Boeing should have piggy backed on that redesign to make a narrow body, shorter range, version so it could fly into smaller regional airports, and operate with less crew.
Are you advocating that instead of Boeing making a replacement for the 757 and 767, they should have focused their efforts to make a plane that that the exact same role as the 737? That's a false dichotomy argument.
Still, would have been a nice restart, rather than trying to keep the 737 alive for far longer than it should have just to keep pilots certified.
Again, a false dichotomy. Boeing retired the 757 in 2004 and the 767 is only being ordered as freighters. Boeing needed to replace them. Yes they should have tried to solve the 737 problem earlier but that does not mean they didn't need the 787.
A short, thin version of this plane with 100 fewer passengers and half the range would have been an ideal go-to for airlines in the regional markets.
A "thin" version of a 787 means redesigning the whole plan which would mean it is no longer a 787. Boeing already had that plane: it is called the 737.
2. When they were designing the 787 they shoud've done the same trick they did with the 757 / 767 - one central section, one flight deck, same engines on both. Fly one, you can fly the other. This would've avoided the pains of growing old the 737 is showing.
That would have created more problems than solve anything. The original reason for the 737 MAX problems was they had to use newer, larger but more efficient engines however to fit them they had to move the engines forward causing the lift problem. The 737 MAX uses CN-LEAP 1B (95 inches) while the 787 uses GE Genx (111 inches) or Trent 1000 (112 inches). Making the 787 use less efficient and less powerful engines only hurts the 787 and the 737 MAX could not have installed much larger engines.
18 months from paper to flying prototype for the 747. Almost 20 years for the 787. Something's very wrong.
What are you talking about? The 787 took about 6 years from announcement to first flight. Part of the longer development cycle was the introduction of new technologies like manufacturing composites at scale. The concept for the plane was done very quickly; the practicalities of manufacturing took years.
It needs to be transformative. The length isn't the issue, it's the transformative bit that's important.
No, the amount of material used is part of the four factors in determining Fair Use. Courts have normally ruled that using a small portion of copyrighted content like a movie generally favors Fair Use defenses. The factors are however not binary and all four factors must be considered. Sampling in music generally does not favor Fair Use due to the commercial nature of the use.
Fair use has been debated for a long time. Rush Limbaugh used to impose a time limit on clips he would air on his radio/tv show. At one point it was 7 seconds, or maybe 10, but sometimes longer. Just recently, a judge decided Meta's use of zlib and libgen was "fair use" so why not this?
One of the 4 factors in determining Fair Use is the amount of content used. In this case, Klein's "critics" streamed his whole content not a portion of it.
Not enough lobbyists? Not enough political donations to curry favor? Just launder it through AI, if its made by AI its legally cleaned and free from wrongdoing because anything AI does is ok under fair use apparently.
How about they streamed his entire content without adding to it? Why are you bringing up irrelevant topics like lobbyists? The question of whether AI can benefit from Fair Use has not been thoroughly settled; however using all of someone's content has been a factor against Fair Use claims.
that's not what stream sniping is, and besides stream sniping isn't illegal afaik.
Streaming someone else’s content with transformative elements is considered copyright infringement. Fair use would have been to add to it in any way like verbally criticizing Klein.
they are mocking him, that can be understood as a form of criticism. in any case, that's how the defense has decided to frame it. similarly, his layers decided to frame it as copyright violation. both points seem stretched, from tfa harassment would seem more appropriate but with fewer chances of getting the subpoena.
When they added zero to his stream, how is that "criticism"? Fair use requires some sort of transformation. If they screamed curse words at him the entire stream, that would be criticism.
The point is the royal family has the money to buy anything they want. Planes, apartment buildings, yachts, skyscrapers, cities, airlines, football clubs, hotels, restaurants, software companies, etc...
And you missed the point that money is not the only factor when buying something. Practicality of purchasing the object does not seem to be a factor in your world.
If they wanted an Airbus 380-800, they'd buy it.
And how would they buy an A380 again? Airbus is no longer taking orders for them, and all planes have been delivered since 2021. The A380 manufacturing facilities have long been repurposed. The Saudis can only buy existing, used A380s. Maintaining a single plane that is discontinued and where only 251 were made is not the brightest idea.
To that point Riyadh air, also owned by PIF, is planning on buying a few dozen Boeing Dreamliners.
And that is a false equivalence. Buying a Dreamliner is not the same situation as buying an A380. To that note, Riyadh Air ordered 39 Dreamliners in 2023. The keyword is "ordered". Boeing is only 600+ units behind in the 787-9 model alone. Based on the current production, the best case is Riyadh Air might get their planes in the next 4 years. So as a matter of practicality, the Saudis can order 100 more Dreamliners today. Getting Dreamliners today is where the real world crashes your narrative.
"Be *excellent* to each other." -- Bill, or Ted, in Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure
