Ooh, personal attack, I don't get these too often. I'll bite.
Who says I have anything against other people's causes? Like you have seen on my website, I am involved myself in many causes that I believe in - the one you see is the only one in which I act in an administrative capacity (as opposed to merely grunt work).
I have nothing against Greenpeace because they hand out things on the side of the street, I respect many organizations that do the same. My disdain is for the behaviour of the organization and its members, not the cause it purports to represent, and the elitism of it all.
Take yourself for example, because I'm not a member of Greenpeace, you feel free to presume that I don't care about environmental issues. Because I dismiss any attempts to market their drivel at me on the street you presume that I am ignorant about your issues and that I would "suck down all the resources [I] can". Sure, because I'm not out there waving placards and shouting slogans I *must* be a fossil-fuel burning scum who drives a big SUV. This is not to mention the work I've done in power-conservation measures at my workplace, including recommendations for minimizing power use in a large industrial facility, and my own small measures, exchanging all bulbs in my place for power efficient CCFLs. In fact, I am a complete user of public transit, never owning a car in my life (though admittedly, part of this is for the financial freedom of living car-less).
So yes, because I'm not as zealous as you I deserve to be mocked for being part of the problem, despite the fact that I am, on the whole, one of the more upstanding citizens of the world when it comes to environmental issues. I keep myself educated on these topics by consulting many sources, and I won't buy into any of the drivel either side of the debate shoves in my face - for the simple fact that brainwashed groupthinkers are just like corporate suits - they will lie about everything and anything (as evidenced here in TFA) to get your support. No thanks, I do my own research.
It seems to me, my friend, I am not the one "maintaining an unjustified sense of superiority" here. I do what I feel is best in the background, instead of inflating my sense of self-importance by making myself as high-profile as possible.
Now, as to why I blow off the Greenpeacers in the streets? Because their tactics smell suspicious, constantly, full of half-truths and exaggerations, and using many of the same tactics as the common preacher on the street-corner, a demographic I have little patience for also. Instead of presenting their argument soundly either verbally or in written documentation, they resort to emotionally charged rhetoric with little meaning, and then are seemingly upset when you won't swallow their entire claim on their word. Like I've mentioned before, there are FAR better sources for information on important issues than your average Greenpeace pamphlet, and far better people to discuss them with than the average Greenpeacer standing on the side of a street (oh yes, I've done that too).
Nolan is the gaming equivalent of the first people that took photograph film, stitched them together with a hand crank, and went "HOLY CRAP, we can make something cool with this!". That doesn't make him precisely the world's greatest film critic, if you get what I'm trying to say.
The movie industry started with ambitious technical affairs that pushed the technology of the day constantly to its limits. In time people caught on, and in a huge way, so much that audiences demanded bigger and shinier tricks (sound familiar to gaming?), resulting in more and more derivative films with higher and higher budgets.
But you know what? The movie industry we have today has elements of innovative, daring cinema, and also elements of derivative blockbuster-of-the-summer fare. And that's okay, because not all art has to be deep, nor does it have to subscribe to anybody's notion of what's worthy of the medium and what is not.
Too often you "games suck nowadays!" critics pick up on the worst offenders in the industry, and conveniently gloss over all of these superb games that ARE coming out. I suspect nostalgia is at work here also - you don't remember the quality of the *game*, you remember the quality of your *memories* playing the game. These things are very different. I have often sought out games I played in my childhood, and simply cannot get into them today, despite having fond memories of my experiences.
Ugh, we have Greenpeace people handing out things on the side of the street here, and I treat them with the same disdain I treat the scientologists doing the same just a bit further down the street. Brainwashed is brainwashed, whether it's intergalactic alien overlords or saving the whales...
If you don't mind me saying so, you are a web designer - your technical expertise from that alone will trump many artists who are *only* photographers or *only* video editors, etc. I personally know many artists that can awk, sed, and grep as well as the rest of us, but they are in the end the minority in their field.
I know many large studios are shifting towards Linux tools in the special effects industry, but these are the same companies that can afford to dedicate a large IT department towards inevitable problems as their artists run into Linux's issues. For smaller companies or individuals, the "weirdness" of Linux will keep it from taking off as a professional platform.
