And that was what I consider the real issue. I don't give a damn if MS installed IE on those computers I was forced to buy with an MS operating system on them. It was trivial enough to install another browser, but unless I wanted to take the time to build my own computers from parts and then have basically no warranty on the system as a whole, I had to pay MS for their OS. And that points out that having an MS OS on the system wasn't the issue, it was having to PAY for the privilege.

And you ought to know that I was buying those systems with grant money, which means the taxpayer was actually paying for an OS that was going to be deleted as soon as the system got here.

MS also installs 'explorer' on all their systems, but you could buy Norton commander. Is the fact that 'explorer' was part of the MS bundle a problem? No.

If you are disabling an app so it cannot be used at all, why do you care that you have to remove an update to the very app you don't want in the first place? Others have pointed out the technical reason for the way it is.

The real issue back then was that MS required OEMs to install MS OS on every computer they sold if they wanted to install it on ANY computer they sold. That's why you didn't have an option of buying a pre-built computer without Windows. I ought to know, I had to buy alot of them.

You may be thinking of transponders with Mode C. I don't know of any airspace where TCAS is required for all aircraft, but class B requires Mode C. At least in the US.

I don't see how you could have gotten that from anything I wrote. I didn't talk about male scientists, and I didn't prove anyone was corrupt, I spoke about the impression that the public can get when one group of scientists points the finger at another group.

Whoosh.

And in "Scorpion", where we learned that nobody can land anything if the tower software is out of operation, that transcontinental aircraft carry a copy of the ATC routing software, that those aircraft have a cat5 cable hanging around in the equipment bay that can be dropped out a wheel well so a hacker can download the software, that an ATC software failure can disable the red/green light guns that are installed in towers explicitly to deal with communications failures, that the data archive disk for the ATC software has a label "FAA" on it, that right handed data server managers put their important servers on the right side of the room, that a 500,000 kW glitch in the power grid will cause data center doors to open, ... OMG.

The only reason to watch that show is for the mom. I recorded it and I'm keeping it, if for no other reason that to have something to point at as an example of really really really bad technical content in a prime time program. I can't wait to see what they slaughter tonight.

The FAA cannot reject your flight plan. The clearance they give you may not match what you ask for, but they'll give you something. And, as you continued, you'll definitely get something if you are an FAA-operated aircraft transporting FAA personnel to repair an out-of-service FAA facility.

You know, that statement right there shows why the public has no problem believing that scientists can be just as corrupt as politicians. It's not the "bad ones" who have created the problem, it is the "good ones" who dismiss anything any scientist who is "paid off by the fossil fuel industry" says just because of who they work for.

Once you have one part of a group pointing fingers at the others saying "they're corrupt", it is not very hard at all to think that all of them could be. I mean, if who pays you determines what your results are, then why wouldn't someone being paid on a grant to study one aspect of climate change be likely to find just what he's being paid to find? Even if it is nothing more than unidentified confirmation bias, if who pays you can point you to your results, then that applies no matter who pays you.

Why would none of the academics publish biased results?

1. There's no profit. Of course there is. Grants go to people studying new and/or important things. If you say "there's nothing to see here" your grant doesn't get renewed. You have to go find something else to work on so you'll get paid. Unlike people with real jobs, academics don't get paid with their employer's money, they get paid from grant money.

2. Someone would snitch. Of course. And then that someone would wind up without HIS grant because a) nobody likes a snitch, and b) "there's nothing to see here" applies. Unlike someone with a real job, academic grants go through "peer review" and if your peers decide that your work is banal and obvious, you don't get your grant.

Of course, the bias may not be deliberate, it may just influence what "outliers" get thrown out.

If you don't think there are egos involved in academic science, you've never worked in academia. If you don't think there is back scratching going on all the time, ditto. There is a limited amount of money being pulled in a large number of directions. Anyone who says "there's nothing to see here" jeopardizes everyone working in that field, and those humans called "scientists" can still do what humans tend to do when something jeopardizes their income.

Personally, I just wish those "good ones" would stop accusing their colleagues of being bought off, because it besmirches the entire process of science. If you can't counter their science with your own, then maybe you need to look at your own science first. This "you've been bought off so you are wrong" argument throws mud on the recipient, but a lot of it splashes back on the thrower.

The same evidence the "good one" have regarding the "bad ones".

It's a debit card. The fact you can use it to pay for something at the checkout doesn't make it a credit card. There is no credit involved.

All debit cards are like that. And that's why even if your card issuer promises low liabilities for lost or stolen cards, you may have an empty checking account for the entire time it takes to resolve the problem. Compare that to a credit card where the issuer is prohibited by law from acting on any charge that you are disputing.

No, but commercial aircraft in high traffic areas tend to have TCAS and similar to alert them to traffic, and if on a proper clearance won't run into anyone anyway.

Like I said, they are humans in the cockpit, and their failure to be perfect at see-and-avoid doesn't mean ATC is the only person keeping them apart.

