Curious if the two lost in the region were both under the control of Indonesian Air Traffic Control. 8501 was, according to the article. Do they have a fscked up controller working the scopes?

Not a totally crazy idea... I think the single-ply hat is just fine.

In this case, 25 kilofeet. If the airliner was at 250 kilofeet, they had other problems than black holes to deal with.
Just sayin'. :)

Calling an ape a monkey in POTA was an insult to the ape... Just sayin'.

Sounds pretty plausible to me.

Nice twist.

I know I shouldn't feed the AC trolls, but I am so tired of hearing this lame-ass statement. Americans DO know what to call themselves - Americans!. I have never, ever heard an American citizen refer to themselves as "USians" or "Yankees" (unless, of course, they play for the team or are talking about northerners). No other country in either North or South America (the Continents) have the word "America" in their name: only the United States of America has that word in it's complete and proper name. Therefore, it is not only logical but sane to use the word Americans to describe citizens of the US. Canadians, Mexicans, Venezuelans, Brazilians, Portugese, etc. have made no claim to the "Americans" name, as they do not associate the tag as pertinent or descriptive to their country.

Nor have I ever heard anyone from another North or South American country complain that the USA co-opted the "Americans" name and stole it's use from all of the other countries. Never.

Reading through your post, I have to guess that, when you use the word "Americans", you mean all citizens of all countries in both North and South America, since you seem to have such a problem with the citizens of the US using it as a description. Your post makes much more sense that way... There are many, many corrupt governments on these two continents; the US not being the worst. And, there are many, many corrupt governments on other continents as well. Don't take this as me defending my government: it's a fucking mess and needs a hell of a lot of housecleaning, and I am willing to bet that more than 50% of the US citizens agree with me. However, unlike most other parts of the world, the US citizen sees revolution as the absolute last resort, not the first, and will try many, many alternatives before resorting to such a destructive choice.

Hear, hear. Well stated!

I find it quite interesting that the only group of scientists involved here is the climate change group. This move sounds suspiciously of getting the media to discredit any and every attempt at questioning the "science" of CC.

Eugenics was once accepted by EVERYONE (or so the proponents of the time wanted the public to believe). It was a "proven" science. It was accepted by many scientists, by elite society, by politicians. It's a black stain on science history now, and very few wish to discuss it, but it is nonetheless there.

Science needs to be questioned, results need to be doubted and tested. It's doubly more important for the individual scientist to question and doubt his or her own work, to prove it time and time again, to ensure that what they are learning is true and real, not tainted. Once a researcher begins to quell that and tries to stop others from disproving it, they are no longer scientists.

As far as CC science goes, I also don't deny the idea of CO2 affecting the climate. I don't know that I believe that it is the armageddon that it is being made out to be. I don't believe it's science's place to attempt to social engineer the populace through FUD either. Which is what this move by the climate science community is.

To answer the first part of your query:

http://www.cnn.com/2014/12/15/...

No guns allowed to be owned by the citizens in Australia, but... this still happened. According to the anti-gun crowd, this should NEVER EVER EVER happen in gun-free paradises like Australia, and note how quiet those groups are on this incident.

Disarming the public can not work, will not work, and does not work, and the Australia hostage crisis has proven it. Firearms are a "Pandora" situation, and have been since the invention of gunpowder. Permitting only the cops and VIP bodyguards to be the only people who have firearms is not realistic; one of those will sell their firearm at the right cost to a bad guy, and the whole plan goes to hell. In order to stop heinous situations like this from happening, you have to change the instincts and mindsets of the human animal. Until that can be done, these situations will continue to happen, no matter the laws.

I'd like to add to this, to emphasize exactly how important this point is. Because I think this is glossed over and ignored way to often, and it's a very important distinction.

Anyone who has ever performance tuned gasoline and diesel engines knows this point to a fault. To get the best performance out of a gasoline engine, the tuner gets the fuel to air ratio as lean as possible. However, on a gasoline engine, if the tuner goes too lean, it will damage the engine to the point that internal components will be damaged and require replacement!

However, you can lean a diesel out to the point where it just will no longer run, and NO DAMAGE WILL OCCUR. You can err on the side of "lean", and if you make a mistake, there is no consequence, other than the need to richen the mixture. Nothing will break. Diesel engines make more power by increasing the mixture, running the fuel to air mixture richer. They will break if the tuner gets too rich, as the exhaust gas temperature rises to the point of melting something or even to the point of a hydrolock, where the piston cannot physically compress the mixture due to an excess of fuel.

Why does this matter? Because, the leaner you can run an engine, the more efficient you can get. With a diesel, there is no drawback to running lean, so you have a much safer environment to make efficient power. With gasoline, there is always the specter of lean-burn damage waiting there in the efficient zone.

I live in an extremely rural, farming state. Better than 90% of my co-workers would easily be able to manage with a 90 mile range, and unless they are actually FARMING, that percentage would hold up in a more widespread fashion in the retail and service businesses here. People are very needlessly range-conscious, in my opinion, and if they would actually look at their odometers each day (as they cross their garage thresholds), most would realize that even 40 range miles would be plenty for day-to-day use.

I disagree... The only really "shite" modern American Diesel engine (by popular opinion, anyway) was the Ford 6.0 Powerstroke engine. That engine was plagued with design issues because of misunderstandings between Ford and International (who made the engine for Ford). By and large, the American diesel engines are actually very good. Cummins makes all the diesels for Dodge, which is arguably one of the finest diesel engine companies in the world. Chevrolet has made their own for many years, and was at one time (still may be?) partnered with Detroit Diesel. Ford is now making it's own and from what I have heard they have a winner in the 6.7. I see many, many used Diesel trucks for sale with close to or more than 300,000 miles on them. That's unheard of with gasoline powered vehicles. The problem with American diesels is that they are only available in heavier duty trucks. "Normal" half-ton and smaller pickups and other trucks have not had a diesel option until very, very recently, and those options are very few and far between. No American made car has a diesel option, due to the poor experience people had in the '80s with the horrible deployment of sub-par diesel engines in the Chevys. I have owned a diesel for many years, and it far outperforms a gasoline engine in just about every way, except for the fact that I need to drive a larger sized truck to have this option. I get much better mileage (under a load, better than twice what a gasoline powered truck can get), more power, and fewer problems. If the automakers would make a smaller version of their diesel engines and put them in their half-ton and quarter-ton trucks (like VW with their Amarok), they'd have a big, big win on their hands in the American market. As I said, that is starting to come about, but it is taking a long time as the automakers are skittish, and the importers are not pushing their diesel offerings to their customers. Also, the cost of diesel (in the US) is 20-30% more than gasoline at the pump, which also scares away consumers... even though that cost is easily compensated for by the MPG increase of the diesel over the gas versions. People don't really understand that. It's really a consumer education problem.

While we're at it, an even better idea... would be indexing wages to inflation...

FTFY

Because global warming. Oh sorry, it's called "Climate Change" now, isn't it? And it's all our fault...

All kidding aside, no one has mentioned the size difference between the US and Japan/Europe either. That, IMHO, is one of the largest hurdles that the US faces when considering more thorough rail service, that could possibly compete with air service. Not to mention the competition for rail time between passenger and freight (read OIL) trains. There just isn't enough infrastructure, and probably never will be, for country-wide, universal service like they have in Europe.

Ummm... might want to really proofread before posting with an insult like that. Makes YOU look like the idiot here.

The US is only 238 years old, so the slippery slope can *only* be 238 years long, less than a quarter of the exaggerated length you stated.

No comment on the rest of your post; I agree with some of it but not all... and some of it I am indifferent to.

Just sayin'.