It's very hard to compete with solar power.
Yes but we are talking about Ireland here. That is not a country which gets a lot of sun on average. The figures I found was between 1,000 and 1,600 hours of sunshine per year. Spain on the other hand gets 2500 to 3000 hours per year. Wind and offshore wave power are more viable for Ireland.
I believe California employment laws are no pushover.
And which California employment law do you believe was violated?
If a wrongful termination turd is something Apple feels like it can polish up and shine for shits and profits sake, I’d question if they’re taking marketing advice from Bud Light.
Let's suppose the Apple employee was not part of the plan to disclose these features. The question is how his credentials were obtained. If they were obtained because he was careless, then that would be enough justification. I have known people who made one mistake and got fired; they were otherwise good employees but some companies are unforgiving.
Maybe somewhere there is a facility or SCIF that requires a strip search to enter, but I've never been in one and I never heard of such. I doubt that a bunch of BSA auditors would ever even know about the existence of that kind of place anyway, let alone need to enter one.
The strip search was a joke as some searches feel like strip searches; however, such facilities can search everything on someone. In this case they will be looking for anything that could use to smuggle out data. Like a tiny USB drive. Such a drive would require a thorough search.
But the DoD procurement process also is pretty slow an thorough. They don't purchase until the vendor has the cleared support staff available to service the software. If that includes auditors, you can bet that will be in the contract. When I had to be in those kinds of facilities for a previous job, there were people from the likes of Adobe, Oracle, and Microsoft coming in and out all day and they all had CACs.
I would bet you that Oracle is not really doing this for compliance but for more licensing fees. Once they realize that to do an audit would be cumbersome, they will move on to the next company.
If a contractor or sub signs a contract they can't legally comply with because of their government obligations, then that's on them. They need to break the contract with the vendor, stop using the offending software, pay whatever penalties, and then be left scrambling to meet their government obligations.
There is no "can't" here. It will take time and some effort for the auditor to get into a facility if they were not previously cleared.
The US government has to respect software licenses.
Sounds like you've never worked at a secure government facility. While the US government has to respect software licenses, that license does not override security policies. Anyone visiting a secure facility has to go through a vetting process. And no part of my post said that the auditors could not do their job. What I posted it if you did not understand is Oracle is just looking at shaking companies for more licensing fees. When it becomes cumbersome and annoying to do this for a company, Oracle will move on to the next company.
Emotional people always just devolve into projection of their character traits onto others, don't they?
Thanks for proving my point again. You just confirmed you gaslight people when they point out the flaws in your arguments. Nothing I said was emotional. You demonstrated you cannot handle it emotionally.
Because when your emotional circuitry shuts down your rational thinking one, that's where emotions take you. "I know how I would behave in this situation, that means those who's arguments I don't like are behaving like me".
You have yet to refute anything I've said including the repeated lies you posted.
Just to clarify, do you believe people to be blank slates, fully socially constructed?
Just to clarify: Do you admit you lied about the Pakistani captain of 8303. Do you admit you lumped all Indians and Pakistanis together? Do you admit that when pointed your flaws in logic, you resort to ad hominin attacks and gas lighting?
Because the pilot has a brain and is highly trained in understanding and associating HUD and PFD symbology to aircraft systems. Every successful flight ends in checklist items that use fuel cutoff switches to shutdown the engines. If a pilot doesn’t know that fuel cutoff switches are possible explanation for ENG SHUTDOWN warning on initial climb out then they shouldn’t be a 787 captain with over ten thousand hours.
Still missing the point. CUTOFF is not part of the display message. CUTOFF is not part of international pilot jargon. CUTOFF is very American English phrasing as people who speak other languages would interpret "cut off" to remove like "cut off" a tree limb. Only in American English does CUTOFF mean "turn off", "shutdown", "switch off", etc. Why would a pilot use "cut off" if not for that specific switch?
Really not sure where you are going with this. If you are flying a Boeing 787 you are using terminology from that environment. Cutoff is used in British English too. We might pedantically write it “cut-off” (with hyphen) or call it a “stop valve”, but “fuel cutoff” is completely international and understood. We don’t even know what word or language the pilot used; the interim report is not sufficiently precise.
Can you possibly think outside of your use of American English? Apparently you cannot. The fact of the matter is other people who speak English may interpret "cut of" to be "remove" not "turn off".
We don’t even know what word or language the pilot used; the interim report is not sufficiently precise.
They spoke English. The pilots were Indian. Many people in India speak English as a first or second language. Also they were international pilots which requires a proficiency in English. How could you possibly not know that?
I’m not sure you’re actually reading what I wrote. I have no idea why you think I said it’s hard for a pilot to look at the fuel switches. I literally said it would be easy (see bold), yet you responded by claiming I said a pilot would NEVER do it. That’s a bizarre take.
You keep arguing about how far WAY OUTSIDE the field of view the switches while flying. "However, it is likely outside the field of vision where changes are likely to noticed if the other pilot flipped switches while the pilot flying was focussed on HUD and PFD." You seem not to acknowledge the PF is not focused on the HUD or PFD 100% of the flight. Also you seem to ignore only the PF is focused on looking forward. The PM's job is to monitor the whole cockpit.
At that point, the pilot may have looked at the fuel switches, which, again, would have been EASY to see. I never said otherwise. I didn’t suggest it was difficult, impossible, or that a pilot would never look. So I’m not sure where you got that from.
When you use the term "WAY OUTSIDE", that has a meaning. CUTOFF has a specific meaning. The entire problem you've had all these posts is you assigned your meaning of phrases that may not be how everyone else uses those phrases.
I didn't say they were.
You posted: "They would have known immediately if they were the wrong type, and somehow I think that information would have found its way into the preliminary report." Did you forget what you posted 5 hours earlier?
It sounds like you don't use Windows very often. The "background trash" windows runs are usually scheduled tasks that when completed leave Windows in the same low power state as Linux. You're likely in a situation where you never give it enough time to complete.
SteamOS would demonstrate differently. The same hardware with SteamOS would get twice the battery life and with better gaming performance.
The reality is under controlled tests - i.e. tests where Windows is not judged immediately after first install, (same for Linux, i.e. not building the slocate database) both system perform relatively equally with Windows often coming out slightly ahead.
See SteamOS
IMHO, looking at the picture, they're not well protected, however it would be fairly clumsy to switch both of them off accidentally.
I imagine that is why they were supposed to have that locking mechanism. Someone else mentioned that Airbuses have an additional safety mechanism that the switches cannot be moved to OFF until the throttle is set to 0. That might be a suggestion for future redesign.
Things that make you go hmm...
1) Fuel switches do not look like the landing gear switch on this plane. Fuel switch: black knobs. Landing gear: grey disc. They are not located even in the same place. Fuel switch, under throttle. Landing gear: Between the two pilot displays. I am not sure why you even hint they "look like" each other. 2) The landing gear switch would be in the down position until the pilot moves them UP to retract them after takeoff. To start the engines, the fuel switches must be moved to RUN (UP). Even if somehow a pilot confused the two during takeoff and wanted to retract the gear but instead reached for the fuel switch, he would try to move the fuel switch UP. It would already be UP. If the pilot meant to turn the fuel on, he would not needed to do that as the engine should have already been started.
"How many teamsters does it take to screw in a light bulb?" "FIFTEEN!! YOU GOT A PROBLEM WITH THAT?"
