... Without permission...

If you fling shit through my window. And I pick it up with a towel and hang it on a billboard will you sue me for making money or claim revenue loss because I use your content as advertising?
They forced their shit up his ass and he responded by putting up code that is apparently publicly available ... as he picked it from his browser as I understand. It's javascript as I understand, meaning any one could pick up that code and do what ever they want with it.

Works just fine on this version too. 35.0
I have to say however, I am not upgrading further, because of resource problems I have had. The newer version for some reason sometimes starts to use 1 cores maximum CPU usage, eventually hits over a GB of ram usage with just a couple of tabs in use and then starts lagging like crazy.

I have similar problems at home with the newest build.

But more on the Tree Style Tab. I just love it. I wish they would add that in as an option for large screen setup. That makes far better use of screen estate.

Our problem with all of this is that public resources are being abused to force legislations and other law binding implications that outweight the benefits of copyright laws.

I can not make up from this post if you are trolling, but most of us don't mind paying for music. But if it comes to the restrictions that come with it. And how hard it is to have 1 consistent library of music we can listen to and enjoy anywhere we like.

Specifically here we get stuff like you could never remix a song unless the copyright holder lets you. Even if the artist that made it is long dead. Making it virtually impossible for a lot of people to actually make the said remix, because they lack the funds / man power to jump through the required legal hoops.
We go to change laws normally used to track terrorists and use them to find people that upload mp3's... In US it's apparently more of a crime to share a piece of music then it is to steal a 5000 dollar neck chain.
Some of this stuff make it so companies can completely bankrupt people just for the 'loss in revenue' of sometimes even a single song. Hell give me tank and I could probably not make enough property damage within an hour then what these companies ask in fines for copyright infringement.
Completely forgetting that music has to go by. People can only know it exists if we can listen to it somewhere. And a lot of us want to support the artist by buying their albums, going to their concerts and buying their merchandise. But as soon as you see everyone as a criminal within the rules of this little game you will get a lot of solemn faces and angry people that want to get back to what music is all about. Emotion, and sharing these emotions, world views and ideas.

How stuff currently is going is not beneficial for anyone except for the people with the deep pockets and tall buildings.

Yes That would be a good one.
I think a person in this position should be punished 10 times over every single felony they make instead of walking away (with a bail).

The guy that under stress, drinks and punches a guy in the face is far less accountable for his actions then en well fed, well paid, highly educated (at least I hope they all are) government official who will determine that you will or will not be able to buy and eat a Nestle Kinder Surprise (to name a silly example) OR that we will send planes to the middle east to bomb the living shit out of kidnapping sand people OR make up a budget that puts the whole country in an even more larger depth.

The decisions these people make could well end up determining if the human race will survive this century. I say if they are up to take up that level of responsibility, they can very well take responsibility for their own private and professional actions before, during and after their time in the office.
They have always complained that videogames or comic books or movies (in past times) make people violent. But I think nothing makes a common person more angry then to be forced to pay for a institution that determines how to live and breath, but don't have to be responsible for their own actions. Which happens on regular basis as far as I can tell. And their is no gray area in my opinion. If you are morally sound, then you should be able to make the right call about your actions without the need for rules, regulations or any one to put your every move under a loop. Unfortunately, righteousness doesn't get you far in this world. So I say "that's the reason we can't have nice things".
We have put blind trust in people like these, time and time again. And I say, if it keeps happening, then their is a hole in the process and we should fix it by applying 100% transparency and make sure that the consequences of immoral actions is so high that the cons out weight the pros.
Even if they do not get convicted and thrown in prison, things like these with the whole Snowden thing: Let the public opinion sway what is right and wrong and to take action on its own. If this is not what we want. Then their is finally a glimps of democracy when we stand up, all say "no, we don't want this". Which ends up finally changing the misconduct.

What I still find fascinating still however, is that 1 president gets kicked out of office because he had a secretary suck his stiffy... Voluntarily. You can not convince me otherwise. She wasn't threatened at gun point.
And another can attack another country without the approval of NATO and as I hear, make millions of the profits with weapon production as his family has good ties with weapon makers. And stay in office for a descent time and walk away unchallenged for these actions.

Actions like these really makes how the rest of the worlds see you as a country. Their is no way back. When Russia determines they should act in the Ukrain, suddenly the whole NATO and everything connected looks like a farce, as they can not say a thing about it. US did the same thing... It was fine then... So why should we be upset now. In this light you can not wave your finger in the air and talk about morals when you (or you as a country) do not take the same responsibilities.

