The main problem with x as a cure-all is that anyone believes in a cure-alls in the first place.

In general, prions are quite resistant to proteases, heat, radiation, and formalin treatments, although their infectivity can be reduced by such treatments. Effective prion decontamination relies upon protein hydrolysis or reduction or destruction of protein tertiary structure. Examples include bleach, caustic soda, and strongly acidic detergents such as LpH. 134 ÂC (274 ÂF) for 18 minutes in a pressurized steam autoclave has been found to be somewhat effective in deactivating the agent of disease.

This is considerably more stringent than your typical abattoir. From another source:

This route of infection demonstrates prion resistance to gastric juices during digestion. Prions can survive in pH 2 to pH 10. Uptake of prions causes no inflammatory response and produces no immune reaction. No antibodies are produced.

Penicillin, anyone?

I'm familiar with the "power tool" that gave that, and it was buggy and caused XP to crash a lot. Yes, I used it, and it wasn't available for Win2k.

But at the same time,Terminal Services was available in XP which is how they enabled the multi-user mode for XP; no more than two of which could be RDP sessions, and they would log out each other and the local user. (Unlike in Windows Server where they can co-exist.)

I'm pretty sure AutoCAD can do all that stuff. I know it does the 3D stuff - the part I referenced was designed in a 3D model in AutoCAD. The problem is all the layering you have to do so see everything fitting together - updating every single diagram to show the new parts. Now, may be AutoCAD and others make that easier than I realize (I'm no expert at them); and I really don't know why they didn't figure out that the parts wouldn't fit (in this case, the one end of the piece made and the piece it attached to couldn't be physically accessed because other stuff interfered on one side but not the other, or at least the other wasn't as bad).

I wouldn't be surprised by a "shitty drawing" though as the one ME in charge was not liked very well by the technicians since this was not an abnormal thing - everything being in the drawing, but not necessarily being obvious how to do it, even when multiple detailed diagrams were provided. But that's a different thing entirely.

When talking about cars - I'm referring to things like you have to take off 10 parts that requires 8 hours of labor to do in order to change 1 part that takes only 30 minutes of labor; when providing a little more space could have enabled one to change that part in 30 minutes entirely without to disassemble a chunk of the vehicle to get to it.

No, I think most would rather that someone they know could work on it, only the cars are so needlessly complex and require such special tools that most do not know how to work on them, so people take them to the shop because they don't know what else to do.

I would love to fix my own cars; and I do do some of the work myself. But even then, there are limits simply due to the computer being so integral to everything.

Sadly, even most shops now are useless as they just plug the computer in and do what it tells them. This has probably lead to the current issue with my 2005 Mazda3 which needs a major repair to stop it burning oil (a known issue on the 2.3 litre engine that seems to be related to ethanol content in the gasoline, and one which is not being owned up to by Mazda - seems one of the original OEM parts doesn't withstand ethanol very well, so you have to replace it with an after-market part); it probably could have been fixed early on with very little issue except the dealer just plugged in the OBDII to the computer which said everything was running fine, and kept going. Only after one big repair at another (non-Dealer that was still Mazda approved) shop was the oil burning uncovered.

No, it's a matter of technology creeping too far in and people feeling helpless about it as a result - that an design engineers who don't know who to design to actually make things easy to work on since they do everything in AutoCAD where its just a few clicks. I had a direct experience there where an engineer designed something in AutoCAD per their boss's requirements, the parts were made, and when the technicians when to put them on, it didn't work due to how all the parts fit together and would have broken due to fatigue at some point since it bent under the weight - this after many hours of design and review and much expense in building the parts; the technician and I went to the hardware store and spent $13 CAN and solved the problem in under an hour.

Yes, just look at the analysis of the licenses surrounding the Open Source .NET projects MS is running. An Open Source Windows wouldn't likely be any different.

FYI - it's called Terminal Services. XP and every consumer release (e.g Vista, 7, 8, 10) are limited to only 2 logins simulaneously; while the server editions are limited to 5 out the gate, and more with sufficient CALs. But it's all based on their Terminal Services functionality that goes back to NT4; it just wasn't natively integrated until an SP for WinXP and Windows Server 2003 - prior to that it was an add-on or dedicated product (Windows NT 4.0 Terminal Server Edition).

That's actually not a big problem. It just means you push the panels far enough away from the earth that they can interface with a series of geo-synchronous satellites that are used to transmit the power from the collector to the ground station such that all of them take turns in transmitting the signal to the ground relay satellite (collector -> geo-sync array -> relay -> ground station). Now, power is loss with each transmission, but space being space it's probably still quite efficient.

