Yes they can.
You should have read the link from google that you provided concerning the "Tokyo Convention". It says the aircraft commander has the power of arrest but then continues to say that his power is to turn someone over to the ground authorities. It makes no special provisions for flight attendants, and does not say that they can arrest anyone.
They don't work for free but they do have the power to arrest.
No, they don't. They have the power to tell the captain, and the captain has the power to tell the authorities on the ground who do have the power to arrest.
"Enjoy the rest of your flight, sir. It will be your last for a few years."
We all are in a position to observe such a phenomenon if it existed,
That must be a pretty big airplane if the entire readership of
Okay, how many "good ones" dismiss anything said by the "bad scientists" because of who they work for?
Do you really think I keep a running count of the number of different people, much less the number of times, I hear the statement "don't pay any attention to that scientist, he works for a big oil/coal/etc company..."? Really? It was the kind of statement that I replied to in this discussion, and nobody seems to have thought it was unusual for anyone to say such a thing. That's how common and commonly accepted it is.
Everybody is free to submit papers with the evidence they can scrape up,
"Submit" is not "publish". Your use of the perjorative phrase "scrape up" demonstrates a bias.
and it's essentially impossible to keep a good paper from being published at all.
You're right. I get spam almost every day now from some new "journal" looking for my submissions, none of which have any publishing history or any weight in any community. Yeah, publish in scam journals is easy. Publish in a journal where the reviewers have a dog in the fight, not so much.
Thing is, the evidence is pretty convincing if you look at it skeptically and intelligently.
You know, none of what I wrote has anything to do with who is right and who is wrong. If you want to argue that the intelligent people believe one thing (with the obvious implications) then do it with someone else. I'm pointing out that by painting part of a group as dishonest you splatter a lot of paint on yourself. That has nothing to do with whose science will wind up proven correct in the long run. It has everything to do with calling someone else's ethics into question (because they're being PAID to do that research, OMG!) and then being surprised when others doubt yours.
Science, as a discipline, works with egotistic and sometimes petty individuals who are as fallible as anybody else. It works pretty well.
Science, as a discipline, doesn't care who works for what, but science as practiced today often does. Science worked pretty well for the geocentrists in their day, too, at least in their humble opinion. When your argument for a position comes down to "if you look at it intelligently", you're not practicing science as it ought to be.
No, that wasn't the anti-trust issue, that was exclusivity partner agreements.
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.
You need to uninstall updates to get it back to a lower version, and then disable it. I've seen several of the core Google apps which can't simply be disabled. It's kind of annoying.
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 Microsoft offered IE for free and Netscape charged a fee for their browser.
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.
IIRC there are plenty of places where TCAS is mandatory. Even for light aircraft which intend to use that airspace.
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.
So you've established that all the male scientists made of straw are corrupt.
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.
Lets see some actual evidence of corruption in that 'good chunk' of 'real' scientists.
Whoosh.
Parent has seen all the proof he needs in "Die Hard II".
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,
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.
It's the getting the clearance which is the issue. Because of the problem the FAA might reject your flight plan.
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.
And most of those are the ones actively discrediting the 'good' ones because they've been paid off by the fossil fuel industry.
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.
Seriously though, what evidence do you have that 'a good chunk' are corrupt?
The same evidence the "good one" have regarding the "bad ones".
What about debit cards that can be used like credit cards? What's the liability on those.
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.
except that the money is pulled directly from my checking account. I really don't like this feature, but all their cards are like that now.
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.
See and avoid doesn't work so well when you're in the clouds.
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.
Also, you might not see an aircraft coming at you until it's too late.
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.
So, yeah, the OP was right.
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.
In many (most?) situations, controllers are the only people stopping planes from running into each other.
Bullshit.
Barring inclement weather,
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.
If you want to put yourself on the map, publish your own map.
