There is a reason why "anal" is part of "analytical" :-P

The satcom device does not have to have been on the aircraft.

Isn't it horrible to be corrected by a non-native speaker? ;-)

"plane MacBook"... Definitely good at marketing if you need MacBooks specifically for planes! MacBooks on a Plaaaaane!

Yes, I can come up with a thousand free market answers. And yes, that pretty much answers your question.

Would you buy a vehicle from any company whatsoever if you knew that parts were difficult to acquire? A manufacturer can play a game with parts availability only if they don't plan to stay in business.

Maybe we should go back to renting our phones from ATT as well.

Don't forget that OPEC countries have been found financing anti-Keystone XL 'environmental' groups as a means to keep competition out of their oil markets and keep prices up. Then there's the railway owners, who would lose out if a pipeline was built. Much of the inland oil development is shipped by BSNF, a Berkshire-Hathaway company. Buffet is an Obama supporter who has publicly supported Keystone XL, but who knows what deals are going on behind closed doors? (my apologies if this is a repeat post, the last one didn't seem to take.)

There's more though. Arab oil-producing companies have been found backing environmental groups, to fight the introduction of new supply into their markets, which would depress prices. Then there's the owners of the railroads, who would lose out if the pipe network was expanded. If I remember correctly, BSNF railway ships much of the recent inland oil development, and it's owned by Warren Buffet, a notable supporter of Obama. Buffet (again IIRC) has come out in support of the Keystone XL pipeline, but who knows what deals are going on behind closed doors?.

Yes, only if I want to access *.shark on the internet. That kinda sucks no? Blacking out a whole subsection of the internet because they now suddenly have gTLD that are words which you could freely use before. You're not missing anything. It's just that is someone buys that, I'll have to give up using it locally, or I blackout a part of the Internet. My users (well, okay, in this case only my wife.... but you get the point) won't like that.

These generic TLDs were not a good idea, not now, not never...

I need to read better. You understood fully what I meant... The possibility of a clash is real and very very annoying.

Why? Because it's only authoritative for the local domain of course. I do also have public authoritative DNS servers, but I don't want them to serve private IP addresses. So, at home my domain is called simply "sharks" (buying that goes like, what? 50k€). It is not public, but authoritative locally. Now, of course, I could take one of the domains I own, and use that. I don't really like that idea. My hosts are named after shark species, so you have mako.sharks, hammerhead.sharks, etc... mako.jawtheshark.com really isn't the same.

Perhaps it makes it slightly clearer. Contrary to popular belief, an authoritative server does not need to be authoritative for the public internet. Locally is just fine. Just don't use stuff that clashes with the public DNS system.

if the other LAN members communicate with "linux.home" an entry is supposed to be already present in "hosts" (like) files

Host files? Are you serious? Nobody outside the tech world uses those and even the techs don't use it except for very very specific cases. For the normal users there is DNS-SD (Zeroconf) and anybody more technical is better off simply setting up a DNS server with authoritative zone for the local network (Which is why I hate these new TLDs... My domain of choice might be sold someday and I'll have to give it up using locally... having to use the boring .local or .home), with the added benefit of having a real DNS server on site becoming totally independent of the ISP DNS (well, unless you want to make a forwarding one).

This is a problem of their making. The generic TLDs shouldn't ever have been introduced.

I wrote this up a day before that at http://technocrat.net/d/2014/2/20/6. I've known about it for a month or so, I don't know why nobody else was excited until now.

There's no reason to think the melted core will get that far down, or even burn through the concrete floor, or even leave the reactor vessel in any sort of coherent form. Chernobyl's overheated core just spread through the lower parts of the structure (look for the 'elephant's foot' picture), Three Mile island's core was scraped off the inside of the reactor vessel, having only blued the metal.

'Corium' is basically molten ceramic (The fuel is a uranium-oxide matrix.) It has such poor heat conducting properties that during normal operations, it could be 3000F in the center of a pellet, and 650F on the surface of the cladding- 3/16" away from the center.

The most important reason is that 'corium' isn't actually hot enough to burn through the earth like that, nor does it conduct heat all that well, even if any part of it became hot enough.

The integrity of the fuel rods is challenged at 2200F (zircaloy-water reaction, which released the hydrogen that caused the reactor building roofs to blow off on three of the Daichi units.)

Steel melts at about 2600F. Concrete breaks down at about 1800F.

In addition, the fuel is a uranium-oxide mix, a sort of ceramic. This class of material is generally known for poor thermal conductivity. That's why the pellets are the size of a pencil eraser, they need to be small and have a high surface area in order to conduct heat from the center of the pellet- which might be at 3000F in normal operations- to the fuel cladding and into the reactor coolant, which might be around 600F.

Anyway, from what I know about western reactors (it's my line of work, but i'm not a reactor engineer per se), I seriously doubt the fuel would 'burn' through steel or concrete. The fission products escape because of physical destruction to the facility caused by the Tsunami, or because of relief valves that limit reactor coolant system pressure, or primary containment structure pressure.

Chernobyl's release was due to a massive overpressure event that physically broke the reactor vessel. Nothing ever burned through concrete (check out the photos of the 'elephant's foot')

Three Mile Island's core was found in the bottom of the reactor vessel; a small amount of fission products was released by mis-operation of support systems. The integrity of the reactor vessel was never threatened, though the containment building (much larger than Daichi primary containment structures) withstood several hydrogen burns.

The fire department ruled out everything that makes a Tesla a Tesla,so I propose:

1) cigarette embers on a napkin

2) a bad 12V accessory