And hence the popularity of Macs - runs all (almost) the software artistic professionals want, and without the cruft-filled nasty goodness that is Windows, and works out of the box with no CLI, ever, for those who expect their things to just work.
we'd see several things:
1) More big-dollar apps (Photoshop, 3DS-Max, AutoCad) making the move to a Linux version.
You realize that all of the above apps you've listed appeal to artists, right? The people who AREN'T as technically inclined as us coders? The same people who don't want to futz with find, grep, or even sudo?
For a company to switch to Linux on its desktops, the OS needs to be easy to use for EVERYONE, not just hardcore techies. I know many a draftsmen who can work magic in AutoCAD, but continue to call their tower the hard drive. For Linux to succeed for the geeks, we must make it appealing to the non-geeks.
Why did the Japanese start building American-style cars when GM and Chrysler were already good at making them?
Not to mention that the Nigerian government certainly have their own helicopters, regardless of how poor the country is in general. Can the government stand to save money by developing state-manufactured choppers? Or better yet, can it save money by cutting off their reliance on foreign maintenance crews, and instead training their own?
Nobody says they have to tackle Sikorsky on the global market, but I'm betting many developing nations would be in for some cheap, fairly reliable helicopters.
The problem here isn't that the government is inept - they know full well what they're doing. It's just that supporting local industries doesn't improve their lavish lifestyle in any appreciable way - improving the lives of their governed peoples is the LAST thing on their agenda, right beneath "decide what color of Italian leather to put in my new Ferrari". The problem with these "developing" countries is that none are truly developing, they suffer from poor management.
Not really. The train only has to beat the total travel time of the airplane, which nowadays is increasing steadily. Between early check-ins and clearing security, picking up your baggage, etc, etc, trains don't have to beat your 30-min in-the-air time, they get to beat your 4 hours from arrival at airport to the time you walk out, including delays.
If you throw in a locomotive as quick as the Shinkasen, you can easily give airplanes a run for their money in terms of total travel time and hassle.
$2 per fare? That's pretty damned cheap considering how extensive the service here. Up north here in Canada, we pay $2.75 (and set to rise!) for a subway system that covers a few select neighbourhoods outside downtown, along a very narrow corridor. To get to anywhere people *actually* live involves transferring from the (admittedly good) subway system onto surface buses that take forever and a day to get anywhere.
Not to mention your system actually moves people out to the 'burbs. If you want to leave metro Toronto on public transit it's $4 each way.
The ads are in the London Underground... Anyone who has played the Beta and been in the London Underground knows that the ads are, if anything, underdone
One requirement that I have for in-game advertising is realism. If I see a Nike ad along the boards of a hockey arena in NHL 08, I wouldn't have my sense of immersion in the least, and in fact I welcome this instead of having them invent some distracting, fake brand to "advertise" in the stadium.
But seeing Comcast in the London Underground? NVidia? If they can get the type of companies that I would *actually* be likely to see in the metro, then sure, fine, but I doubt that's what's going on here. What you get are ads that completely snap you out of the sense of immersion.
They're talking about a subscription model with a no monthly fee option.
If I pay the monthly fee will there still be ads? If not, then I think this is a fair tradeoff - you can't get something for nothing!
I really don't know why MS hasn't fixed this. I've tested this again and again with my own 360, and it is clear that the noise is not from any sort of cooling setup. It's the damned DVD drive! As long as that thing doesn't spin up the 360 is as quiet as the original Xbox (which is pretty decent), but man, how did they go from the original Xbox drive to THIS monstrosity?
Yes! I live in Canada and I don't get why people never consider trains as a travel option (which is a shame, AFAIK our government-run train company is barely staying afloat). Unless you're looking at east coast to west coast travel, a train is a great way to go.
Does it take a bit longer? Sure, maybe an hour extra. But during that extra hour you're in a massive seat with huge, comfortable legroom, great service, no security to speak of, and instead of dry, low-pressure air, you're breathing actual air, and you get to hear the clickety-click of the rails as you zoom overhead.
Add an AC power outlet to each seat and you've got a sure winner. For extra long trips I get the WiFi, so there's really never a boring moment, and the extra time you spend on the train just flies by, no pun intended:P.
So in this case, those luxury cars are really "bad apples" as far as reliability goes.
Somewhat. The trick with luxury brands (generally, not always) is that you are taken care of if anything goes wrong. That warranty that comes with the product is actually worth something, as opposed to nothing when you're buying most budget-priced goods.
