You're right; I shouldn't care when an organisation I pay for reports nonsense.

This is the level of reporting we've come to expect from the BBC these days (sadly!). The BBC is not what it once was.

what we need

No need for an explanation. When you get in late from the pub make sure you make as much noise as possible; clump around, maybe knock some furniture over. Then, on the way to the bedroom, should ahead that you're feeling really horny and that tonight is "her lucky night". By the time you get to the bedroom I guarantee that she'll be fast asleep.

1. 1. Skeptics with a K
2. 2. The Skeptics Guide to the Universe
3. 3. More or Less

As much as a padding insert sounds like it would work to laymen like myself. I am not going to assume what will work for a helmet with a brand new type of HUD that allows you to see through the aircraft at mach speeds.

Whilst a padded insert might actually be the answer it's probably not that simple. A helmet that sits too far to one side will break the pilot's neck on ejection. Helmets in fast jets, especially complex ones like this one are very tricky to get right for the full anthropomorphic range.

Not to mention that they are a wonderful stopping-off point on the way home from the pub!

... it's getting further away

The Seattle Times has a good article on this although it should be taken as preliminary data subject to change.

To summarise

Due to airframe changes from previous models Boeing introduced MCAS which automatically lowers the nose when approaching a stall.

The MCAS was introduced to allow pilots with 737 experience to fly the 737 MAX with a minimal amount of conversion training thus saving airlines a lot of cost and making the MAX even more attractive to them.

As initially designed a failure of MCAS was classed as a "Major" hazard in that it could cause passenger discomfort but not death. This was because MCAS was limited to a very small change to the flight control surfaces. For this category the use of a single sensor is allowed assuming the sensor reliability is sufficient.

During the flight test phase the ability for MCAS was extended to unlimited repeat operations. These repeat operations have a cumulative effect on the flight control surfaces. The MCAS can now lead to a catastrophic failure.

At this point the category of hazard should have been changed. This should have lead to a design change but because the category remained at "Major" and not "Catastrophic" no further changes were made.

There could be any number of reasons why this categorisation change was missed, hopefully any future investigations will get to the root cause.

Do you think you are unique?

Now I know where Roddenbery got some of his ideas.

Think of a coordinate system with the three usual dimensions (x, y and z) and then one other dimension orthogonal to the other three, this extra dimension is time (t).

An object at rest describes a vector where x= y = z = 0 and t = c (the speed of light).

As an object moves the vector rotates to point in a new direction and therefore the resolution of the (now rotated) vector on the t dimension is smaller than when the object was at rest. Therefore as the object moves time passes more slowly for the object. When the object moves at speed c, time stops for the object.

I leave it for others to translate this model to a gravitational field (it's been too long and I've forgotten).

You can't see the join!

I'm replying as someone who had a vasectomy and then had it reversed.

The problem with vasectomies is that they should be considered permanent because the reversal is not guaranteed and, you know, things change, you may end up regretting that decision.

Also there are other complications, in my case the Post-Vasectomy-Pain (PVP) was quite unbearable and induced a lot of nausea.

That's why vasectomies are not like "normal" contraception.

Ahhh, a sort of "with my brains and your blood we'll win this war" statement.

SHELLOIL