The fact that they make you buy a whole new cartridge just because you ran out of toner, or out of ink, is nothing but a money grab by the manufacturers. They can't sell you a new printer every few months, so they found another way to keep you buying expensive stuff./
[plug in hybrids] only really make sense for people who can't get past their range anxiety, or who live in places with really bad charging infrastructure. You have to cart around an ICE, maintain it, fill it with petrol, fix it when one of the many complex parts goes wrong.
Yes, but for that, what you get is the ability to have a useful electric vehicle with a much much smaller battery than a fully-electric vehicle. It's been shown time and time again that most trips taken in cars are short, so you really don't need the big batteries that the electric car manufacturers all headline, but the small IC engine allows you to have that range anxiety.
In principle, this would be the perfect solution for many users. In practice, however, a lot of plug-in hybrid owners don't bother to plug in, so what's the point?
Too long a post to address point by point, except that I will point out that you can't cite the Rogers Commission Report and Columbia Accident Investigation Report as sources to show that NASA has not changed as a result of the changes suggested in the Rogers Commission Report and Columbia Accident Investigation Report.
Uh, yes you can. How would you even go about discussing whether the changes were made without looking at the source of the suggested changes?
You can't decide whether changes were or weren't implemented on the basis of a document that was issued before any changes were implemented. Are you even thinking here?
...
Since your response is basically TLDR, I don't think you really get to make a dismissive summary.
You apparently missed the sentence where I said "Too long a post to address point by point."
Sorry. It was too long a post to address point by point. TL;DRPBP.
[long hypothetical questions]
You're seriously asking whether, in a completely hypothetical situation, I'd follow safety protocols or just say "screw it, my job is more important than the safety of a bunch of people I don't even know"? I will assure you, in all completely hypothetical situations my actions will be as if I were a combination of Mohandas Gandhi and Saint Francis. Not sure why this answer is useful. From my experience with QA, all the QA inspectors I've worked with would err on the side of caution, and would say, inspect them all.
Your comment mostly summarizes as saying you don't know anything in particular about NASA processes or how they were changed (or not) as a result of the reports, but you know other organizations, and in your opinion management is the same everywhere and doesn't change. Fine, that's your opinion.
And, in response to your question, yes, I do work in aerospace, but not on manned missions.
A more notable point is that while she said that Epstein had instructed her to have sex with Marvin Minsky, she didn't conclude that with a statement that she actually did.
The culture changed.
From what I can tell... t
What does the phrase "from what I can tell" mean here? Do you have any knowledge of the NASA safety culture?
..While not specifically about stopping the launch, because it had already launched, you could ask Rodney Rocha if the culture of management ignoring safety concerns from engineers had actually changed by the time of the Columbia disaster.
23 years ago. The assertion is that the NASA safety protocols changed as a result of the Challenger and Columbia accidents.
After that disaster things changed drastically, basically putting everyone in a position to abort a flight.
I am pretty sure that was basically the rule before,
Before Challenger there wasn't any way for an engineer to elevate their safety concerns past their first level of management. This changed as a result of the reviews of what went wrong after the Challenger and Columbia disasters.
https://aerospaceamerica.aiaa....
The culture changed.
The root-cause analysis now done by NASA (overseen by the NASA Engineering and Safety Center) is now pretty thorough. Their failure review boards don't just identify the failure but going down the chain of "why" to ultimately the management structure.
The best you can do is to actually listen to the engineers who understand the technology.
I get what you're saying, but it's not like there are lots of ready alternatives to the products we all need and use daily that we can switch to tomorrow,
Right. It doesn't happen tomorrow. Or next year. It takes time.
This is a flaw in modern thinking; if we can't do something immediately, right this very minute, it's not worth doing.
It will take time. Let's start.
Tuition for 4 years:
In-State (PA Resident): Around $160,000 - $200,000.
Out-of-State: Around $240,000 - $280,000.
The university mentioned in the article is Penn State, so I assume that's the one being discussed here? From their website:
2024-2025 Penn State University Park tuition rates for an academic year (fall and spring semesters):
PA Resident: $20,644
Non-PA Resident: $41,790
multiplying by 4 years, that comes to $82,576 for in-state, $167,160 for out of state. So, your numbers seem wrong by a factor of 2 to 2.5
Your mode of life will be changed to EBCDIC.
