How many decades did it take until it was official that smoking cigarettes caused cancer?
Not particularly long. The question, of course, is when did people first start looking at the possibility, and what kind of studies were done.
If the kind of studies which have been done on roundup had instead been done when people first started smoking, we would have had a conclusive link in a matter of years. I don't think you realize how much of a difference there is between modern clinical trials and animal studies compared to what they were like in the past.
No, Boeing was trying to avoid the training necessitated by the aircraft having new handling characteristics as compared to the previous model. The MCAS itself required zero training.
The "training" to go from a previous 737 to the 737 MAX consists of a 1 hour video and some short reading. They could have added a section to it which said "yeah, btw, we put this new box in, if your trim starts acting up just follow your standard runaway-trim checklist", and that would have been it. Not exactly a big hit to the budget there. Leaving it out was just dumb, not greedy.
Nobody has proven that it causes cancer. That's the point. After hundreds of studies all the data is still negative. We can't prove a negative, but we can certainly point to all of the studies which failed to disprove it. That's how science works.
Monsanto is hated for good reasons, but it should be held to account based on real evidence.
I've yet to hear a good reason which wasn't blatant bullshit, like supposedly suing completely innocent farmers, or causing suicides in India. Every single "good reason" that people have presented can be shown to be nonsense with just a 5 minute google search.
Be that as it may, why the fuck would you put the plane and crew back in the air the next day without an investigation?
They didn't; according to info released by Lion Air, the plane was taken in for maintenance and the AOA vane was replaced. This however did not fix the problem.
My question would be why the hell did the technicians not realize that the problem was still there. This kind of system almost certainly requires an op-check after maintenance. Had they actually tested it they would have known it was still malfunctioning.
Yep, that does seem to be the bigger issue. The Air France crash was - for a long time - suspected to be a problem with the software overriding the pilot. Once we found the CVR it turned out the plane had a single sensor temporarily ice over, the pilot panicked, started to climb for no reason, continued to climb until it hit max altitude and stalled, and then continued to hold the stick full-back for about 4 minutes while the plane plummeted some 40,000 feet and smashed into the ocean.
Perfectly functional plane, brought down because a pilot panicked over losing a single sensor and did the one thing which every pilot should know not to do.
Probably because they didn't think it was that important.
Pilots have always been trained on how to deal with trim problems. Boeing knew that any failure of the system would result in either the system not functioning at all, or would manifest as a malfunctioning trim system. They probably assumed pilots would follow their checklist and turn off electric trim actuation.
That's a fairly reasonable assumption which, in hindsight, turns out to have been wrong. Why exactly none of these guys thought of doing the right thing... I don't know. I would love to hear what those two pilots were thinking before their passenger told them how to fix it.
The skills they learned on the earlier 737s were sufficient to deal with this problem. Boeing should have documented the existence of the MCAS system, but no special training is needed for it.
They had thousands of hours of flight experience; they would definitely have been trained on how to deal with runaway trim. They've probably never had to deal with it for real before because it's a relatively rare problem, but they should have practiced it many times in the simulator.
Yep, it's obviously a waste of time for you to claim that the phrase "men can be women" is a caricature, then engage in multi-paragraph obfuscation which doesn't actually answer anything, and finally close off your performance by saying "Kaitlin Jenner can be a woman if she wants to be and anyway it all depends on how you define man". You didn't really expect that to persuade anyone, did you?
I also knew that you were going to waste your time, but I looked forward to the show. You did not disappoint. This whole "you don't want to talk to me even though I'm totally dishonest!" bit seems to be the final routine of the jester as the curtains fall down on top of him.
They're not new ideas; they're a collection of incoherent rambling talking points which have nothing to do with the subject. I stopped reading because I've seen it all before; you, like all of your ilk, have confused obfuscation for complexity. The pedophiles over at NAMBLA love taking the same approach: "But how do we define the difference between an adult and a minor? We all have some basic common sense definitions, but none of them work as solid definitions".
When someone asks you if "Kailyn" Jenner is a man or a woman, and you start waxing philosophical about how we don't really know what those words mean, it's clear that you're not actually engaging in any complex thinking; you're engaging in rote repetition intended to confuse the issue.
You are also - rather handily - demonstrating that the original guy was right.
lol. I just clicked through to see the rest of your links... oh my! Three bills sponsored by Denni Kucinich... the nubag who spread 9/11 conspiracy theories, buddied around with Alex Jones, apparently had a profound visitation from a UFO, and petitioned the US government to create a "Peace Department".
"Men can be women" is established left-wing dogma these days. You say you're "as left as they come" but the moment you disagree with that you'll be labeled a far-right Nazi.