No, he was wrong. The pilots are also there to keep planes from running into each other. If you are going to discount their presence because they are imperfect at it and think only ATC has that job, then you better discount ATC as well because they are not perfect, either.

Bullshit.

Not even barring inclement weather. The navigation aids were not impacted by this, only center. Departure and approach were still functional, too. Get an IFR clearance and fly it. You don't have to talk to a center to do that.

Believe it or not, there are other people who stop planes from running into "each other". They're called "pilots". Actual human beings who control the airplanes and where they go.

Of course they aren't perfect at keeping airplanes from running into each other. They're humans. (And computers aren't perfect at it either.) Just like the ATC humans aren't perfect at keeping minimum separation.

Huh? What "poor of a practice"? Evacuating a building that is on fire? My God! How stupid can that be? Leave them in the building and let them burn, just as long as no flights are delayed.

You mean a "system" where people work in buildings where there could be a fire? I think I can answer this one: ALL of them.

Buildings are rarely evacuated because of lighting. The centers are usually operated at reduced lighting levels anyway. They are also not usually evacuated because of lightning, and while a lightning strike can take out commercial power, the backups will come online quickly.

Can "natural events" take out a radio transmitter? Of course. That's why there are backups for those, too.

Now, what happens when a nutter cuts the cable going out of the building, or sets it afire? Yeah, it has a serious impact.

This isn't a glaring example of government mismanagement. Dial it back a few notches, ok?

I think you're referring to the Communications Act of 1934 and amendments thereto. Can't tell. If not, citation required.

The Communications Act has never said that you can "do what you will" with things you record off the air. It allows personal use of a lot of things you can record, but not commercial use. You cannot record a TV show at your house and then distribute it commercially, for example.

More recent amendments have changed the environment considerably, especially in the area of telecommunications (listening to cellular phone calls, for example) and other non-broadcast transmissions.

That's why I said "many" and not "most", or "all". Saving water is nice, except that for many people it simply goes back into the local water table and their well just sucks it back up to be reused.

No, we don't. We can allow people to use what they want to pay for.

I'm sorry, what? Soft drinks are not a "shared resource", they are a commercially made product, and if a store runs out they order more. Any argument that you shouldn't be able to buy a 32 oz soft drink because it is abusing a shared resource is just nuts.

Ahhh, so you think that every person who drinks a 32 oz soft drink has to go to the hospital to, umm, what, pee? Sorry. That's also nuts.

I think you're referring to guns here, but I can't tell for sure. You flamed me for what you thought was an overstatement about how many times a low-flow toilet needed to be flushed and now you drop this gem about the "only reason for existing" for guns.

I hate to burst your bubble, but clay targets have never been alive so "usually-living" doesn't apply, and by the time a paper target is tacked up to something it is long-dead wood. I supposed you are opposed to bow and arrow enthusiasts because the paper targets (and bales of hay) they use were "usually-living"?

I'm sorry, did you read me saying that anywhere?

A civilized society doesn't need these rules, and we got along for a very long time without them. Trying to claim that you can't have a civilized society without them is, well, you used the word "sneakily" when you misinterpreted what I wrote. I'd call what you're doing less than sneaky, and pretty disingenuous.

Right. You are SO seriously screwed over because I own a 15 round magazine, or because I drink a 32 oz diet soft drink every so often, or because my cell phone doesn't have a GPS in it. Yeah. It is such an inconvenience to you that I have some freedom to make my own choices about what I do.

Did you not even bother to read the summary? Putting compostable items in the trash can result in a fine. Or don't you know that an apple core is compostable?

No, I don't get the country I deserve, because "people like you" (as you so civilly put it) think they're being so inconvenienced by other people having the ability to choose how they run their own lives. How did you put it? "seriously screwing everyone over through their sheer selfishness". Right. It absolutely ruins your life because I have an incandescent bulb where you think I ought to have an environmentally destructive CFL.

Guess what? I bought into the CFL nonsense and now I have a couple of places in my house that I have to predict when I'll need light because the damn CFL lighting takes several minutes to warm up and start emitting enough light. And I've got to worry about where I dispose of the dead ones (that didn't last as long as the last incandescent I had in that location) because they contain deadly chemicals. You can thank me for being "people like me" when you're ready.

I bet you're just life is just shit because I actually do own a 15 round magazine for an AR-15. I bought it just to piss people like you off. You didn't even know until now, so you can thank me for identifying the cause of your bitter, chronic malaise.

I don't think you "see it" at all. I think you believe you know how other people ought to run their lives and you "see" how to do that, because you are so much smarter than everyone else. And you certainly don't see that someone else who has come to a different conclusion about government regulation of simple things could still have considered the effects on everyone else but come to a different conclusion. You probably don't even see that they might have considered that those things you denounce as "selfish" impediments you your wonderful life don't really make much difference to you in the first place. Or have you seen a doctor about my over-sized rifle magazine?