The majority of the *jobs* associated with manufacturing the A-380 are in Europe. In fact, the process by which the parts are assembled, transported, etc through the EU is fascinating.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A...

And the reverse is true for the 747 - much of the labor-intensive assembly is in Everett, WA, of course.

Wholesale cost of the parts is a poor metric for claiming where something is "built", especially in the political arena, where manufacturing jobs are what gets votes...

I think the fact that the 747 can go Mach 0.9 @ 45,000 feet while the C-5 can only do Mach 0.79 @ 36,000 feet is probably another major strike against it. 25% higher altitude and 14% faster is a big selling point in a passenger plane carrying valuable personnel...

I just love how the highly compromised F-35 is now up to about $115-$140M each, while the horribly overpriced but unquestionably best fighter in the world F-22 is now looking almost affordable at a cool $150M.

Then again, not sure I'd question canceling most of these programs. In the future fighters will probably only be needed for interception (assuming stealth isn't totally defeated by S/A missiles) - attack roles will be mostly drones that will cost a tiny fraction of these costs...

No, that's just not true in the slightest, since we are talking where it was built. Boeing is hugely overwhelmingly built in the US, and Airbus in Europe (as much by political decree as anything but it's a fact).

The Galaxy is utterly different than a passenger plane like the 747.

Significantly slower, worse safety record, horribly worse range (you don't want to be in-flight refueling every 2500 miles), and in no way adapted to a 2-level, passenger focused layout they obviously want in "Air Force One". Not to mention the last C-5 was built in 1989. They just don't want to recondition a 25 year old plane as the flagship aircaft of the United States...

Yeah, duh, that was the joke...

Except for that episode that created two Rikers...

When those people are some of the most senior at Google and they have practically given up on it, yeah, it is evidence. Hell, one of them *ran* Google's apps and ad business for almost a decade...

True about the URL - but also of my 20-ish G+ friends, almost half are GOOGLE EMPLOYEES (and ALL are techies). And among them I only have 4 posts in the last month.

Except the "inane people" on FB are 10x more populous and 20x more likely to click on ads. The market doesn't give a shit about "technical communities", it cares about eyeballs.

My point was people did use it in many applications (church as well as science) back in the 1600-1700s when it was first used to name species.

And not speaking it in normal conversation doesn't mean it isn't or wasn't used. There are many thousands (tens of thousands? hundreds of thousands?) of scholars *now* who can read it in order to read and study old texts. And in the 1600's when the biological taxonomy was first established, Latin was literally the common written language between scientists of a dozen different countries who may not even have been able to communicate any other way.

Yet none of your points has remotely disproved the green cheese hypothesis...

FTL is great, but this sounds more like MOO than FTL.

Gotta say, I hope they keep the ship design/customization relatively straightforward. In theory in MOO/GalCiv/etc was cool, but the tech tree/dev was so fast paced I always felt like ships were obsolete by the time you finished building them.

Sorry, but this dude looks like he works out 2 hours a day, and I think I heard him grunt when he picked it up. If the 5" thick body didn't already discredit that term (note: the original IBM Portable was NOT A LAPTOP).

You'd probably get bruises on your thighs if you put this on your lap, if you didn't get 2nd degree burns before that...

I don't disagree that coal has had more effect than nuclear on the environment, but your "fact" is completely wrong. Kind of sad, since if you had just kept to the facts it would have been a decent point.

And yes, the top 3 Google results (as per your suggestion) say you are wrong. Feel free to find a citation that contradicts your suggestion, though.