Are you managing people, or projects?

I think the problem is, modern managers are expected to herd cats.

The problem isn't the managers, it's the cats.

Electric traction motors are far more efficient than ICEs. That's why diesel locomotives don't actually connect the diesel engine to the wheels.

You are high. The diesel engine turns fuel into mechanical energy. If you change that mechanical energy into electricity and then back into mechanical energy, there is no way that could give you more efficiency than a simple mechanical transmission (which is typically well over 90% efficient). The reason for the electric transmission is flexibility. It does away with a big honking clutch and a multi-speed gearbox and gives you very smooth transition from standstill to forward motion.

Newton is a unit of force. BTU is a unit of energy. You should be using megajoules.

1 BTU = 0.001055055853 MJ, or 1000 BTU = 1.055055853 MJ
1000 BTU per person mile = 0.6555813132 MJ/passenger-km

Any combustion engine running at surface conditions can do maybe 20 - 30% efficiency tops.

Better than that. There are internal combustion engines which reach 50% at sea level. The Wartsila-Sulzer RTA96-C 108,920 hp marine diesel exceeds 50%. Heck, even the TDI diesel engine in my 1999 Golf tops out at very close to 40%. The LM-2500+ gas turbine, a derivative of the CF6 which powers some 747s, adapted for shaft output, is over 39%.

OK, lets pretend that exact configuration is used.

Now the airline manually signs and offline installs the updated manuals, resulting in the same exact breakage you see here, and in the same situation.

Your solution just resulted in the grounding of the aircraft.
Except your solution will take much much longer to install the fixed data back.

The only real difference is now it is you personally and Linux that will unfairly and incorrectly get the blame instead of Apple.

For the same reason, and just as stupid, as using any other tablet such as Android or Surface, or even the original paper books.

In other words, your solution (which ever one it may be) has the exact same problem as iPad, so is a broken stupid solution.

Yes even paper. If I ripped the pages out of the paper manual and replaced them with chewing gum and hardcore porn (aka a fight club styled update), the situation would remain the same and the plane just as grounded as now.

Either beef up your trollskill some, or learn how to computer. You failed miserably at both.

Seagoing cargo ships are manned. Cargo planes are manned.

This instantly reminded me of an 80's movie called Runaway with Tom Selleck, who is a part of a special task force to hunt down and destroy malfunctioning "runaway" robots.

Their handguns could lock on a target and program the bullets just before firing to stay on their target, although they looked more like miniature rocket based missiles with their own tiny engines and guidance fins.

I remember a number of the larger scenes giving a bullet-point-of-view type thing as the target goes running away and try to evade the shots by going around corners and obstacles, even purposely missing other people, before embedding into their target and exploding.

http://xirdalium.net/2012/02/1...

The above link has a picture of the bullet from this movie, and even goes on about a real prototype from Sandia National Laboratories back in 2012

https://share.sandia.gov/news/...

I wonder how much these two groups worked together on these.

You are a fucking nincompoop. Peltier cooling works by pumping heat from the cold side to the hot side. You have to COOL the hot side, not heat it, idiot.

Bullshit. They are HIDDEN. A menu bar that says "File", "Edit", and "View" in plain English or $LOCALIZED_LANGUAGE_OF_CHOICE is not hidden. Something that can only be accessed by knowing a secret location, or by finding a cryptic symbol and determining its purpose, is hidden.

SAA/CUA did not happen, and take over everywhere that mattered, because it was the product of a bunch of masturbating monkeys. It was the end product of research and insight of genuine experts in human interface, including Apple's HIG, and ultimately the innovators behind Xerox Star.

CO2 + H2O doesn't only make methanol. It makes hydrocarbon. Via various chemical processes, you can end up with whatever form(s) of hydrocarbon you want. Diesel fuel is good because (1) it is a very efficient and convenient energy storage medium and (2) a vast infrastructure of vehicles already use it. Methanol is an inefficient energy storage medium - quite apart from its toxicity.

Since burning the fuel returns it back into CO2 and H2O, the amount of energy in the various bonds is irrelevant. All the energy you put in will come out again.

No; far from all of it; not in a useful form. A major part of it comes back, but neither the breakdown processes and the synthesis processes nor the engines consuming the end product are any where near 100% efficient.

The atmosphere has a mass of 5.15×10^18 kg. The concentration of CO2 is about 400 parts per million. That means there is 2.06x10^15 kg[*], or 2.06 trillion tonnes, of CO2 in the atmosphere. That works out to about 294 tonnes for every man, woman, and child in the world. There are also vast amounts dissolved in the oceans.

About 2.4 kg of CO2 is produced per litre of motor fuel burned; hence synthesizing motor fuel from CO2 requires about 2.4 kg of CO2 per litre. That means that the 2.06x10^15 kg of CO2 present in the atmosphere could generate over 8x10^14 litres of motor fuel, or more than ten thousand litres for every man, woman, and child in the world.

So around now, if you are a US driver, you are probably thinking that you do consume on the order of 500 gallons, or 2000 litres, of motor fuel per year, and you will note that there are other vehicles besides personal motor cars to be considered - trucks, planes, ships, etc.

But it seems to me you are utterly ignoring the overriding point. It is a giant closed system! Every kilogram of CO2 you process into fuel gets burned, and every single kg of CO2 you release from burning the fuel goes back into the atmosphere. And the overall loop is very nearly lossless. Sure, some very small fraction of the carbon liberated by combustion gets turned into CO or C particulates instead of CO2, but with modern pollution controls that fraction is very slight.

There are enormous logistical challenges to using the technique at full scale (including where to get the staggering amount of energy to run the synthesis), but running the atmosphere short of CO2 is not one of them.

[*] I spent a fair amount of time researching and could not readily determine whether the oft-quoted figure of 400 ppm is by volume or by mass. My math assumes that it is by mass. That actually leads to lower figures (pessimistic to my point) than if it is by volume, as it probably is. This is because CO2 is substantially higher density than air.

I thought the web was to add inline images to your gopher menus :P