Problem then becomes weight. They're not light (no pun intended); and either you have to tether it or you're back to microwave/laser transmission with less control over placement due to winds than there is in space.

(c) both.

More like, it's the only framework said developers understands or cares to learn, so it's what they use; or it is an easy framework to get past their manager that doesn't want to invest more in training for proper tools like Qt (PyQt, Qt), Gtk, etc that are actually 100% open source and freely available.

Search area is a big issue; but the fact that they've ignored a sizeable chunk of it is another part of the issue. As noted, someone with access to the data (who publically wrote up the issue a few weeks ago) gave credence to the fact that it was more likely to have taken the northernly route - which has been completely ignored - and whether it made it to a destination controlled by a terrorist group or otherwise or crashed in the mountains along the way is another things that has yet to be ruled out.

It's actually bigger than that.

And no, I'm not discounting the size of the search area. The issue with looking in the ocean is the fact that no debris of any kind has turned up any where. The likelihood of a crash happening in the ocean with zero debris (no debris, no oil slicks, etc - nothing) is smaller than that of the plane being hijacked for neferious purposes by an organization like Al Qaida.

As to why...well, a country like Russia might just want to remind certain powers that be of their influence; or for an organization like Al Qaida - it's easier to hijack a plane in that part of the world this way than it is to do it in someplace like the US or Europe. All they have to do then is figure out how to turn it into a bomb and get a flight plan scheduled that takes them close enough to the targets they want in a legit way that they can then carry out a mission.

Just saying, there's numerous methods to the madness. An outright crash is making less and less sense by the day.

This is a huge change from what the country was once like, when it had a robust middle class.

First of all, this is the norm among industrialized economies. Perhaps Norway is different. I haven't checked since the fracking boom.

Second, the thriving middle class was a fairly short lived affair, centered around three decades from 1950–1980. Most affluent societies have now returned to pre-1930s levels of economic inequality. Historically, an affluent middle class is the exception and not the norm.

I had a college roommate whose brawny younger brother dropped out of high school with few skills and somehow got a job with the CAW at a starting wage north of $70,000 per year, back in the early 1980s. He soon had a wife and children, a driveway filled with expensive motor toys, and cash-flow problems.

He was almost certainly employed at a factory making automotive products that discerning consumers—those of us lacking misty-eyed Big Three loyalty—did not wish to purchase.

Meanwhile, high school drop-outs trying to scrape by on non-union wages weren't necessarily doing much better than those same people today, a major difference being that the majority of those fantasy union jobs have now gone away.

Someone needs to get in a time travel booth to go back to the early 1970s to inform the CAW management group that no matter what course of action they chose, their business model (high union wages for semi-skilled labour) could not survive selling shit product. Marketing the hell out shit product was a short-term solution at best (Future Shop—ultimately—not excepted).

As much as the Reagan and Thatcher plutocrats initiated a self-serving destruction of the middle class, the middle class itself was hardly blameless.

Now it's time for the plutocrats to determine whether they can recognize how they are painting themselves into a non-viable corner before they encounter a messy corrective force of their own seeding.

Beware, fellow plutocrats, the pitchforks are coming

They also have access to weapons on the plane, provided to them for the sole purpose of protection. Whether an axe or a pistol locked in a safe, either is sufficiently useful.

Then again, as a friend said - your car keys are enough; as is a pen or pencil. So there's plenty of tools that they could use that they are legally able to get through the security check points too.

Well since we're throwing out conspiracy theories... The very lack of them finding the plane (MH370) at all means that it more than not it did not crash, but was hijacked in some form and taken elsewhere. One credible person that had access to much of the data surmized that they likely took the route north, not south where everyone insists on looking, and were able to land near or in Russian territory at a site that after years of neglect happened to have a lot of activity and rebuilding of a hangar-like building that was big enough to hold the Beoing 777.

Well, I'm not sure if they made it that far. But I said from day one that it the lack of finding the plane or any evidence that it crashed thus far lends more and more to the the flight being hijacked, and we'll likely see it next when whomever decides to crash it into a building somewhere.

Now whether the pilots were in on it, or a passenger was able to access the controls via computer connections and then override the pilots is something entirely different. In either case, if it was hijacked then it's likely backed either by a nation state (e.g Russia) or a sufficiently large well funded terrorist organization (e.g Al Qaida). Which one we'll likely never know.