So you say if they don't get enough money they will be starting accepting bribes... what makes you think they wouldn't if they do have enough money?
I say put them under a 100% spending insight regime. If you are working for the public on that level I don't see why they shouldn't be of indisputable good behavior.

With those bonuses they should easily make more then what the 'common man' earns in a year. And apart from the chance of being thrown out when shit hits the fan, it's one of the most stable jobs you can imagine. If the government falls, the country falls. Both don't happen easily.
Beside these people have daunting responsibilities. Any one of them could make moves like these that jeopardize the country stands for.

These people are one of the few cases where I say, if you are doing nothing bad, you have nothing to hide. For almost everyone else I am thinking the opposite, because it's not your business what your neighbor, the hooker on the street or Bill Gates is doing with his or her money all the time. But we all pay for these people to run a country. They expect us all to be well behaved and reasonable. If they do, they themselves have to be a prime example of indisputable good behavior.

Maybe it's just the voting and the punishment that has to change?
- Include a neutral and none of the above option for both parties and leader votes and make them actually count. If the blank + none of the above votes 'win the election' the whole thing has to start a new with either a new leader of the party if that's what was voted for or switching up the whole party.
- Make campaign goals in to measurable goals. Everyone in office gets minimum wage. And the actual bonus pay out depends on how many % of the goal and total goals you have been able to achieve. To a maximum of say 120% of the current default payout.
- Nail it in to the law that a control group or advice organ should be presented by equally amount of representatives from the different groups. And let them swear an oath like bankers, after which you can fine them when they 'secretly' had unethical bands with the other groups.
- Forbid ALL secondary jobs and funding for people in office. They work for the country, the country should pay their checks for their work, no one else.
- After an initial investment and an X thousand votes a candidate should receive a fixed priced funding from the state that is equal to any other candidate. They may only use that money for funding their campaign. The money is paid out as payment for a service or product by a bureau. They have only 2 goals. Put all spendings online publicly for all candidates and warn botht he candidate and the public when they go over the limit of said money.

I vote for marking Snowden as a journalist and for the US to admit that the whole fiasco was an institutionalized attack on democracy from over enthusiastic patriots.

And if they keep going with what they are doing, they are playing terrorists hands, because what is the core goal of terrorists?
Spread terror, spread fear. And now we have no means to protect our communication and data while we know the NSA is spying our all every move, we are more afraid then ever.

Sounds like a nice place you have their.
To bad I also hear enough stories about companies filled with people at the top that keep each other afloat.

Instead of purely looking at competence and other values that matter, they merely see friends among another and refuse to see any wrong doings unless it is thrown in their face in a way they can not longer avoid because it might hurt the company (to much).

Maybe you happen to cross the right companies or I have been fed shit so far. I'm tempted to think the former.

Because US intelligence have been known to do stuff outside borders anyway?
Guantanamo Bay detention camp is a perfect example.

If we can't do it within the borders, we do it somewhere else where the laws we don't want to abide by do not apply.
If they want to wedge themselves between the delivery of packages of every US based company, they will probably just 'leverage' (and by that I mean threat) a country to accept laws for the US to do so and maybe even in secret.

This whole thing has gone wide and far. The whole notion of 'trying to get security at cost of EVERYTHING' has gone up and over. If we can get the data, they can also. If everything is encrypted, secured and unknown. You can probably say that at least your data and private lives are 'safe'. If we are talking about practical safety as in 'can I safely walk the streets without harm becoming me', consider the following. If everyone is scared and wants to protect themselves, means everyone is that hair threat away from unleashing hell.
This works on person to person level, groups, regions, counties and continents. Everyone suspects everybody, no one can be trusted, everyone is armed and scared to dead. You think that safety and certainty can grow under such conditions? The only way you can achieve that is if you are oppressing everyone else and making them scared. But that doesn't work on a planet with more then 7 billion people, because their will be a smart guy, a strong guy and a nut job that will take offense to your open declaration of war and fight you for it.

The only way for everyone to coexist (and this is not a tree huger statement) I actually believe that if we can understand each other, trust one another, have equel rights and at least the same chances and I'm not talking about giving everyone a bunch of money, I'm talking about education, chance on a job, a house and a life. Then people with eventually accept that and the more stable it is the more they are prone to accept the current status quo.

