I wonder on what basis you make those assumptions...
Look where mankind was 800 years ago. Look where we stand today. Although such a leap forward isn't assured, it can nonetheless be assumed without too grand risk for error.

Regardless of the exaggeration (I doubt a P47 would do the job), you hit the nail on the head. There's nothing like gaining air superiority with fighters/interceptor. That works only well in Hollywood blockbusters. For the current state of warfare (or at least what I get from it from afar), it seems that workhorses like the A-10 and AC-130 are much more appropriate. The only good thing about a fast multi role aircraft is that you can get of from a carrier and get somewhere fast for time critical precision strikes. But even that can be done through other, much cheaper means.

In the end, the F-35 has little more use than the flag poles and fanfares. It's a power demonstration that serves no purpose in modern warfare. But that shows also how off topic this subject is. I can't help myself frowning when I read about the F-35 in a discussion about NASA, launchers and SpaceX. While the F-35 is a purely ideological endeavor, the design and operation of space launchers plays a crucial role in our society. We are highly dependent on space systems and really need good and reliable launchers. I feel that comparing anything that has to do with space launchers with the F-35 is like comparing the building of new roads with a city (hypothetically) buying a few Ferrari for marketing purposes.

And this is exactly why we should keep searching for the wreckage and find it. Knowing what happened is the key to prevent it from happening again. More than in any other fields, aviation safety is build upon knowledge gained from past incidents and accidents. This is why it is worth investing both the time and the money to understand the events that lead to the crash.

It's powerful when the time comes to look for new funding.

Like any other site, this site is about that what the editors choose. Not the people consuming the information. It is the case for any type of media... why would you believe it is any different with this one?

You are always free to write your thoughts to the editors or to the editor who accepted the submission. Ranting about it is probably the least helpful thing one can do.

I though driving by an open hotspot on the highway was enough time to use it. At least they would know on which Highway I drove.

Although alternative spelling may be current, there is only one correct spelling. Ignoring the correct spelling, doesn't make the common alternative spelling suddently correct.

No. The correct spelling is "voilà".

No, but in front of a rear-view mirror...

That's why the car is filled with other systems doing the feeling and adjusting for the driver, systems such as the ESP. it becomes essential in cars where de driving feeling disappears.

But its Mercedes... I drive regularly fully equipped E class Mercedes. It's awful. Its full of systems driving for you and taking decisions for you... It can go as far as breaking you on the highway. These cars are at 90 degrees of the "driving feeling" concept.

They all work this way. Doing a high speed train without such a system is not practical because it limits the speed for a lot of curves. The ICE 3 was the first to implement it to my knowledge.

I bet it would sell, a car that considerably leans outwards... "Feel the weightlessness in those curves".

But you wouldn't get it through the telemetry data feed. You'd have to have an separate analog transmitter just for the video feed. I'd say that it would be worth it if the video feed was critical. I doubt it is... it's most likely only a nice to have feature.