Really? The recent NYT article says that the replacement pitots were sitting in France waiting for the flight to return.
How does a rumour like this get started? It can't be founded on one bit of truth, since there is no one around who was there, nor were they able to communicate.
I think that you need more than the artificial horizon. You can have your nose above the horizon yet still be descending; for example, that's what you'd see when landing. However, I do agree that there surely must be a group of instruments (artificial horizon, attitude indicator, altimeter) that would clue you in on the situation.
Wouldn't instruments like the artificial horizon always work? It would seem to me that this and those showing attitude would be unlikely to fail and would provide the pilots with clear details on their rate of descent.
Direct marketing is the reason they want it. They asked for name, address, email, etc. Magazines sell their lists like crazy. One subscription of mine had a typo in the name and I could always tell when I'd been sold by them to a mailer.
I never said that not giving someone money inflicts harm -- *unless you would have otherwise done so*. Let me also quote myself "Without a doubt, a percentage of people who pirate a product would have purchased it if the "free" option weren't available". I agree the economic impact to the owner is zero when someone who pirates something would otherwise not have bought it. However, this just isn't the case. In many cases, the pirate would have purchased the item they took for no cost. You cannot argue (sanely) that this isn't true and does not represent a true loss to the property owner.
Reaching further, you could argue that even if they didn't want what they pirated, they would have bought something else instead; however, because they received substitute entertainment at no cost they don't need to purchase their preferred product. In this more extreme case, it's not the person whose craft is pirated who suffers, but someone else entirely. For example, if I pirate enough movies or music that I have enough content to keep me busy, it's far less likely I'll go out and buy the movie/CD I wanted but wasn't able to find for "free". Conversely, if I can't pirate anything, odds are that sooner or later I'm going to pay for something rather than live in silence.
You're presuming that everyone who pirated the product would not have purchased it otherwise. If that were true, you'd be right. But it's not true... Without a doubt, a percentage of people who pirate a product would have purchased it if the "free" option weren't available. This necessarily means that there is in fact a cost -- an opportunity cost -- due to the loss of revenue.
The argument of industry that one download = one lost sale is incorrect, but so is your pro-piracy argument. The fact that something can be duplicated without a cost has nothing to do with the fact that it has value to those who developed it and equally to those who pay money to enjoy it.
Should you eventually work as a software developer, perhaps a day of downsizing may come where revenues can no longer support staffing levels. Or perhaps the economic success of version 1 cannot support the development of version 2. Maybe the reason for this will be a bad product or a poor salesforce, but it could just as easily be piracy.