How old were you when you got that first computer, because that's not that old? My first was similar; 540 MB HDD, 4 MB RAM, 486 DX2/66, and I'm 30.

I believe it's related to orders of magnitude; something that the computing community rallies against (MB vs MiB) :p

That's true, but another important word is cost. Apart from extended operations, APUs aren't run. For example, on the 747 it's not ever meant to be started in flight and has something like an 18k ft operating limit. I know of a few other aircraft that have APU altitude limits too, especially for bleed air (rather than just electricity).
The inconsistent battle between safety and cost is really odd to me. There are so many incredibly expensive requirements, but on the other hand you have aircraft that idle for half an hour or more in take off queues rather than be towed around (in wheel electric tow solutions are being investigated). Hell, once at LAX I saw a 757 wait 50 m from a gate for 15 minutes with both engines on. It was waiting for a marshall/ waving baton man (I was listening on my scanner). Some people are defensive about the status quo and justify this as "well imagine you had to jump out of bed and sprint 400 m", disregarding that at low volume airports aircraft do have VERY short warm up times for the engines (in my estimation my Jetstar A320 flight out of Avalon (YMAV) was under 120 seconds from a cold start sitting at the gate all night).
Mildly drunken rambling aside, yeah, there are very conservative rules in aviation, but cost considerations come into it too because everything is so god damn expensive.

Nah, 787 still uses hydraulic actuators. The system that they've done away with is the pneumatic system (engine bleed air) that is normally used for engine starting, cabin air conditioning and pressurising, and leading edge deicing.

Stringers run fore aft and frames circumferentially. It's not just an air skin, the skin takes the majority of the fuselage loads, and the stringers and frames are there to stop the thin skin from buckling as it does that. The frames also act as a hard point for localised forces.
Unfortunately you will probably have forgotten about this incident by the time it's reported.

You don't usually restart engines in flight. If it died or was shut down, it's for a good reason and it's staying that way til you land (with some rare exceptions like the BA flight into volcanic ash). On non ETOPS flights APUs aren't left running, but thanks to your comment I looked into it and learned that on ETOPS flights it often is. All these APUs also provide electrical power only above mid altitude, adding more evidence that their function is not for in flight restarts (the engine is windmilling anyway).

I shouldn't comment after drinking. It always seems like a good idea at the time :(

In the nicest way possible, I think you're full of shit. We have faced worse before and advanced out of it. Right now we're regressing, but I really think your bleak assessment of the possibilities holds no water.
That's not to say I agree with what's happening.

You sound like a person that only speaks one language if you think an odd English word has obvious pronunciation. FYI, I came in the top 1% of the Australian high school English competitions, so it's not like I struggle with English; it's just fucking stupid and inconsistent.

Which part of "angular velocity" do you not understand?

You should get modded down because you're way out of your depth and refuse to see it. If you don't know what CATIII autoland is, you shouldn't be commenting about landing procedures.
The fact this approach was a hand flown visual approach does not vindicate you.

You'd think that having done wing design on Airbus aircraft for 7 years I would have heard of this wing fuse concept, but I haven't.
You're talking out of your arse. And it's shear, not sheer. There is no separation of flammables because that would result in the inner fuel tanks draining all over and around the aircraft. There is only one crash criterion for wings and that is no fracturing of the wing box under moderate crash accelerations, so that fuel doesn't piss out everywhere in an otherwise minor crash.

Having also been an aviation buff for my whole life and recently a glider pilot, I also have no idea about these steep and fast landings that you speak of. Airliners follow what's almost always a 3 to 4 deg glide path. That's a shallow approach which requires thrust to follow in the landing configuration. Deliberately steep approaches beyond the glideslope do not exist in airliner operations. Find me an example of these high volume airports which prefer riskier approaches.

I see you arguing a lot here on /. and I've wondered whether you really know what you're talking about. I think I have my answer.

Wow, that's as bad speculative bullshit as I've even seen in Youtube and Facebook comments. I didn't think I'd see it on /.

As an aside, AoA indicators would make such an error fairly obvious. I still can't figure out why it's not a standard instrument.