The victims here are mostly innocent people who got on a plane without knowing exactly over which area it would fly. Except for a couple of them (the pilots).
People who get on a plane know the departure and destination and maybe a couple countries they would fly over. Everything else is usually "some land beneath".

The ones that chose to fly over that region are not the passengers. But passengers got killed.

So while I agree that blame is spread between more than one entity, passengers have no place in that category.

+1 Mathematically impaired.

Citation needed.
Wikipedia says otherwise: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G...

Through drooling mouths of scientists.

It's been what, couple years since I heard of Graphene. It apparently could do anything bar French Fries... in theory.
Any mainstream or even military implementations yet?

Let me know when it does something, for real, in real life. So far, it kind of says in the labs.

I can't be offended, I really can't. It's just that I realize when one can talk to people and when one can't. Reasons:
1. You make racial assumptions (they're wrong, by the way).
2. You make ad-hominem attacks.
3. You take the "we suffered the most" route (which nobody should, ever, this is not a fucking pissing contest).
4. Your judgment is clouded by subjectivism.

When a discussion is not constructive, I consider it as a failed one and move on.

I'm stopping. Have a nice life.

Maybe it's the other way around. Maybe the phone is not a text input device because it sucks at doing the job right.
Screen size is big enough. Capacity is more than big enough. There's plenty a reason to type on your phone. I, for example would love to do that while I take a longer ride in an intercity bus or car (as a passenger, don't get any ideas), or even while traveling by train (I'm a failed writer of sorts). I tried writing by hand in a paper notebook, but my scribbles look awful because I'm in a moving vehicle which constantly exerts forces (small but not negligible) so writing by hand becomes difficult.
For the classic writing style I need a hard place to put my notebook on, stability and a comfortable position, none of which are available while traveling. But a phone would do the job a lot better. "Get a laptop" you'd say, but with bigger size, smaller battery life span and no good place to put it on (except own lap) it's still worse than a phone.
Bluetooth keyboards are worse than a slide-out keyboard because they're not attached to the phone and eat up battery.

Another reason is IM conversations while traveling. They don't bother other passengers like talking on the phone does, you can do it with multiple people at once, doesn't really eat up bandwidth.

Yes, a cheap phone would do just fine but then I'd have to carry two devices which makes no sense.
I understand this particular case doesn't represent "a market" but there might be a market if such a device existed.

About cost: I guess the extra cost would be negated if companies would simply stop spending time and money creating all that stupid bloatware they push on the damn phones.

Who gets to define "obscure"?
From a culture wipeout perspective, yes it is a bigger loss.
However, I guess there's nobody left to feel offended if that particular tragedy is played down, don't you think?

But you're abusing a logical fallacy. We're discussing WW2 happenings in this particular thread and more specifically my statement that "Jews were affected the most" - which, from this "targeted group" perspective, is a correct statement.
They were targeted for extinction (the Chinese weren't).
They suffered the greatest losses from a % of total population perspective, as much as over 90% in each of the top 5 countries where the Holocaust happened.
This does give them the right to be sensitive, hell I would be if I were them, these sort of scars go deep and probably never heal.
But saying "my people suffered much" is one thing, and saying "my people suffered much therefore I have more rights to this and that than anyone else" is an entirely different thing.
No event, no matter how large, gives any nation/group a global, permanent "I am always first and always right" card.

Wait, what?
The GP mentioned what people believe in Eastern Europe. I told him he's wrong. What does your comment have to do with Eastern Europe?

Until you measure as % of total population.
China: 1.93 to 3.86%
Jewish: 50.4 to 59.7%

It might be a cold way to look at it, but that's how you measure danger of extinction.
So Jews were the most affected, as a whole.
Of the nine million Jews who had resided in Europe before the Holocaust, approximately two-thirds were killed (source: Dawidowicz, Lucy (1975). The War Against the Jews).

So... you were mentioning proportions? I guess hard numbers don't really cast the right shadow there.

Weird. I had the exact opposite experience in Italy, Poland and Romania.

No, a WHOLE NATION doesn't need face-rubbing.
Whenever you do that to a whole nation, you antagonize that nation just a little bit more.
Analogy: your drunken uncle rips a flower from your neighbor's tree and the neighbor goes to court and demands all your family to plant another tree in his garden. He's technically right to be offended or whatever but his demands are over the top. As a direct result, you start to dislike the neighbor.
He could've come to your house and said "that flower, I liked that flower, you should pay me 10 bucks".

A nation always produces idiots. It's the way things are.

try asking younger people then, let the ones in their fifties alone

As an Eastern European, all I could tell you is: you're so very wrong.
NOBODY in Eastern Europe is believing the Russians. We all know better, after being under their boot for 45 years or so.