Case in point, when my MacBook Pro had a problem with its lid latch, I immediately called Apple. Less than 20 minutes later I had an authorization code to take to my local service provider (10 minute walk away, literally!), where my laptop was back up in great condition within a couple of days.
Compare and contrast with my old Toshiba, which, when it bit the dust, I had to spend hours arguing with the support rep on the phone, who seems completely unwilling to listen to reason and invented every excuse int the book to try and blame the fault on me. Yeah, it was a budget laptop. Never again.
This is also generally true for your luxury car analogy. Shit happens, things break, and most luxury car reliability ratings are not significantly different from a mid-end car, the difference is in what happens when something borks, and you have to take it in to the dealership. I know many happy Lexus owners who will never buy any other brand, because they know when something inevitably breaks, they will be taken care of, and the people they deal with along the way won't hassle them any more than is absolutely necessary.
The GP was correct in saying that people are not paying for what amounts to a physically better product (more reliable, never breaks, etc), they are paying for the peace of mind and assurance that when you promise your product will work, it will work, and when it doesn't, you will do everything in your power to fix it.
Yes, because levying a tax on those who "choose" to live in a high crime area surely will make the problem BETTER. Seriously, you really believe people CHOOSE to live in a shitty neighbourhood? I've lived in one myself, and I thanked all the applicable deities when my circumstances improved enough for me to GTFO.
Meat eaters?
Meat eaters are a health risk now? What about the malnutritioned vegans who refuse to plan a proper vegetarian diet, and end up rich, spoiled, malnutritioned asses despite having all of the wealth in the world to remain perfectly healthy? I'm not saying a guy stuffing a 70oz steak down is healthy, but don't assume vegetarianism (or worse, veganism) is automatically healthier than omnivorous behaviour.
Also, I do believe (here in Canada anyway), that people who engage in dangerous snowsports do end up footing the bill themselves. People who break a bone down a manicured ski hill are treated by our public health system, but if you get lost in the back woods and had to bring in a rescue team, you get to foot THAT bill.
Here's the thing, we've seen the rise and fall of Dell, and the company is certainly suffering right now. The low-end hardware market has razor thin margins, and one misstep can spell serious financial disaster for the company. I think Apple has been wise to avoid this minefield of a market, potentially lucrative as it may be. It also gives them an air of quality that building el-cheapo low-end machines will compromise. You get what you pay for - and the fact that they only do higher end machines helps maintain their image that Apple = quality.
Seriously speaking though, I'd hate to see a Mac built to sell for $500 (monitor included). Nice, machined aluminum chassis? Nope, say hello to cheap flimsy plastic. Slot-loading drive? Nope, say hello to a behemoth 5.25" tray. I'm betting the Apple Keyboard costs several times to make than the average keyboard Dell ships with their machines. Yadi yada, so on and so forth, until you're looking at a machine that doesn't even resemble what we've come to expect from Macs - elegant, simple, quality.
Actually I wasn't implying that Radiohead wronged their label in producing this album independently. Rather, I question the notion that this means labels serve no use anymore. Sure, they take an unreasonable cut for their services, but before we claim this as a victory for indie music, think about it: could a not-already-famous band achieve Radiohead's popularity without millions in marketing? Ok, so they made a cool six mill off this album, but how can ANY indie band afford the astronomical cost of pomoting their act on such a scale? Can indie bands sell with Radiohead's model, with marketing that's within their means, and still afford to live?
Question: How much money did it take to get the band's publicity to the level they enjoy now? At the risk of being the devil's advocate, is it entirely likely that they are using the publicity someone else (the labels) paid for to generate sales for this album? Perhaps we should subtract such an equivalent cost from the figures and see how much they ACTUALLY made.
Yes, because the thing we need right now is transmitting 1920x1200 * 2 (graphics artists often work with multiple monitors!) across the intertubes at 60Hz. It's a technical impossibility - as evidenced by the fact that every terminal service app I've seen on any platform has been more slow and shoddy than good.
Just do what Valve did with HL2. Remove prediction altogether by time-shifting all clients back by 2-3 server updates. That way everything the client renders has already happened, and there is no possibility of making a mistake.
Slashdot Mirror
Ooh, personal attack, I don't get these too often. I'll bite.
Who says I have anything against other people's causes? Like you have seen on my website, I am involved myself in many causes that I believe in - the one you see is the only one in which I act in an administrative capacity (as opposed to merely grunt work).
