Or maybe, like the last Air France airliner to go down, there isn't even time to put out a proper mayday as they're fighting to control the plane (through their own fault or others), but it only breaks up when it hits the floor.

That particular plane had three experienced crew on board, and crashed because someone was holding a control stick back for ages and nobody ever noticed. But it didn't get to put out a mayday, the onboard systems weren't transmitting enough data to highlight the problem to anyone else, and even when the blackboxes were recovered (how long later?), it still wasn't 100% clear quite WHY what happened happened.

Rather than turn everything into a terrorist story, which is just boring when you live in a country that's suffered terrorism for a long longer than the US latest overblown episode, how about we don't pot-shot at people's reputations?

And, to be honest, the whole link you post is really a non-story. Wow. I can remember going to a cabin on an aircraft and getting photos when I was a kid. Back then you could smoke on planes (probably still can in many countries - malaysia's laws? I'm not sure off-hand). But, no, fuck it, he has to be a terrorist to you?

Maybe it was a fucking crash.

Sad. Unfortunate. Unpredictable.

But doesn't do precisely what terrorism is supposed to do - PUT SO MUCH TERROR INTO YOU THAT YOU THINK EVERYTHING IS MORE TERRORISM.

I don't reuse the same password- but I can't even follow the same password generation rules/algorithm.

Which means I must write down the passwords at this point since i have over two dozen passwords- some at sites I visit only once every six months.

I will check out lastpass that the other poster recommended.

Partner with Koingesseggessegesgeg... Because eventually they'll have to fill out a form to block them and no-one will be able to spell it.

This, aircraft fatalities are so rare that any single crash is international news, 300+ people die on Western Australian roads each year, there was a fatal truck crash near Yangebup last week... I doubt half the people in Perth, Western Australia would be aware of it.

Science includes a process, collected observations, and collected theories. The process is more important, because it will lead to observations and theories, while observations and theories don't automatically generate the scientific method. That's my best answer until I know what your question is about.

There are accepted truths in the sense of things scientists don't doubt and won't spend much time continually verifying (the Michelson-Morley experiment, for example, has been repeated several times with greater precision over the years). All accepted truths are subject to change given new evidence.

Scientists generally believe things that the best evidence shows to be correct. There isn't much legitimate doubting of AGW, or that evolution proceeded more or less as theorized. That's because there's evidence for those things, and much less evidence (and nothing conclusive) against them.

Group insurance works well, as it removes adverse selection (the phenomenon where only the sick buy health insurance). As long as everybody in the country is part of the group, there isn't the problem of losing one's insurance along with one's job.

Walls are not in themselves solutions. They need to be part of a strategy. Roman diplomacy did extend well beyond Roman borders, and the Romans did offer some barbarians refuge within the Empire. Rome fell because (a) there were too many barbarians, and (b) succession was never really settled, so the Western Empire kept too much military force internally.

The Maginot Line was quite effective. It guarded the Franco-German border well and reasonably economically. This allowed the French to assemble a large striking force for the plains of Belgium, planning to meet the Germans as far forward as possible. The gap between the flanks was covered by the Ardennes Forest, and the French High Command considered it essentially impassible for armies. That was the really stupid thing that led to the fall of France, not the Maginot Line.

The information from previous crashes has saved future lives. More information could save more lives.

This box is common and already widely installed.

Though what would work better (cheaper and get to planes faster) is to have the civil aviation send broader military alerts when a transponder disappears. This one was "lost" for a long time because it wasn't acted on the moment contact was lost. If military radar was officially requested at that point, we'd likely be recovering bodies right now, rather than discussing what could be done to make airplanes more trackable. But the military doesn't run with radar on, except for known defensive positions, because it gives away too much information, but turning it on for an "emergency" would likely be acceptable, so long as it was like the plane lost at see once in every 5-10 years or less.

Oh, your position is that they are delusional rather than just whiny?

No. If anything is "delusional" [not my choice of word], it's the idea that workers in a pure capitalist economy can simply "find a new job that pays them what their time is worth." Further, that a preference can only be expressed between available options and that to characterise not choosing a non-existent option as a "revealed preference" is odd.

Troy Aikman owns a dealership. What are all the retired football people supposed to do if they can't lock in a rent-seeking business and attach their name to it?

A rich person might have taken your job away, and sent it to India or China.

The top 1% made about 24% of the income. http://www.slate.com/articles/...

So it's totally appropriate for them to pay 37% of the taxes (if they did -- I don't know if those figures don't include FICA payments, which conservatives sometimes exclude from the definition of "tax").

Paul Krugman has explained why income inequality is bad for everybody. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03... Those American billionaires could get along perfectly well at Swedish levels of taxes, and the rest of us would be much better off. It's actually bad for everyone to have 20% or 40% of the population in poverty.

Because some company using a tragedy to peddle their wares that have dubious value and are not even remotely guaranteed to work is closer.

Pot, meed kettle.

FLYHT are scum. Their products have been rejected by the aviation industry because they don't add value but add additional cost (satellite data connections aren't cheap), are just as prone to failure as current methods (relies on instrumentation or manual activation) and have additional points of failure (a dial on demand satellite connection, when a flight disappears from radar and the pilots cannot be raised on the radio and the transponder is gone... WTF makes me think a dial on demand satellite connection will work). And now they're using a tragedy to try to peddle their crud.

I read the article, it's nothing but attacks on the aviation industry and badly used thought terminating cliche's like "tell that to the families". Its the kind of thing an angry pre-pubescent child would write when their parents ground them.

No, you have to order it. They aren't required to have them in stock, but they are required to carry them. Of course, they order them from the manufacturer, so there's no reason you can't eliminate the dealer.

Because, thanks to laws like this one, it's illegal for the manufacturer to run the parts network.

Because we get all that from RADAR.

The problem the aviation industry has is that you, the customer want to pay less for flights, not more.

If an aircraft disappears from RADAR and you cant raise the pilots on the radio, such a system would in all likelihood be out of commission as well.