are referring to those Nazi idiots. However, as far as I understand that interface, it is helpful to use two. So Nazis won't be able to use it as one arm is always up in the sky. On the other hand it could be seen as a special gesture to blow up the computer.
You could replace your 10 mpg with a 50 mpg car or do the unthinkable (especially in urban areas) and replace the car by a most fuel efficient bike, which runs on pizza (at least for/.ers). This also save you extra exercise in the gym. And most important, regular every day use of muscles is more important than 1/2 in a gym. And if your sweating by doing so, its either hot outside and your antiperspirant failed or your so unfit that you really should replace the car with a bike.;-)
Every time when you think it cannot get worse, it just happens to do so. However, look on the bright side. It still could be worse. And when we reach finally the bottom. We'll be in the comfortable position that it only can get better.
The Austrians would claim prior art, as it is their invention. However, the German Patent Office might not know that and patent it anyway. To be on the save side call it Vienna Schnitzels.
I have two things to say on that topic. First, I think it has never happened that their was now sunshine and no wind in the whole country (lets say in the US or in the EU). And second, using nuclear plants to fill in the gap created by CO2 reduction is not possible. Even if France uses fission for 60-80% of their electricity this is still only 20-40% of their total energy consumption. Meaning it would be really difficult to build all the necessary reactors to replace CO2 sources (cars, central heating etc.).
Another aspect are unsolved technological problems: Nuclear fission has two major issues in this area: a) In case of failures the risks are very high (that's why no nuclear plant on this planet has insurance. With insurance a kWh would cost $2). b) We do not have a solution for the nuclear waste. We are searching for it now for 30 years and we have not found a solution.
Young padawan there was a time where there were no netbooks. Not even laptops or computers. but we seem to have different definitions of netbook. My definition is: A netbook is a small mobile computer around A5 in size for under 400 EUR. If the thingy is more expensive it becomes a subnetbook. And if it is bigger it is a laptop. With one exception: Pads are also small mobile computers, but they are not netbooks.
I fully agree with you. But there is one problem with switching to renewable energies. Our present way of energy consumption (e.g. driving in cars around in densely populated cities and towns) is based on wasting a lot of energy. Or in other words is inefficient. As we are not able to do a 100% replacement of fossil fuels with renewable sources in the next two decades, we have to chance our way of living. Of course we can not do so and resettle New York and L.A. instead.
First there was no such device as a netbook. Then the geeks saw the OLPC and then they ran around, screaming "I want one of these!!!!" After some screaming, Asus thought it might be nice to sell some of these devices to geeks. Hey its about money. And then more people saw that netbooks are nice devices so they bought one. As the demand for netbooks was high the sales jumped up (because the industry suddenly provided a portable product which was very much needed by many people). Now most of those people who want a netbook have a netbook and so the sales are going back. Also there was/is a financial crisis going on. And while the crisis more or less hit the public in the US very quickly it took some time to have an affect countries with "social backup systems".
So in short: It is not a falling of a cliff it is just the end of a peak. And yes, as already mentioned, there are no really cheap netbooks anymore.
Well it is not about democracy it is about money. And you know money is more important than human rights. You can see that every time when people choose a cheap product over a fair traded product.
No, they waste it directly with cars. One big problem with the energy discussion today is, that all people think of replacing only the power plants of today but they only make up 1/3-1/2 of the total amount of energy consumed in a western country. And yes there are 122 (if I did not miscount) fossil fuel based power plants.
but the center of my argument is: Instead of hoping we are able to find a nuclear based replacement for all these plants + all the electricity for transportation and household heating, we should use the technology at hand, which works, because we do not have to time to wait. And as a side effect of that strategy we get a decentralized energy system which is more reliable and blackouts will not be so likely to happen, like today.
Super idea. Lets build a second sun on earth so we can use the energy to drive some turbine technology we already have. This is a great idea. OK it is not working right now and other promising projects like ITER will not show any benefits before 2060, but I think we should wait for their development. Why waste money on a heterogeneous and distributed energy system, which have so many component that can fail.
