Hope they excluded Nickelback from their study... Or they'll have a huge bias towards "all that stuff is the same"...

Exactly. Without being passed out drunk on the office couch, the lawyers would never have allowed such a nice piece of wording.
And even then, they probably protested in their unconsciousness by scratching the sharpie art on their forehead...

Their lawyers must be drunk or something...

Please, present me a single person from Canada or Mexico describing himself as "an American". Better, find me a single person from Brazil or Peru that presents himself as "an American". Furthermore, per definition you are correct, but the word "American" is also defined as a citizen of the USA.

Taking into account usage and accepting the fact that this usage definition of "American" is correct, I'd simply say that you are wrong.

I suspect the former. If another LO interfered, it must have been one of the navigation or com radios. No other receiver was on during the flight.

I hope they don't monitor for that here or anywhere... But I believe they monitor for stuff almost everywhere. Probably here too.

Very interesting case!
But, I think there are some major differences. I never said I had the intention of committing a criminal act, nor did I said I planed one (an I obviously do not plan to, nor did I at any time. All readers understanding english should have understood that in the context). Furthermore, I believe there is a fundamental difference between admitting in a desire, or in an intention, regardless if they are true or not. This difference is even bigger when both are obviously false.

Paul Chambers tweeted explicitly the intention if committing a criminal act, albeit a false intention. Some understood it this way, but others clearly not. Furthermore, I believe that in his case, the context clearing out any doubt or misunderstanding was missing or rather thin. But the case is interesting and I remember reading about it before. It remembers of all those poor souls joking about having a bomb at airport security checks. Just like Chambers, by saying that, they expose a threat to which authorities are legally and moraly bound to react to.

At that time, my only desire was to be able to here what the tower was saying... We had already enough stress as we were landing though icing conditions with a C-172, not equipped for these.

If their understanding of sarcasm and humour is that bad, I'll gladly facepalm myself all the way to where ever they take authors of bad jokes. Hopefully it's not also where they take bad bands.

Even if you are have no band overlapping, if you are close enough to the transmitter the out of bands harmonics might be strong enough to go through your receiver.

I've had this once while landing at Toronto City Center Airport, right next to the CN Tower and its FM transmitters. On final we suddenly had some stupid Radio show bleeding over the Tower Frequency and I'm quite sure there isn't any Frequency overlapping between FM radio and aviation bands. But I also suspect their might have been an issue with the Receiver. Anyway, it illustrates well that you don't need frequency overlap to have annoying interference.

(and we narrowly avoided our desire to crash into the transmitter, Nickelback was playing).

In Rod We Trust.

(or, more appropriate to the topic : In, Rod We Thrust).

I don't get what the author of this article wins by proposing such ridiculously exagerated speeds. Sadly, this kind of nonse plagues sci-fi-like tech news since tech news exists.

I see no need for a train going at 6000 km/h. But the idea could be interesting even at much lower speeds. A vaccuum tunel based maglev going at 600 km/h would already be quite at win for energy efficiency. But as long as it costs less to build and maintain reactors to power electical trains, you won't see any of these around.

Airlines?

I'm going to go ahead and propose the hypothesis that your comment illustrates the origin of the whole problem/situation.

That why Every EULA ever are legally inadmissible, if not illegal, in many civilized countries.

In the EU, for example, the company is bound to certain warranties that cannot be disclaimed by a EULA.

The ordnance disposal teams know their work. They know exactly how far they have to be and how well protected. They leave very little to chance. They also evacuate the areas at risk before defusing, securing and transporting the unexploded ordnance. Not too long ago, they found a 4000 lbs bomb from WW2 in the Rhine in Koblenz. They evacuate about half the city...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-16018659

But even if they know what they are doing, I wouldn't want to do their jobs...