What I want to know is what percentage of accidents involve at least one vehicle containing at least one passenger beyond the driver of that vehicle. I don't know for certain, but I'd imagine it's something up around 80%-90% or more. I think it's pretty safe to assume that if there is a passenger in the car, the driver probably spends at least some of their concentration paying attention to that person and/or talking to them. Just think of it, we could eliminate almost ALL accidents if we just outlawed the carrying of passengers... /s

AT&T can't meet their customer's demands while making the dramatically increased profits that they desire. There, fixed that for him.

"Seems to me that a better solution would be to just make it illegal to access except in a disaster, or even encrypt it with the NTSB (or other 3rd party) holding the keys."

Either of those would be an option, as would having the recording automatically deleted after a certain time period.

* Money: I can believe this as a reason. If the government didn't require the existing "black box", I'm sure the airlines wouldn't bother with it either. That's why you make it a government mandate and don't give the airlines a say in the matter.

* Privacy: This is a non-issue. The existing "black box" systems already record all the audio from the airplane's cabin.

* Efficacy: I don't see a reason why this wouldn't be extremely effective. Assuming the airlines were mandated to keep the equipment in running order at all times (as I certainly hope they are already required to do with the existing "black box" technology) I see no reason this wouldn't function, especially at the altitudes above weather that these planes almost always fly (this wouldn't have been this case with this particular flight, but would have dealt with plenty of other flights that have been lost in the past).

True, but we've had plenty of cases of either not being able to find the "black box" or having it take a very long time to do so. Heck, we've had plenty of cases of almost not being able to find the plane as a whole. My suggestion that such a system be designed so that the passengers and crew couldn't tamper with it was more of a side-note to the idea as a whole.

From my post you responded to: "We've had satellite phone technology for decades now"

Inmarsat (the company in the summary and original story is a satellite telephone/data company with coverage covering everywhere on the planet with the exception of only the poles.

Ugh, sorry, typos all over the place.

* We've had flight recorders on all major airliners for decades now.

* We've had satellite phone technology for decades now. (since 1979 for Inmarsat)

Remind me again why "black box" style cellular data transmitters aren't required to be transmitting cockpit voice data and full telemetry from every major airliner at all times yet? With a system like that, installed in a way that can't be tampered with by the people in t he plane and runs independently of the rest of the electronics in the aircraft, there's no reason we would know the exact location the plane went down and, most likely, why. Hell, even if they decided to be cheap and only have it transmit the telemetry in once-a-minute updates we'd still would have know where the plane was to withing a handful of miles from the first day it went missing...

Yes, this. Searching hundred's of square miles with a fleet of 18-25 planes, traveling at hundreds of miles per hour each, was such a slow process with a poor statistical chance of success. I'm sure things will speed up when you trade in all those aircraft for a single submersible covering the ocean floor at single digit miles per hour...

You heard the man, it's not important. Now stop talking about it! That way Canonical can more easily save face when they cancel their failed cluster-fuck of a display server and switch back to Wayland...

Actually, reports from people that have used their most recent prototype ("crystal cove") seem to suggest that they've pretty much dealt with the issue of making people sick.

Should be pretty easy for his to work it out. After all, there were two police officers present the entire time he spoke with the reporter. He called them himself for this very reason. I'm sure they're clarify what they heard him say. Of course, I doubt he'll sue like that as my money is on the fact that they'll back up what the reporter says. Personally, I'm pretty certain that he IS the creator of bitcoin and that he just isn't as smart at in-the-moment personal interaction as he is at crypto-currency design. He, almost certainly, just f'd up when talking to the reporter; admitted defeat too early; and is now trying to "close the barn door after the horses have bolted".

At the least, he would be referring to Nakamoto if he chose to sue the reporter. Supposedly, his relatives (including his children, clearly identified him as being a strong believer in libertarian-ism to the point of playing some, frankly, nutty children's games with his daughter where he taught her to be afraid of "the man".)

He admitted to who he was in front of, not just the reporter, but two police officers as well. Frankly, this just reeks of backtracking once he realized he screwed up by admitting the game too early.

Of course, maybe I'm wrong. It, obviously, must be some other misanthropic, privacy obsessed, extremist libertarian, genius, Japanese engineer named Satoshi Nakamoto who is the real inventor of bitcoin... (/s just in case you missed the sarcasm in that statement (/s in case you missed the sarcasm within these parentheses) )

You mean tenuous evidence like admitting to the journalist that he's the bitcoin fiounder in front of while also being witnessed by two police officers. This can all be dealt with pretty easily. He called the cops for a reason, why not put them to use. All he'd need to do is sue the reporter for libel. The cops should be able to back him up on what he really said...assuming he's not just full of shit and backtracking now because he has buyers remorse over admitting that he really is the bitcoin founder...