Of course todays solar and wind technology works and it is available and when something goes wrong well it is not that a big deal, as you have a lot of redundancy. And only one accident or one terror attack on a transformer at a power plant can result in a loss of x00 MWh while a failing wind turbine wouldn't hurt that much. And yes that technology is already available even the big energy companies battled that technology now for decades. But hey lets wait. Lets build our own sun instead of using the one which is already their, which has shown a incredible service availability (several (us) billion years without a a serious breakdown).
And yes we do have an energy problem. But it is a usage problem not a production problem. We use inefficient transportation technology, inefficient heating and cooling systems for our houses, inefficient production concepts etc.
And BTW: last I read that Germany uses nuclear plants to produce 22.6% of its electric energy, but this is only 11.6% of the used energy in Germany. 81% are fossil fuels (gas, oil, coal). And they use 17 nuclear plants. So to replace the fuel based primary energy Germany must build 95 nuclear plants. Or in short they need 5.6 times more reactors. So this is not an real option (who shall pay for it and where is all the uranium coming from and who is paying for accidents. One accident like in Chernobyl and you have to resettle 80 mio people.)
While I think it is "cool" to be able to build nuclear fission reactors, it is not necessary. As we already have on hanging above our heads. And when you think "but then we would be dependent on strange countries" Yes we do. But we all depend on each other on this globe. So it is better to get used to it, that we have to accept our different cultures and do not try to impose our believes on others. As western countries do and other countries would like to do.
I've read other sources and he said two things: a) The Internet has great potential, but it also could lead to relativism [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativism] which can be used to undermine ethics and to justify extreme egoism. And b) he talked about unifying news and public optinion. So the net might look diverse, but in real the communicated opinions are all controlled by a few companies.
Get a globe. man. Europe or to be more precise West, Central and North Europe were the affected region. This is a very small area. And planes were allowed to fly around and land for example in Lisbon (which is in Portugal) or Rome (which is in Italy). When you turn your globe and look at the Pacific region. You can see that the affected part of Europe could easily been placed in the Pacific and there would be still a lot of Ocean left. Honestly you could put it there 5 or 6 times.
Second, on the Northern Hemisphere we have a zone of west winds and low-pressure area which follow a cyclic pattern. The go from wet to east and their normally rotating counter clockwise. If you go south (close to the equator) the overall weather pattern changes which result also in another ash distribution pattern.
Third, if a plane crashes in the Pacific because someone underestimated the cloud effect. Then a plane is gone and it passengers and it might be some sort of ecological disaster (all the fuel in the sea), however most of Europe (West and Central) is densely populated. So the possibility to crash in a building is rather high.
Forth, there are only a few flights in the area you described as rich of volcanoes. However, there are many flights in Europe. Think of a volcano erupting in central USA would that result in some restrictions in air traffic?
Slashdot Mirror
The best method to stop the bosses earning so much money from immoral transactions, they shouldn't wrote that software. but first agreeing with the system and its concepts and then later whining about it is, well, normal today, but still it is hypocritical. It is like whining about poisonous food and the destruction of agricultural resources and still buying the cheapest food in [your favorite discounter].
Rule 1: If you find something offending, then stop doing it yourself and stop supporting it.
Rule 2: Don't run around telling everyone you are better, just because you were able to stop one mistake you made before.
First, I have to disagree. Facebook and AOL are two different situations. Facebook has a massive user base and it has a lot of gravity sucking in a lot of other people. Even though users have multiple accounts in different other social network platforms. Why is that so? Because these other platforms provide special services in certain domains. For example linked is not there to share you latest dog or pussy or "I am so drunk, look i fell in a pool and hit my head" photos.
AOL on the other side was a mee too e-mail and content-service. However, many people lived outside of AOL. And the user base outside of AOL was growing faster than AOL itself.
