The corresponding FAA term is "Airworthiness Directive" (AD). An AD is a very big deal.

The in-flight entertainment (IFE) systems receive navigation data from the flight deck computers so they can display the moving maps and other stuff on the entertainment displays, for those passengers who want to know "where am I", "are we there yet", "is it time to reset my watch because we've crossed a time zone and I'm trying to adjust my body clock".

I would be shocked to learn that Boeing allowed the IFE to put ANY kind of data into the flight deck computers. I'd actually expect Boeing to use a one-way interface, one that transmits but does not receive: think RS-232 with one of the pins removed. I'd be almost as shocked to learn that Airbus did something like that. However, Airbus's comment about "firewalls" does not exactly inspire me to confidence in their airplanes.

There's something else. If Mr. Roberts did in fact do what the FBI claimed he said he did, I would have expected the air up in the cockpit to have turned very blue, as the pilots said (screamed, actually) something along the lines of what the Apollo 8 crew said (screamed, actually) when their CSM did an uncommanded thruster burn. I would further expected them to take manual control immediately, get on the radio immediately, declare an emergency because of the uncommanded engine power setting change, and land at the nearest airstrip that could handle the airplane. I would further expect maintenance crews to pull the flight data recorders to find out WTF just happened.

This is odd politics as Roy Cooper is a Democrat, and running for Governor. I wonder how he will spin this on the campaign trail. Which segment will care about this enough to be swayed? Except for the high tech folks and people in Wilson, isn't this a non-issue? Why is he bothering?

if the ads had no reputation of being abusive i would not have been blocking them

i just don't drive at all when gas costs money

... coming ... that prohibits coerced posts.

your business lets you keep making mistakes

Security isn't a measurable commodity, It's a philosophy.

"anti-vax moron" is the ad hominem argument you used.

1) That wasn't me. 2) No, it's still really not an ad hominem. Maybe this will help.

as well, a straw man argument would be alleging that i was grasping at highly improbable straws to make my point. your lightning in the rain argument is like that. I was pretty clear in saying the harmful effects listed in the product monographs are highly probable, not highly improbable.

If you want to refer to the probable ones as being probable, do that. If you want to refer to the improbable ones as being improbable, do that. But don't mention only an improbable one and then use the statistic for the probable ones. That's just dishonest. The 20% statistic you referred to includes such adverse reactions as "redness at the injection site" and "headache."

But of course, your argument would have a lot less of an impact if you said, "You have a 20% chance of redness at the injection site and a vanishingly small risk of death!" So you selectively mixed and matched your data to construct a sentence that was technically true but totally misleading. Not good. Don't do that if you want people to take you seriously as somebody who makes honest arguments.

aside from that, the product monographs give ample reason to not want to have the vaccine, irrespective of any religious claims. efficacy of vaccines is much less than 100%, 60% they say now, and the best case scenario for timespan of immunity is 3 years or so.

If you're going to use numbers from now on, I'd appreciate a specific reference to what you're referring to and how you got the information. It sounds like you're mixing and matching the worst case values for certain specific vaccines and then waving your hand vaguely at all of them. Given your last use of statistics, I'm inclined to believe that's intentional.

a large percentage of vaccine recipients are communicable for some weeks after the vaccine.

What is a "large percentage" and for which vaccines? Again, this sounds like you're taking one particularly rare result out of context in order to confuse people. Because I guarantee that even if this is the case for certain vaccines, it's not the case for all of them, or even a bare majority.

aids from a vaccine cultured in west africa green monkey cells?

Did you just casually throw out AIDS without bothering to supply any data or context? Of course you did.

Road Warrior was peak Mad Max, it's eminently rewatchable. Thunderdome II, not so much.

I looked briefly at the massive "MRA" "activists" behind this. One mental patient with a wonky web page.

Makes me wonder who's behind the massive publicity behind this non-story.

Meanwhile I have a friend who's paying child support in *two* states for a kid he has sole custody of his only child and putting her through college despite the fact his toxic ex beat the kid. Bue she went to school with the prosecutor, who knows the judge in a small town in Georgia. Backwoods southern justice strikes again.

Family law is still the 900 pound gorilla in the room.

It only preserves their ads when they're coming from the same server or domain . . . of course, there would then be an arms race between the ad companies and blockers for obfuscation, a la 1980s copy protection . . .

hawk

ad hominem. read the product monographs. more than 20% of vaccine recipients report adverse reactions, including death.

Aside from the fact that that wasn't an ad hominem, that's a really weird way of phrasing things. It's like saying that 100% of people standing out in the rain experience rain-related effects, including being hit by lightning. It's technically true, but it's phrased in a way to imply that way more people get hit by lightning than actually do. The reality is that 100% of people get wet and a tiny fraction of a percent get hit by lightning. Lumping them together as "effects of rain" makes the statistic basically meaningless. Was that intentional?

Good. That's step 1 (although remember, VAERS is self-reported rather than records of actual confirmed cause-and-effect results). Step two is to ask how many vaccine doses were given over that time. For instance, they shipped over 150,000,000 doses of flu vaccine in 2015. Even if half of those doses go in the trash, that's a lot of doses. And that's just the flu vaccine, and just in one year. So how does the risk compare to, say, getting in a car and driving 100 miles?

"The evidence is overwhelming: Earth’s polar regions are losing ice at a stunning rate. There’s so much ice being lost from Antarctica, for example, that scientists can detect local changes in gravity."

This is not actually true. NASA points out Antarctic is at an all time high. Snowpack accumulates in the middle and cleaves off from the edges,it's doing what it's supposed to.

http://www.nasa.gov/content/go...

NSIDC data shows increase, not decreae in sea ice:
http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/i...

NASA sat imagery (URL in image) shows Arctic sea ice unchanged after 30 years:
http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/i...
(t did half melt, but for 5 years has been growing back)

"Ice cores from Summit show that melting events of this type occur about once every 150 years on average. With the last one happening in 1889, this event is right on time," says Lora Koenig, a Goddard glaciologist and a member of the research team analyzing the satellite data. "
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/ear...

I like Slate but I don't know if theyre being deliberately misleading here or are just unaware.

We're told polygraphs aren't accurate

But it's illegal to train somebody how to beat one.

Hmm....