I have nothing against Greenpeace because they hand out things on the side of the street, I respect many organizations that do the same. My disdain is for the behaviour of the organization and its members, not the cause it purports to represent, and the elitism of it all.
Take yourself for example, because I'm not a member of Greenpeace, you feel free to presume that I don't care about environmental issues. Because I dismiss any attempts to market their drivel at me on the street you presume that I am ignorant about your issues and that I would "suck down all the resources [I] can". Sure, because I'm not out there waving placards and shouting slogans I *must* be a fossil-fuel burning scum who drives a big SUV. This is not to mention the work I've done in power-conservation measures at my workplace, including recommendations for minimizing power use in a large industrial facility, and my own small measures, exchanging all bulbs in my place for power efficient CCFLs. In fact, I am a complete user of public transit, never owning a car in my life (though admittedly, part of this is for the financial freedom of living car-less).
So yes, because I'm not as zealous as you I deserve to be mocked for being part of the problem, despite the fact that I am, on the whole, one of the more upstanding citizens of the world when it comes to environmental issues. I keep myself educated on these topics by consulting many sources, and I won't buy into any of the drivel either side of the debate shoves in my face - for the simple fact that brainwashed groupthinkers are just like corporate suits - they will lie about everything and anything (as evidenced here in TFA) to get your support. No thanks, I do my own research.
It seems to me, my friend, I am not the one "maintaining an unjustified sense of superiority" here. I do what I feel is best in the background, instead of inflating my sense of self-importance by making myself as high-profile as possible.
Now, as to why I blow off the Greenpeacers in the streets? Because their tactics smell suspicious, constantly, full of half-truths and exaggerations, and using many of the same tactics as the common preacher on the street-corner, a demographic I have little patience for also. Instead of presenting their argument soundly either verbally or in written documentation, they resort to emotionally charged rhetoric with little meaning, and then are seemingly upset when you won't swallow their entire claim on their word. Like I've mentioned before, there are FAR better sources for information on important issues than your average Greenpeace pamphlet, and far better people to discuss them with than the average Greenpeacer standing on the side of a street (oh yes, I've done that too).
Nolan is the gaming equivalent of the first people that took photograph film, stitched them together with a hand crank, and went "HOLY CRAP, we can make something cool with this!". That doesn't make him precisely the world's greatest film critic, if you get what I'm trying to say.
The movie industry started with ambitious technical affairs that pushed the technology of the day constantly to its limits. In time people caught on, and in a huge way, so much that audiences demanded bigger and shinier tricks (sound familiar to gaming?), resulting in more and more derivative films with higher and higher budgets.
But you know what? The movie industry we have today has elements of innovative, daring cinema, and also elements of derivative blockbuster-of-the-summer fare. And that's okay, because not all art has to be deep, nor does it have to subscribe to anybody's notion of what's worthy of the medium and what is not.
Too often you "games suck nowadays!" critics pick up on the worst offenders in the industry, and conveniently gloss over all of these superb games that ARE coming out. I suspect nostalgia is at work here also - you don't remember the quality of the *game*, you remember the quality of your *memories* playing the game. These things are very different. I have often sought out games I played in my childhood, and simply cannot get into them today, despite having fond memories of my experiences.
Ugh, we have Greenpeace people handing out things on the side of the street here, and I treat them with the same disdain I treat the scientologists doing the same just a bit further down the street. Brainwashed is brainwashed, whether it's intergalactic alien overlords or saving the whales...
If you don't mind me saying so, you are a web designer - your technical expertise from that alone will trump many artists who are *only* photographers or *only* video editors, etc. I personally know many artists that can awk, sed, and grep as well as the rest of us, but they are in the end the minority in their field.
I know many large studios are shifting towards Linux tools in the special effects industry, but these are the same companies that can afford to dedicate a large IT department towards inevitable problems as their artists run into Linux's issues. For smaller companies or individuals, the "weirdness" of Linux will keep it from taking off as a professional platform.
And hence the popularity of Macs - runs all (almost) the software artistic professionals want, and without the cruft-filled nasty goodness that is Windows, and works out of the box with no CLI, ever, for those who expect their things to just work.
1) More big-dollar apps (Photoshop, 3DS-Max, AutoCad) making the move to a Linux version.
