Google's spider hadn't yet hit it that day according to site stats, while everyone else's had. Strange, since Google spiders more than anybody. After it was spidered I got the same results as you.

SSHHH! Damn it, Rula!

Alexander Stepanov, I have never had a chance to ask someone as qualified as you about this topic. I grew up on the opposite side of the Iron Curtain and have constantly wondered if (surely there must have been) alternative computing solutions developed in the USSR prior to Elbrus and SPARC. So my question is whether or not you know of any hardware or instruction set alternatives that died on the vine or were never mass fabricated in Soviet times? I don't expect to you to reveal some super advanced or future predicting instruction set but it has always disturbed me that these things aren't documented somewhere -- as you likely know failures can provide more fruit than successes. Failing that, could you offer us any tails of early computing that only seem to run in Russian circles?

If you can suggest references (preferably in English) I would be most appreciative. I know of only one book and it seems to be a singular point of view.

It runs Series 30 software which isn't Windows and is limited in capability. So technically while it may have Internet, it may not have many apps. So it's not a replacement for a smartphone for many people.

My year isn't starting out so well. So far only two people have bought Mars, Ho!. No best seller for me =(

Googling for it shows how useless Google is becoming; it's now completely disregarding any and all punctuation and spacing, as well as capitalization and word order like they've done for a while now. Searching for "Mars, Ho!" brings up a bunch of people and medical facilities named Marsho. Three pages in and no hint of any page with the words "mars" and :ho." Worthless.

Bing was better! Believe it or not, along with the folks named Marsho (people at MS are as stupid as Google staff... fucking morons) halfway down the first page was a NASA "Mars, Ho!" page, followed by my book. I think I'll change my default search engine.

Even the yahoos at Yahoo had better results, better even than MS's. The first result was, idiotically, Marsho Medical (look, idiotic seaqrch engines, there's a SPACE dammit). That was followed by NASA's "Mars, Ho!", followed by "images for", one of which was the book cover. Both Bing and Yahoo had the kindle editions listed on the first results, three pages down in Google and there's no hint the book even exists.

I'm kinda bummed... but I usually get the blues this time of year anyway.

Why does that matter? I don't run marathons for the labor involved.

Among the people I run with are contractors, police officers, EMTs, etc. They run the whole gamut of professions from those who do a lot of manual work to those who do very little.

Well I know of two guys who did run marathons who built houses for a living. One of them has since sold his business but that's what he did. It may be true that those of perform manual labor are not as likely to run but they are there.

How so? I work sometimes 60 hours a week. In my spare time I used to play video games, rock climb, watch anime, etc. But now I choose to run because I like to run. It keeps me healthy. It is my zen moments during runs. And for everyone that trains with me they have their own reasons; none of them do it because they feel like they don't do real work.

As a marathoner, I resent your implication that I don't do enough real work. Training for and running a marathon is my hobby. I train with doctors, lawyers, housewives, entrepreneurs, students, wait-staff, etc. It takes a lot of time and is like getting a second job but it's not because we spend all day doing nothing. Some people choose to watch TV in their spare time; some people choose to play video games. You may not choose a marathon over your current hobbies but that is your choice; don't denigrate those who simply choose differently.

Again I refer you to the transcript. From the initial stall warning at 2 hr 10 min, there are stall warnings in every minute. Then the plane crashed.

Your conclusions have been wrong about Air France 447 because you have been wrong about the facts. The conclusions of the BEA specifically contribute the accident to the pilots and a number of other factors including the pitot tube design. However, the failure of the pitot tubes should not have led to a crash by themselves. You seem to want blame everything else except what is clear in the report. The computer did not "panic". The stall warning did correctly identify the problem that occurred. The pilots under a number of alarms did not establish initial control. There was a communications breakdown between the pilots. The pilots ignored the stall warning until too late.

You can read in the transcript. The stall warnings never stopped. They didn't alarm all the time but they didn't stop. The plane eventually stalled because the pilots did not correct the problem. I refer you to the final report of the accident not the opinion of a pilot's union.

That is unless you want to argue with conclusions of the official report.

When you posted something factually incorrect about what a stall is, I expect you to admit that you posted factually incorrect information. I'm not a professional pilot but I know enough about aviation to know what a stall is. Stalling due to high speeds is unlikely especially when that was not the case in Air France 447. There were climbing; their air speed was not too high. They were stalling because their air speed was too low and the AoA was too high; they just didn't believe the warnings.

There were a number of contributing factors to this accident, but you seem desperate to dismiss that the fact that the pilots made errors that led to the crash and blame everything else. The computer did not "panic"; it did exactly what it was supposed to do. The stall warnings while intermittent did alert the pilots to the exact situation that caused the plane to crash. This was a recoverable situation, and the pilots did not apply the proper procedures: Establish initial control then deal with the situation. Instead the crew panicked not the computer.

Agreed. I was talking to two couples a while back (an older couple and a younger couple who happened to be one of the children of the older). The older couple remarked that when their children were growing up they didn't go to the movie theater for almost 10 years on a date. So they didn't see many movies. It was a big deal to get a babysitter for a movie night, etc. The younger couple who have a child too said time commitments meant they didn't go to the movie theater much. The difference was the younger couple still watched movies while raising a child while the older did not. Streaming, Red Box rentals, Digital and physical purchases meant that they didn't miss out on any movies the younger couple wanted to watch; they could do it on their own time schedule.

No you said that the stall warning stopped when the pilot pulled up (read above). That is not correct. The stall warnings happened continuously throughout the time until the condition was corrected. It was never corrected.

No that is also incorrect. Stall warnings are when there is not enough lift. Most of the time (and in this accident), this is when the airspeed is too low or the angle of attack is too high. Stalling at high speeds is possible but not in this case especially since the pilot was climbing not diving.

The pitot tubes were to be replaced per schedule because they had a tendency to ice up during flights. I point you to the wiki article on the flight as multiple incidents led to the replacement advisory.

The computer did not get "stuck" in alternate law. The computer with conflicting airspeed readings goes to alternate law by design. This is basic flight (and computer system) protocols. As for "encouraging the pilot to do the entirely wrong thing", I don't know where you get this idea: The computer did not goad the pilots into climbing nor told them what to do. The computer realized it could not fly the plane according to its program and switched to alternate law giving the pilots full control of the aircraft. It is up to the pilots to fly manually (which they are supposed to be trained to do).

The problem is the pilots did not follow training or procedures. It may be an increasing problem as more pilots rely too much on autopilot. This has been identified as a trend in all airlines as more airlines are created with more flights and more planes. The US is also subject to this problem; however, the US has a larger pool of ex-military pilots who were trained to fly manually.