Second, I have to agree. Facebook alienated many people with its behavior. And as a commercial company they cannot stop, as their business model is based on selling your private information and information based on massive data mining on personal information. And while people have learned (at least partially) that it is better to control your personal information, they will be eager to switch to another service. For instance a distributed one. but only if it is as usable as FB.
As we all know that I Ikaros (engl. Icarus) flew too close to the sun. This is a bad name for a space craft or any other flying device to call it after an pilot who messed up.
The two padel problematic is known in the computer industry as the two mouse button problem. "Any common user tends to press the wrong button any now an then thats why Apple invented the single button mouse." said Steve Jobs and Apple CEO. The similarity to cars is quite obvious therefor apple is now introducing the iCar with one food pedal. The pedal fills the whole foot space on the driver side and is used to accelerate and decelerate.
Further more the iCar does not have a steering wheel as this could lead to additional problems. The new Apple solution is a pad field where you can drag an direction bar to the left or right for that purpose. In addition the whole system works with iAd, App Store and iTunes so you can hear your music on the road and add new functionality to your car. As planned for next year a combination of iNavi and the front and back side cameras allow you to just click on a registered location and the car moves you there without any complicated handling.
For your safety you can buy iNsurance from the Apple Care program.
Thanks to location based driving unholy and questionable locations can no longer being reached by point and click as they are not allowed to be in the Location Store. As an add-on you can use 10 user defined locations for your friends and family. While this looks very limiting, it is not. Companies which want you as customer can place free locations in iNavi for their customers.
As jobs state, this will be a great step forward for all customers of Apple products as iCar is the most integrated Apple product ever. And it has a fancy design with aluminum highlights and a dark glass finish.
The point is, they use statistical methods to predict outcomes of bids. And stochastics work the same for football (soccer for our US friends) and lottery and stock markets. You just have to find the correct influence factors. Most likely they used their usual influence factor finding method which didn't work. but they were not able to predict the last crashes so you could say their methods do not work for football and economics.
As theses teams are extremely different every world cup, historical data is not a good indicator. So they picked indicators of the quality coffee grounds and their results are as good.
There ability to predict economic set backs was not very good. And as these models all use the assumption that markets tend to stabilize, they are all biased by a theory which has been proven wrong centuries ago. A capitalistic market system is inherent unstable. The only thing you can really say about it is: Money gets accumulated up to a point where it cannot be invested into "real economy" products or services anymore, because the "real economy" is not growing fast enough to produce enough profit for the return of investments. At that point, people start to bid on outcomes and later they bid on outcomes of biddings and use money they will possibly collect in other biddings. This works well until someone starts to get cold feet. It has some similarities to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexico_(game) However, in that dice game you know for certain that a claim is impossible. In economics you do not have a upper bound. As trust is a psychological thing, it can be very, very unpredictable.
We have not enough engineers (especially computer scientists) in Germany. Just jump over the channel. However, a bachelor degree is not that well paid in Germany and it is not that easy to get a job with a bachelor (which is in Germany in most universities a 3 year thing, which is considered a better "Vordiplom" which was the mid studies exam in Germany in the last decades). So first get a master (bologna compatible version) and the you get a job here.
So instead of p^9 = p_falcon (where p is the value for not breaking down) it is 1-((1-p)^2) = p_falcon if I am not mistaken. It is a little late. However, I think the possibility of a breakdown is still higher than by a one engine design. And the mass is bigger. At least that is the line of argumentation for the Ariane 5 rocket and other single engine designs. (I know the Ariane 5 is also using two boosters as supplement).
It would be great if someone would have some real numbers for the equation. So we would be able to compare results and not just propulsion concept arguments, which can become very pointless. For example let say p_ariane = 0.99 and the falcon single engine is 0.9 than it would be as stable as the other system.
Redundancy does not work here, as you need all engines working perfectly to get it into orbit correctly. So if one engines fails, the missile is not going where it is supposed to go. And if it explodes, it will destroy the entire device. So it is not like you have redundant parts who can compensate for each other, like in redundant web-servers, it is more like an n-tier installation and if one tier fails the whole system is no longer usable.