No. That is the case with some current laser based cointermeasure systems, because they are designed to confuse homing missiles which use various types of optical sensors. ICBMs do not need optical sensors; they're launched on a predetermined ballistic trajectory and have no need to track anything. If you want to take out an ICBM with a laser, you have to make it go boom.
This is why others have pointed out that such defensive systems can be rendered less effective by making the missile reflective. If you can reflect a significant percentage of the energy being fired at your missile, it is less likely to go boom.
It doesn't matter what some asshats retroactively want it to apply to; you stated that it the US is a signatory to a treaty which prohibits these types of systems. Literally every single link you've posted specifically states that the treaty does not prohibit them. Ergo you're wrong, you yourself have demonstrated that you're wrong and your continued inability to acknowledge that you're wrong only demonstrates that you're unreasonable in addition to being wrong.
Glad we could sort that out. Feel free to continue ranting like a retard, if you like.
The discrepancy is probably due to the fact that the "right wing nutjob" accurately named several left-wing dictums, while the left-wing but job just named a bunch of left-wing caricatures of what they apparently think the right wing believes.
Anyway don't worry, it'll lead to a mod-war and who knows what the eventual scores will be. It's a crap-shoot.
And the parts about not installing bases of operation for military purposes, and all that shit, is what, chopped liver?
No, stupid, it applies to "celestial bodies", as in the moon, other planets, or asteroids. It says nothing about space stations or other artificial satellites.
the intent of the treaty is very fucking clear
To everyone except you, it seems.
exactly why there was a followup resolution in 2005, which the US of course, vetoed.
If it was vetoed then it is not in force which, again, directly contradicts your earlier statement that "we are a party to a UN treaty prohibiting this". Congrats, all of your sources agree that you're wrong. Brilliant strategy, that.
Slashdot Mirror
How many decades did it take until it was official that smoking cigarettes caused cancer?
Not particularly long. The question, of course, is when did people first start looking at the possibility, and what kind of studies were done.
If the kind of studies which have been done on roundup had instead been done when people first started smoking, we would have had a conclusive link in a matter of years. I don't think you realize how much of a difference there is between modern clinical trials and animal studies compared to what they were like in the past.
No, Boeing was trying to avoid the training necessitated by the aircraft having new handling characteristics as compared to the previous model. The MCAS itself required zero training.
The "training" to go from a previous 737 to the 737 MAX consists of a 1 hour video and some short reading. They could have added a section to it which said "yeah, btw, we put this new box in, if your trim starts acting up just follow your standard runaway-trim checklist", and that would have been it. Not exactly a big hit to the budget there. Leaving it out was just dumb, not greedy.
Nobody has proven that it causes cancer. That's the point. After hundreds of studies all the data is still negative. We can't prove a negative, but we can certainly point to all of the studies which failed to disprove it. That's how science works.
Monsanto is hated for good reasons, but it should be held to account based on real evidence.
I've yet to hear a good reason which wasn't blatant bullshit, like supposedly suing completely innocent farmers, or causing suicides in India. Every single "good reason" that people have presented can be shown to be nonsense with just a 5 minute google search.
I'm not sure where you're getting 5 from; my count is at 3.
Also climbing from 2,000 to 5,000 feet is certainly not one of the most demanding phases of flight.
Be that as it may, why the fuck would you put the plane and crew back in the air the next day without an investigation?
They didn't; according to info released by Lion Air, the plane was taken in for maintenance and the AOA vane was replaced. This however did not fix the problem.
My question would be why the hell did the technicians not realize that the problem was still there. This kind of system almost certainly requires an op-check after maintenance. Had they actually tested it they would have known it was still malfunctioning.
It's not very common at all. Every pilot trains for it but very few have ever had to deal with it outside of a simulator.
Yep, that does seem to be the bigger issue. The Air France crash was - for a long time - suspected to be a problem with the software overriding the pilot. Once we found the CVR it turned out the plane had a single sensor temporarily ice over, the pilot panicked, started to climb for no reason, continued to climb until it hit max altitude and stalled, and then continued to hold the stick full-back for about 4 minutes while the plane plummeted some 40,000 feet and smashed into the ocean.
Perfectly functional plane, brought down because a pilot panicked over losing a single sensor and did the one thing which every pilot should know not to do.
Probably because they didn't think it was that important.
Pilots have always been trained on how to deal with trim problems. Boeing knew that any failure of the system would result in either the system not functioning at all, or would manifest as a malfunctioning trim system. They probably assumed pilots would follow their checklist and turn off electric trim actuation.
That's a fairly reasonable assumption which, in hindsight, turns out to have been wrong. Why exactly none of these guys thought of doing the right thing ... I don't know. I would love to hear what those two pilots were thinking before their passenger told them how to fix it.
