Modern airliners use FBW the pilot does not move the control surfaces he moves a joystick and a computer decides what to do.
Even the example you gave was pilots ignoring the electronics systems and not the electronics systems failing.

Simple
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J...

"In 1929, he became the first pilot to take off, fly and land an airplane using instruments alone, without a view outside the cockpit. Having returned to Mitchel Field that September, he assisted in the development of fog flying equipment. He helped develop, and was then the first to test, the now universally used artificial horizon and directional gyroscope. He attracted wide newspaper attention with this feat of "blind" flying and later received the Harmon Trophy for conducting the experiments. These accomplishments made all-weather airline operations practical."

And yes it was the Jimmy Doolittle. If you do not know about him you should read up on him.

God made humans rational beings.

Telling people who collect stamps they're idiots could be a hobby.

Because.
1. Yes it is a language.
2. A lot more people know PHP well than know Perl well. Notice that I said that PHP has many of the same proble,s as Perl but also has a larger base of programers

Russia worried about privacy? Yeah....
Just makes it easier for them to get their own citizens data, easier to tax and demand bribes from companies doing business in Russia, and hopefully makes it easier to spy on other nations because some of their personal data could end up in Russia.
Anyone that thinks that Russia is open or pro privacy is living in a fantasy world.

Ha! I knew the denialists would come swarming out of the woodwork on this one.

Consider the stem cell paper that we're talking about here. It was published in January and immediately started going down in flames. Here we are six months later, watching scientists gleefully kick the cold corpse of the authors' reputations. And you're still wondering who keeps the reviewers and editors of a scientific journal honest?

Peer review isn't some kind of certification of a paper's truth. It can't reliably weed out misconduct, experimental error, or statistical bad luck. It's just supposed to reduce the frequency of fiascos like this one by examining the reasoning and methods as described in the paper. It doesn't have to be perfect; in fact it's preferable for it to let the occasional clunker through onto the slaughterhouse floor than to squelch dissenting views or innovation.

That's why climate change denialists still get published today, even the ones who disbelieve climate change because it contravenes their view of the Bible. Peer review allows them to keep tugging at the loose threads of the AGW consensus while preventing them from publishing papers making embarrassingly broad claims for which they don't have evidence that has any chance of convincing someone familiar with the past fifty years of furious scientific debate.

Here's what I think is the confounding factor (there always is one): I'd be wondering, "Does that button REALLY deliver a shock, or is it some kind of sham social psychology experiment prop? I bet it's a prop. If it isn't, it won't deliver THAT bad a shock. If it is, I wonder what the researchers will do when I push it?"

The confounding factor is curiosity. They'd have to do *two* sessions with the overly curious.

Coal is baseload solar is not a replacement for baseload. The only good renewable replacement for baseload is hydro "the original baseload source of power". Wind is a marginal replacement for baseload but you really need large natural gas peaking plants to back up wind.

" He ended up with a lot of bad health effects, but kept alive until he was 75, eleven years later."
He died of heart problems. If you read the health effects they are claiming many of them seem just normal for a older person at that time. The rest might could also have been caused by chemical issues more than radiation. Heavy metals are for a large part things you want to avoid putting into your body.
The cateracts could be an issue but I know a lot of 70 year olds that have them that have never been near any source of ionizing radiation except normal background "pretty low here in Florida btw", and the Sun which does put out a good bit of UV.

It is not cool and hip.
The real answer is that Perl can be hard to maintain unless you enforce strict programing standards and it is not easy to find really skilled Perl programers. A less than top notch Perl programer means problems down the road for sure.
PHP, Python, and Ruby are all popular choices. PHP probably has the biggest talent base but has many of the same problems as Perl.
Python and Ruby are easier to maintain but harder to find coders for.
 

"NSA planting backdoors in american products : don't buy american products then! Consider who is least likely to pull this sort of trick to spy on you, germans, chinese, russians, japanese, ..."
None of the above.
hard to hide the building of underground complexes. "planes/satellites : build underground"
Hard to do that with a large factory or lab and you can buy the guards off in some cases."secret agents sneaking in : locked bunkers, armed guards, scary prisons"
Not a perfect solution one could use free optics "old fashioned bugs : sweep the room, use faraday cage shielding"
  backdoors, man in the middle attacks, and codebreaking."wiretapping : encryption"

Ummm..... Just what do you think nations do? There is not a single nation that does not spy on some other nation.
Sweden, Germany, France, and the UK all have special SIGINT aircraft. The US, China, Russia, Israel, the EU, Pakistan, and India all have spysats.
What are you 12 or have you never read any history?

Except that if you read the majority opinion they actually open up any provision of the law to challenge on the same grounds. They warn that the ruling should not be taken as covering anything covered by insurance, but presumably any such thing could in principle be challenged on the same basis, and depending on the circumstances might likewise be exempted. The majority has opened the door to challenging the application of any provision of this law to a closely held corporation -- indeed any provision of any law. They just don't know how the challenge will turn out.

It's interesting to note that the court broke down almost exactly on religious lines when dealing with contraception. Five of the six Roman Catholic justices voted with the majority, and all three Jews joined by one dissenting Catholic. I think this is significant because the majority opinion, written exclusively by Catholics, seems to treat concerns over contraception as sui generis; and the possibility of objections to the law based on issues important to other religious groups to be remote.

Another big deal in the majority opinion is that it takes another step towards raising for-profit corporations to the same status as natural persons. The quibbling involved is astonishing:

Which may be true, but it's irrelevant. The question is whether compelling a for-profit corporation to do something impacts the religious liberties of natural persons in exactly the same way as compelling a church to do that same thing. If there is any difference whatsoever, then then the regulations imposed on the church *must* be less restrictive than the regulations imposed on a business. Logically, this is equivalent to saying the regulations imposed on a business *may* be more restrictive than the regulations imposed on a church.

This is now at level of E!.
Modeling debut? Good grief.