The article compares tomatoes with apples. This rocket is designed as a cargo transportation system. Like Ariane 5 which is also a very low cost space transportation system. That's why they have a 50% market share in commercial space flight. However, the Ares I launch system is for people. Therefore the launch tower needs a way to deliver people to the top of the system. The rocket itself has also to be much more reliable than a cargo system.
And by the way, while looking at the missile photos it has 9 engines. This is like one of those ancient Russian designs, based on the fact that they cannot build a bigger engine. This is normally more expensive in testing and you get a higher possibility of failure. however they claim to be cheaper than Arianespace on launch basis. Ariane 5 approx USD 120 while Falcon 9 approx. USD 50.
There are also a lot of other parties, however they didn't make it in any parliament. But there are parties for families, "true to the Bible"-Christians, or a party with yogic flyer called natural law party (however they dissolved 2004).
Last time was the soccer world championship I guess. But I think you are referring to those Nazi idiots. However, as far as I understand that interface, it is helpful to use two. So Nazis won't be able to use it as one arm is always up in the sky. On the other hand it could be seen as a special gesture to blow up the computer.
You could replace your 10 mpg with a 50 mpg car or do the unthinkable (especially in urban areas) and replace the car by a most fuel efficient bike, which runs on pizza (at least for /.ers). This also save you extra exercise in the gym. And most important, regular every day use of muscles is more important than 1/2 in a gym. And if your sweating by doing so, its either hot outside and your antiperspirant failed or your so unfit that you really should replace the car with a bike. ;-)
Every time when you think it cannot get worse, it just happens to do so. However, look on the bright side. It still could be worse. And when we reach finally the bottom. We'll be in the comfortable position that it only can get better.
The Austrians would claim prior art, as it is their invention. However, the German Patent Office might not know that and patent it anyway. To be on the save side call it Vienna Schnitzels.
I have two things to say on that topic. First, I think it has never happened that their was now sunshine and no wind in the whole country (lets say in the US or in the EU). And second, using nuclear plants to fill in the gap created by CO2 reduction is not possible. Even if France uses fission for 60-80% of their electricity this is still only 20-40% of their total energy consumption. Meaning it would be really difficult to build all the necessary reactors to replace CO2 sources (cars, central heating etc.).
Another aspect are unsolved technological problems: Nuclear fission has two major issues in this area:
a) In case of failures the risks are very high (that's why no nuclear plant on this planet has insurance. With insurance a kWh would cost $2).
b) We do not have a solution for the nuclear waste. We are searching for it now for 30 years and we have not found a solution.
Young padawan there was a time where there were no netbooks. Not even laptops or computers. but we seem to have different definitions of netbook. My definition is: A netbook is a small mobile computer around A5 in size for under 400 EUR. If the thingy is more expensive it becomes a subnetbook. And if it is bigger it is a laptop. With one exception: Pads are also small mobile computers, but they are not netbooks.
I fully agree with you. But there is one problem with switching to renewable energies. Our present way of energy consumption (e.g. driving in cars around in densely populated cities and towns) is based on wasting a lot of energy. Or in other words is inefficient. As we are not able to do a 100% replacement of fossil fuels with renewable sources in the next two decades, we have to chance our way of living. Of course we can not do so and resettle New York and L.A. instead.
First there was no such device as a netbook. Then the geeks saw the OLPC and then they ran around, screaming "I want one of these!!!!" After some screaming, Asus thought it might be nice to sell some of these devices to geeks. Hey its about money. And then more people saw that netbooks are nice devices so they bought one. As the demand for netbooks was high the sales jumped up (because the industry suddenly provided a portable product which was very much needed by many people). Now most of those people who want a netbook have a netbook and so the sales are going back. Also there was/is a financial crisis going on. And while the crisis more or less hit the public in the US very quickly it took some time to have an affect countries with "social backup systems".
