I think the point is these days it does not take much for people to be sleuths. Even if people are diligent about keeping offline, that does not guarantee that their information does not make it to the Internet. For example, if you don't post photos of yourself online, you would think no one knows what you look like. Well, you attended an event like a family reunion where you were tagged. Now people can know what you look like.

While the WSJ declares that the captain turned off the fuel, the preliminary report does not indicate that. The WSJ article is behind a paywall so I am unable to determine where they got this information. The preliminary report stated that the data recorder logged the fuel switches went from RUN to CUTOFF and back again 6 seconds later. There are 4 possibilities:

1. The switches changed states electrically in the computer but the physically the switches never moved.
2. The switches moved physically on their own without input from the crew.
3. The switches were moved accidentally by crew.
4. The switches were moved deliberately by crew.

If the fuel switches had been replaced with ones that did not have the advisory condition, the third one is least likely as it takes a two step motion to move the switches.

That is not what "agreement made under duress" means. You are describing an amendment to a contract. The question is if the amendment was agreed upon or not.

I forgot they did but MS would not come to mind as a place to buy media. Apple, Amazon, Fandango, and then individual studios like Disney and Paramount would be the list. I guess MS marketing really did not do their job as I forgot they even sold media.

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.

And which California employment law do you believe was violated?

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.

I would suspect in this case Oracle is not really interested in compliance but an excuse to shake down a company for more licensing fees. The people doing the "audit" would be sales people who were not cleared.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

You have yet to refute anything I've said including the repeated lies you posted.

If it was a secure government facility, I would also turn that around to say their auditors are welcome to visit as long as we could conduct full background checks on every single of them. Also they would not be allowed to bring any recording devices into our facilities and strip searches would be required before and after. This is after we get approval from the appropriate agencies to allow them in. That should only take 6 months for them to review their applications.

Again, think for a second. If a pilot uses the term "cut off" what does he mean? It's not part of any warning message according to you.

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?

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?

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".

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?

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.

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.

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?