Shouldn't that be:
"also, fuck you, developers, developers, developers" ?

Actually, the engine case is designed to withstand blade failures, including fan blades, compressor blades and turbine blades, but not disc failures. Usually, discs fail when the engine is overspeed, when the centrifugal forces are higher than what the disc was designed to withstand. This is why the ECU/FADEC/EEC will shut the engine down immediately when it detects an overspeed condition on any of the shafts.

The case of QF32 you cite was indeed a disc failure. You can see a section of the failed disc here. The turbine blades were mounted in the notches you can see on the outer diameter of the disc. The disc punctured through the wing (including the fuel tank), as you can see here and here.

You do have to switch trains in Paris, but it is far from simple, the Eurostar from London arriving in the Gare du Nord, and the TGV Lyria to Geneva departing from the Gare de Lyon, a few miles south.

Err, the Eurostar goes from London to Paris, not Geneva...

Multiply that by 3.3, and it seems very high.

It is, indeed, very high, but still true.

After going through the turbine, the steam is condensated to water, creating vacuum at the turbine "output", and thus increasing its efficiency. That's why improving condensation improves the turbine efficiency as well.

The article mentions "electric power companies have been looking to thermal power generation for their supplies", but it's not clear what that means - geothermal?

No, thermal usually means coal.

Yeah, that is a valid comparison, because it is well known that gasoline flies by itself from refineries to gas stations, right ?

This is utterly wrong!

You don't need to reduce your living space or reduce climate control to reduce your CO2 emissions. Just having higher standards for thermal insulation and heating/cooling of houses can reduce the energy consumption of the average crappy American house by 75% (note: almost all the buildings in the US have a very poor energy efficiency). Thicker and more efficient insulation layers in the walls/roof/floor, double glazing with good sealing for the windows, a condensing boiler (or better: a heat pump) for heating and hot water, a few thermal solar cells on the roof, and a reasonably efficient air conditioning: these things will probably add 10-15% to the total construction cost of a house, but will easily be amortized over 2 decades (just by the reduced energy consumption).

And regarding the other things like walking instead of driving, that's riduculous. Just begin by buying a car with a reasonable gas milage (hint: you don't need a 5000-lb vehicle with a 5000cc engine to go to work every day). And support an improvement of mass transit where it is sound (hint: using mass transit actually supports it).

Eating less meat, yeah, that's probably a good thing to do. But the good news is: you can eat better meat. Eat 2 filet mignon per week instead of 8 burgers.

Correct, but 1W is still 4 orders of magnitude higher than the 0.1mW clamed by the OP...

Untrue.

Cell phones have a peak emission power of up to 3W and usually transmit a few 100s of mW.

Source: http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2006/EbruBek.shtml

The AF447 crash shows exactly the opposite of what you are trying to demonstrate. The auto-pilot disconnected as soon as the Pitot tubes started giving invalid indications. The pilots had full control of the aircraft until the end, but they just did panicked and failed to realize that the airspeed data were invalid. All the other sensors indicated that they were about to stall, but they kept on pulling up to reduce airspeed, thinking they were in overspeed.

The only thing that the flight control computer could be blamed for was to stop issuing stall warnings when the angle of attack became so high (due to the pilots' crazy actions) that it thought it was erroneous.

Had the computer been in full control, AF447 would probably never have crashed.