You realize that all of the above apps you've listed appeal to artists, right? The people who AREN'T as technically inclined as us coders? The same people who don't want to futz with find, grep, or even sudo?
For a company to switch to Linux on its desktops, the OS needs to be easy to use for EVERYONE, not just hardcore techies. I know many a draftsmen who can work magic in AutoCAD, but continue to call their tower the hard drive. For Linux to succeed for the geeks, we must make it appealing to the non-geeks.
Why did the Japanese start building American-style cars when GM and Chrysler were already good at making them?
Not to mention that the Nigerian government certainly have their own helicopters, regardless of how poor the country is in general. Can the government stand to save money by developing state-manufactured choppers? Or better yet, can it save money by cutting off their reliance on foreign maintenance crews, and instead training their own?
Nobody says they have to tackle Sikorsky on the global market, but I'm betting many developing nations would be in for some cheap, fairly reliable helicopters.
The problem here isn't that the government is inept - they know full well what they're doing. It's just that supporting local industries doesn't improve their lavish lifestyle in any appreciable way - improving the lives of their governed peoples is the LAST thing on their agenda, right beneath "decide what color of Italian leather to put in my new Ferrari". The problem with these "developing" countries is that none are truly developing, they suffer from poor management.
Not really. The train only has to beat the total travel time of the airplane, which nowadays is increasing steadily. Between early check-ins and clearing security, picking up your baggage, etc, etc, trains don't have to beat your 30-min in-the-air time, they get to beat your 4 hours from arrival at airport to the time you walk out, including delays.
If you throw in a locomotive as quick as the Shinkasen, you can easily give airplanes a run for their money in terms of total travel time and hassle.
$2 per fare? That's pretty damned cheap considering how extensive the service here. Up north here in Canada, we pay $2.75 (and set to rise!) for a subway system that covers a few select neighbourhoods outside downtown, along a very narrow corridor. To get to anywhere people *actually* live involves transferring from the (admittedly good) subway system onto surface buses that take forever and a day to get anywhere.
Not to mention your system actually moves people out to the 'burbs. If you want to leave metro Toronto on public transit it's $4 each way.
The Xbox 360 has a regular DVD drive, not an HD-DVD drive - that thing is an external addon.
One requirement that I have for in-game advertising is realism. If I see a Nike ad along the boards of a hockey arena in NHL 08, I wouldn't have my sense of immersion in the least, and in fact I welcome this instead of having them invent some distracting, fake brand to "advertise" in the stadium.
But seeing Comcast in the London Underground? NVidia? If they can get the type of companies that I would *actually* be likely to see in the metro, then sure, fine, but I doubt that's what's going on here. What you get are ads that completely snap you out of the sense of immersion.
They're talking about a subscription model with a no monthly fee option.If I pay the monthly fee will there still be ads? If not, then I think this is a fair tradeoff - you can't get something for nothing!
I really don't know why MS hasn't fixed this. I've tested this again and again with my own 360, and it is clear that the noise is not from any sort of cooling setup. It's the damned DVD drive! As long as that thing doesn't spin up the 360 is as quiet as the original Xbox (which is pretty decent), but man, how did they go from the original Xbox drive to THIS monstrosity?
Yes! I live in Canada and I don't get why people never consider trains as a travel option (which is a shame, AFAIK our government-run train company is barely staying afloat). Unless you're looking at east coast to west coast travel, a train is a great way to go.
Does it take a bit longer? Sure, maybe an hour extra. But during that extra hour you're in a massive seat with huge, comfortable legroom, great service, no security to speak of, and instead of dry, low-pressure air, you're breathing actual air, and you get to hear the clickety-click of the rails as you zoom overhead.
Add an AC power outlet to each seat and you've got a sure winner. For extra long trips I get the WiFi, so there's really never a boring moment, and the extra time you spend on the train just flies by, no pun intended :P.
And more free soft drinks! Ingenious!
Somewhat. The trick with luxury brands (generally, not always) is that you are taken care of if anything goes wrong. That warranty that comes with the product is actually worth something, as opposed to nothing when you're buying most budget-priced goods.
Case in point, when my MacBook Pro had a problem with its lid latch, I immediately called Apple. Less than 20 minutes later I had an authorization code to take to my local service provider (10 minute walk away, literally!), where my laptop was back up in great condition within a couple of days.
