No, because their star with an over-inflated ego physically assaulted a coworker and drew blood. Nobody should have to put up with that. That being said I'll miss him as he was a fairly unique personality in tv.

Yes. Its also audibly captured on the CVR (its quite amazing what you can hear on the CVR, and what sequence of events have been pieced together just from the noise recorded alone).

No.

Simply falling on this switch wouldnt cause it to change positions - it requires a deliberate act to do so, the switch requires a certain force to pull up and then move to one position or another, its not like accidentally changing channels on your TV because you sat on the remote.

Also, there is no button or switch he could have fallen on which would have caused the gradual descent that we know the aircraft took. Changing the auto pilot altimeter requires you to use a dial and then confirm the change in two separate actions. Any interaction with the side stick would require the auto pilot to be off, which would mean we should have seen a lot of other, large movements in the aircrafts path, which are completely missing from the telemetry we have at the moment.

The few commands that we see in the telemetry (and by telemetry I mean the transponder tracks, which cover speed, height and directional changes) indicate that the aircraft was under either the control of the pilot or the autopilot for the entire duration of the descent.

Here is the pic of the switch in question:

http://oi58.tinypic.com/qyhc0p...

In "normal" mode its set to allow the door to unlock when the external code is entered.

In "unlocked" mode, the door is completely unlocked.

In "locked" mode, the door is completely locked, the external code will not unlock it.

The action to move between the three states is a very deliberate one - you need to lift the switch up and move it, there is an infinitesimally small chance that it was engaged by accident.

1870 is calling. It wants it's specious quasi-constitutional argument back.

What you are pining for hasn't been the case for a long time, likely since BEFORE YOU WERE BORN. We simply aren't that backwards as a nation anymore.

Your vision of Sharia law isn't any more tolerable than Jim Crow.

You and the state of Indiana need to stop watching Fox News.

That's easy. Follow the law. You know the law. That's the set of rules that's supposed to govern your conduct.

It's easy to avoid becoming involved with obviously illegal conduct. Death threats and pedophilia are easy and obvious exceptions to the straw man you're trying to build here.

You could even call your local city government or police to get their take on the situation.

No. The organizers of a convention that arguably falls under the umbrella of "the arts" want to avoid a venue where many people that work in "the arts" would be treated like an underclass.

Indiana can have the NRA convention.

I can't help but notice that neither the summary nor the links actually say what the bill says. Instead, we get the TL;DR, left-wing interpretation of its effects. I'm guessing, through some quick searches, it's meant to prevent what happened to the baker who had to shut down because while he had served many gay people in the past (supposedly; I don't tend to announce my sexual orientation before buying pastries) but refused to provide a wedding cake for a gay couple.

The Constitution is meant to restrict the government, not the people. People are always going to do things, in business and society, that you dislike. This is not about "Jim Crow" segregation that was institutionalized by the government. I'm not sure how far we can restrict people's right to freely associate before we realize we've gone too far. Maybe it will be once Westboro Baptist demands a "God Hates Fags" float in a gay pride parade.

"-1, Troll" doesn't mean, "-1, I disagree".

When you run a public business, the government gives you nice shiny benefits

Oh. Well, what if I want to run a business without their "nice shiny benefits"? Can't do that, eh? I have a natural right to run a business. Since when is government "giving" me rights?

If you're baking cakes out the back door of your house and selling them on Etsy (never mind how that works), fine, the government probably didn't support you, and you didn't promise them you'd participate in the economy they set up.

Actually, you'd probably be running afoul of many, many laws by doing that. You'd be lucky if you were allowed to GIVE away food.

Everything's not about black people.

We have a black president, and black representatives in all levels of government. Our greatest problems of discrimination in society come from class, not skin color.

Other people have suffered discrimination.

Get over yourself.

I can't help but notice that neither the summary nor the links actually say what the bill says. Instead, we get the TL;DR, left-wing interpretation of its effects. I'm guessing, through some quick searches, it's meant to prevent what happened to the baker who had to shut down because while he had served many gay people in the past (supposedly; I don't tend to announce my sexual orientation before buying pastries) but refused to provide a wedding cake for a gay couple.

The Constitution is meant to restrict the government, not the people. People are always going to do things, in business and society, that you dislike. This is not about "Jim Crow" segregation that was institutionalized by the government. I'm not sure how far we can restrict people's right to freely associate before we realize we've gone too far. Maybe it will be once Westboro Baptist demands a "God Hates Fags" float in a gay pride parade.

A more accurate title would be: "You can be sufficiently stupid with your memory access that it's faster to do disk IO."

Java is not the only system that can manifest this.