The whole western world works on this last principle. We do not burn the city down the moment we do not get what we want. People come up with ideas and solutions. If we do not get heard we protest. And more times then not we come up with a solution that satisfies 'most people'. No you can not make every one happy. But if you get 5 out of the 100 things you want. A concession on 50 more and you can live with at least 40 more. Then the last bits are not worth the hassle involved by risking everything to try and change that.

I think a free unrestricted internet for everyone can help. Because when I can freely talk I can speak my mind. Tell you why I think we should change things. Everytime I do that, your understanding of how this person of this part of the world feels about the subject creates understanding. At one point groups of people will change their behavior and assumptions over one another and accept their are differences, but also so many things that have been and will always be the same. We want room to drive our passions and express our ideas and thoughts. We want stability so we can live and keep living in relative safety. And with relative is that we take acceptable risks. I can die in a car accident tomorrow. I will not fret over it today, because my car is checked, (almost) everyone has a drivers license, roads are looked after etc etc. Layers of understanding of the parts at play that have been worked out and looked after to make sure they can work in a place where MILLIONS of people live together. All of them unique in their many ways, but also the same in many other ways too.

If your answer to have a binoculars in one hand a riffle in the other trusting that you information and understanding of the world will make you lethal enough to survive. You will find the other guy thought the same thing before, during and after he pulled the trigger fighting for his own version of mostly the same story.

EO rant

Not sure if you are trolling here, but what about:
- Communication to see you are not crossing something else airborne?
- If you cut all the power, how many of the electronic cockpit does still function? If we assume their bad weather, are you going to eyeball your flight height and heading?
- And I'm pretty sure hydraulics are not directly attached to the jet engine. So no steering, no maneuvering, no stabilization (as you already said)
- No light in the whole plane. Any one standing at the moment of the power cut is pretty much 'f***ed' because you will have a very hard time finding a seat to strap yourself back in to while you might hit an air pocket or other means of atmospheric disturbances.

And yes, without the 'lift' a plane would just drop dead out of the sky. Which is called stalling, very informative. But same as with a car, you need more then wheels to keep it on the road. Navigation, keeping course, information the vehicle and the surroundings etc. Being airborne encases more then 'defying gravity' by creating 'lift'.

My whole point is that it sounds like severe overkill to me, to cut ALL the power, just to stop a possible fire that you haven't been able to locate yet.
If an engine burns, stop that. If an instrumental panel starts to smoke, you turn it off. Or I guess you can pull a fuse or something.
If the fire is in the cargo hold, I guess these fine gents can tell you which systems are located their or run through their and might need to be turned off 'just in case'.

Sounds plausible in my ears.

Call me an arse, but I enjoy coming up with theories like these.

Difference with air crash investigation like teams is that we probably lack a lot of facts. And they can't be wrong.
If they make a conclusion they must stick by it, for the sake of trust of future and past investigations.
I hope they will stop spewing theories in the news past this point. I have had my fill of 'OH we know where it is, we got this theory and it fits. We just need to find it'.

*Shrugs* I'm not going to speculate. Although a whole lot could be explained when the whole crew would have been gassed and the whole plain would have caught fire, without exploding and burning out a whole bit before hitting either water or land. I guess when most kerosene burns out a plain of any size could make a 'remarkable' small impact crater when we are talking on world scale. On water it could have broken apart and parts of the plain could have start floating. However... if half the plain burned out. What could have survived and would still float afterward? The whole fuselage and wings could have burst and quickly flooded disappearing in to the ocean. What little stuff that might still be floating could have been blown off over a huge area. Good luck finding any of that with a sonar or by eye-balling it from another plane.

I might not call myself an electronic expert, but turning down all systems in case of fire doesn't sound like a good idea. Their is a ton of stuff keeping a plane airborne and able to ask for help. I don't think flipping a switch will make fire 'magically' go away, so turning everything off does not sound very logical to me.

Turning of x sub systems because they are prone to causing fires... yea that sounds plausible.

Another possibility is immediate overall system failure... At least when I look at stuff like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f30fBFitkSM

I could imagine some electrical problems from a large number of cells catching fire or 'gassing' the whole airplane within seconds.

Ah I see, thank you. I didn't expect the thing to need HTML tags to function. However, I will keep that in mind.

Adding newlines doesn't do a whole lot on this site does it? And editing my post after I made is probably also a 'to advance' feature? Or is it my fault for still using the 'legacy' option?