So in short: It is not a falling of a cliff it is just the end of a peak. And yes, as already mentioned, there are no really cheap netbooks anymore.
Well it is not about democracy it is about money. And you know money is more important than human rights. You can see that every time when people choose a cheap product over a fair traded product.
No, they waste it directly with cars. One big problem with the energy discussion today is, that all people think of replacing only the power plants of today but they only make up 1/3-1/2 of the total amount of energy consumed in a western country. And yes there are 122 (if I did not miscount) fossil fuel based power plants.
but the center of my argument is: Instead of hoping we are able to find a nuclear based replacement for all these plants + all the electricity for transportation and household heating, we should use the technology at hand, which works, because we do not have to time to wait. And as a side effect of that strategy we get a decentralized energy system which is more reliable and blackouts will not be so likely to happen, like today.
Super idea. Lets build a second sun on earth so we can use the energy to drive some turbine technology we already have. This is a great idea. OK it is not working right now and other promising projects like ITER will not show any benefits before 2060, but I think we should wait for their development. Why waste money on a heterogeneous and distributed energy system, which have so many component that can fail.
Of course todays solar and wind technology works and it is available and when something goes wrong well it is not that a big deal, as you have a lot of redundancy. And only one accident or one terror attack on a transformer at a power plant can result in a loss of x00 MWh while a failing wind turbine wouldn't hurt that much. And yes that technology is already available even the big energy companies battled that technology now for decades. But hey lets wait. Lets build our own sun instead of using the one which is already their, which has shown a incredible service availability (several (us) billion years without a a serious breakdown).
And yes we do have an energy problem. But it is a usage problem not a production problem. We use inefficient transportation technology, inefficient heating and cooling systems for our houses, inefficient production concepts etc.
And BTW: last I read that Germany uses nuclear plants to produce 22.6% of its electric energy, but this is only 11.6% of the used energy in Germany. 81% are fossil fuels (gas, oil, coal). And they use 17 nuclear plants. So to replace the fuel based primary energy Germany must build 95 nuclear plants. Or in short they need 5.6 times more reactors. So this is not an real option (who shall pay for it and where is all the uranium coming from and who is paying for accidents. One accident like in Chernobyl and you have to resettle 80 mio people.)
While I think it is "cool" to be able to build nuclear fission reactors, it is not necessary. As we already have on hanging above our heads. And when you think "but then we would be dependent on strange countries" Yes we do. But we all depend on each other on this globe. So it is better to get used to it, that we have to accept our different cultures and do not try to impose our believes on others. As western countries do and other countries would like to do.
I've read other sources and he said two things: a) The Internet has great potential, but it also could lead to relativism [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativism] which can be used to undermine ethics and to justify extreme egoism. And b) he talked about unifying news and public optinion. So the net might look diverse, but in real the communicated opinions are all controlled by a few companies.
Get a globe. man. Europe or to be more precise West, Central and North Europe were the affected region. This is a very small area. And planes were allowed to fly around and land for example in Lisbon (which is in Portugal) or Rome (which is in Italy). When you turn your globe and look at the Pacific region. You can see that the affected part of Europe could easily been placed in the Pacific and there would be still a lot of Ocean left. Honestly you could put it there 5 or 6 times.
Second, on the Northern Hemisphere we have a zone of west winds and low-pressure area which follow a cyclic pattern. The go from wet to east and their normally rotating counter clockwise. If you go south (close to the equator) the overall weather pattern changes which result also in another ash distribution pattern.
Third, if a plane crashes in the Pacific because someone underestimated the cloud effect. Then a plane is gone and it passengers and it might be some sort of ecological disaster (all the fuel in the sea), however most of Europe (West and Central) is densely populated. So the possibility to crash in a building is rather high.
Forth, there are only a few flights in the area you described as rich of volcanoes. However, there are many flights in Europe. Think of a volcano erupting in central USA would that result in some restrictions in air traffic?