The skills they learned on the earlier 737s were sufficient to deal with this problem. Boeing should have documented the existence of the MCAS system, but no special training is needed for it.
They had thousands of hours of flight experience; they would definitely have been trained on how to deal with runaway trim. They've probably never had to deal with it for real before because it's a relatively rare problem, but they should have practiced it many times in the simulator.
Slashdot can't fix anything. Just try using the site on mobile.
And we haven't had a war in more than 70 years, which is long for Europe.
Just ignore that whole Balkan region ... nothing to see there ...
Yep, it's obviously a waste of time for you to claim that the phrase "men can be women" is a caricature, then engage in multi-paragraph obfuscation which doesn't actually answer anything, and finally close off your performance by saying "Kaitlin Jenner can be a woman if she wants to be and anyway it all depends on how you define man". You didn't really expect that to persuade anyone, did you?
I also knew that you were going to waste your time, but I looked forward to the show. You did not disappoint. This whole "you don't want to talk to me even though I'm totally dishonest!" bit seems to be the final routine of the jester as the curtains fall down on top of him.
Whether or not you want to believe that she is "really" a man is irrelevant and depends entirely on how you define "man."
But no, the left doesn't believe that a man can be a woman :D
I would love to have some indepth discourse with an honest, intelligent person on the far left. I'm still waiting for one to show up.
They're not new ideas; they're a collection of incoherent rambling talking points which have nothing to do with the subject. I stopped reading because I've seen it all before; you, like all of your ilk, have confused obfuscation for complexity. The pedophiles over at NAMBLA love taking the same approach: "But how do we define the difference between an adult and a minor? We all have some basic common sense definitions, but none of them work as solid definitions".
When someone asks you if "Kailyn" Jenner is a man or a woman, and you start waxing philosophical about how we don't really know what those words mean, it's clear that you're not actually engaging in any complex thinking; you're engaging in rote repetition intended to confuse the issue.
You are also - rather handily - demonstrating that the original guy was right.
lol. I just clicked through to see the rest of your links ... oh my! Three bills sponsored by Denni Kucinich ... the nubag who spread 9/11 conspiracy theories, buddied around with Alex Jones, apparently had a profound visitation from a UFO, and petitioned the US government to create a "Peace Department".
Sounds like exactly your kind of guy!
First off, how do you define what is even means to be "men" vs. "women"?
I stopped reading there. You say that "men can be women" is a caricature ... and then drop this gem. Wonderful. "More complex" my shiny metal ass.
"Men can be women" is established left-wing dogma these days. You say you're "as left as they come" but the moment you disagree with that you'll be labeled a far-right Nazi.
No. That is the case with some current laser based cointermeasure systems, because they are designed to confuse homing missiles which use various types of optical sensors. ICBMs do not need optical sensors; they're launched on a predetermined ballistic trajectory and have no need to track anything. If you want to take out an ICBM with a laser, you have to make it go boom.
This is why others have pointed out that such defensive systems can be rendered less effective by making the missile reflective. If you can reflect a significant percentage of the energy being fired at your missile, it is less likely to go boom.
It doesn't matter what some asshats retroactively want it to apply to; you stated that it the US is a signatory to a treaty which prohibits these types of systems. Literally every single link you've posted specifically states that the treaty does not prohibit them. Ergo you're wrong, you yourself have demonstrated that you're wrong and your continued inability to acknowledge that you're wrong only demonstrates that you're unreasonable in addition to being wrong.
Glad we could sort that out. Feel free to continue ranting like a retard, if you like.
It's a guiding document, not a treaty. I don't think you can say that any countries have "adopted it".
If you can find me a list of countries which have, I would love to see it.
The discrepancy is probably due to the fact that the "right wing nutjob" accurately named several left-wing dictums, while the left-wing but job just named a bunch of left-wing caricatures of what they apparently think the right wing believes.
Anyway don't worry, it'll lead to a mod-war and who knows what the eventual scores will be. It's a crap-shoot.
And the parts about not installing bases of operation for military purposes, and all that shit, is what, chopped liver?
No, stupid, it applies to "celestial bodies", as in the moon, other planets, or asteroids. It says nothing about space stations or other artificial satellites.
the intent of the treaty is very fucking clear
To everyone except you, it seems.
exactly why there was a followup resolution in 2005, which the US of course, vetoed.
If it was vetoed then it is not in force which, again, directly contradicts your earlier statement that "we are a party to a UN treaty prohibiting this". Congrats, all of your sources agree that you're wrong. Brilliant strategy, that.
The MAIN ELECT CUTOUT switch. Located on the center console, near the throttle quadrant. Dumbass.