I think you're already plenty concerning just on your own!

Tim: "Well, that's no ordinary rabbit! That's the most foul, cruel, and bad-tempered rodent you ever set eyes on! Look, that rabbit's got a vicious streak a mile wide! It's a killer! He'll do you up a treat, mate."

While Boeing has not done well in the last decades or so, this case may not be on Boeing. 1) In this case, the plane was 24 years old and not brand new. At that point, it is more on Delta for maintenance of the plane. 2) Boeing does not make engines.

That and I think one of the main reasons this existed was larger displays were more expensive relatively than they are today. So it was gimmicky solution to the problems of the day.

1) And where should they be moved? They were located under the throttle. That seems natural to locate all the controls related to engine power near each other. Also in the event of an emergency like an engine fire, the controls should be easily accessible. 2) They were. Normally it requires a 2 step motion to move the switch position. They must be pulled up then moved.

We have always had a lame society. Farmer wives were noted in ye olden times to be the worst gossips. I would guess that sometime in the past in a cave, a Neanderthal was gossiping who one of them was spotted drinking water next to someone else at the watering hole that wasn't their mate. *gasp* The only difference is technology has made it easier.

The preliminary report does not report who exactly asked. It only uses the word "pilot".

Citation needed.

This is the first time you have provided any explanation yet you claim everyone should have known?

Let me be very clear: We cannot read your mind. You seem very upset by that.

Yes fucking hell indeed.

Are you OK? You don't seem OK.

I did not read anywhere that "manual movement . . . was established". What the preliminary report said on page 15: "As per the EAFR (flight data recorder), the Engine 1 fuel cutoff switch transitioned from CUTOFF to RUN at about 08:08:52 UTC." No part of that indicated it was done manually.

It should be mentioned that this was a 2012 trial after a 2009 earthquake, and that all but one of the convictions were overturned on appeal. The one whose sentence was confirmed also had his sentence reduced and suspended. In Italy, convicts don't go to prison until after their first appeal, so none of the scientists served a day of their sentence.

The one that had his sentence confirmed, though not his punishment, had provided information in an interview that was scientifically invalid and discourage evacuation. Specifically, he told them that the many small quakes reduced the likelihood of a big quake by releasing pent-up stress, but the scientific consensus is that this isn't true because the amount of energy released by small quakes isn't enough to affect the energy of a big one, not unless there are tens or hundreds of thousands of small ones, and that a rise in the number of small quakes more often indicates increased probability of a big one.

I don't think he should have been prosecuted for what he said, but he really should have been more precise, and more responsible. A suspended sentence to make the point that scientists need to be careful and precise with their public statements in cases where lives are on the line is excessive, but it's not ludicrous.

It would barely inconvenience them. These guys are well-funded. They'd just set up their own relays outside of China.

It's time to learn about the REU!

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.