Compare and contrast with my old Toshiba, which, when it bit the dust, I had to spend hours arguing with the support rep on the phone, who seems completely unwilling to listen to reason and invented every excuse int the book to try and blame the fault on me. Yeah, it was a budget laptop. Never again.
This is also generally true for your luxury car analogy. Shit happens, things break, and most luxury car reliability ratings are not significantly different from a mid-end car, the difference is in what happens when something borks, and you have to take it in to the dealership. I know many happy Lexus owners who will never buy any other brand, because they know when something inevitably breaks, they will be taken care of, and the people they deal with along the way won't hassle them any more than is absolutely necessary.
The GP was correct in saying that people are not paying for what amounts to a physically better product (more reliable, never breaks, etc), they are paying for the peace of mind and assurance that when you promise your product will work, it will work, and when it doesn't, you will do everything in your power to fix it.
Actually, considering that phrase originated in the US, I believe they want your $0.019 ;)
Yes, because levying a tax on those who "choose" to live in a high crime area surely will make the problem BETTER. Seriously, you really believe people CHOOSE to live in a shitty neighbourhood? I've lived in one myself, and I thanked all the applicable deities when my circumstances improved enough for me to GTFO.
Meat eaters?Meat eaters are a health risk now? What about the malnutritioned vegans who refuse to plan a proper vegetarian diet, and end up rich, spoiled, malnutritioned asses despite having all of the wealth in the world to remain perfectly healthy? I'm not saying a guy stuffing a 70oz steak down is healthy, but don't assume vegetarianism (or worse, veganism) is automatically healthier than omnivorous behaviour.
Also, I do believe (here in Canada anyway), that people who engage in dangerous snowsports do end up footing the bill themselves. People who break a bone down a manicured ski hill are treated by our public health system, but if you get lost in the back woods and had to bring in a rescue team, you get to foot THAT bill.
On the contrary, I think he wants you to back IN...
Here's the thing, we've seen the rise and fall of Dell, and the company is certainly suffering right now. The low-end hardware market has razor thin margins, and one misstep can spell serious financial disaster for the company. I think Apple has been wise to avoid this minefield of a market, potentially lucrative as it may be. It also gives them an air of quality that building el-cheapo low-end machines will compromise. You get what you pay for - and the fact that they only do higher end machines helps maintain their image that Apple = quality.
Seriously speaking though, I'd hate to see a Mac built to sell for $500 (monitor included). Nice, machined aluminum chassis? Nope, say hello to cheap flimsy plastic. Slot-loading drive? Nope, say hello to a behemoth 5.25" tray. I'm betting the Apple Keyboard costs several times to make than the average keyboard Dell ships with their machines. Yadi yada, so on and so forth, until you're looking at a machine that doesn't even resemble what we've come to expect from Macs - elegant, simple, quality.
Actually I wasn't implying that Radiohead wronged their label in producing this album independently. Rather, I question the notion that this means labels serve no use anymore. Sure, they take an unreasonable cut for their services, but before we claim this as a victory for indie music, think about it: could a not-already-famous band achieve Radiohead's popularity without millions in marketing? Ok, so they made a cool six mill off this album, but how can ANY indie band afford the astronomical cost of pomoting their act on such a scale? Can indie bands sell with Radiohead's model, with marketing that's within their means, and still afford to live?
Question: How much money did it take to get the band's publicity to the level they enjoy now? At the risk of being the devil's advocate, is it entirely likely that they are using the publicity someone else (the labels) paid for to generate sales for this album? Perhaps we should subtract such an equivalent cost from the figures and see how much they ACTUALLY made.
Turn in your geek card at the door, we geeks don't ever hit the road, unless by road you mean the hallway between the basement and the kitchen.
Yes, because the thing we need right now is transmitting 1920x1200 * 2 (graphics artists often work with multiple monitors!) across the intertubes at 60Hz. It's a technical impossibility - as evidenced by the fact that every terminal service app I've seen on any platform has been more slow and shoddy than good.
Just do what Valve did with HL2. Remove prediction altogether by time-shifting all clients back by 2-3 server updates. That way everything the client renders has already happened, and there is no possibility of making a mistake.
"The biggest concern seems to find the glitches in the system instead of reconsidering passenger airplanes altogether."
Let's not knee-jerk TOO hard here, we might twist something.
For duck huntin'!