Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 02/08/2019 in all areas

  1. 1 point
    Interesting. It was an AA flight.
  2. 1 point
    I did not have sexual relations with that woman.
  3. 1 point
    Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this… The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing. The fifth would pay $1. The sixth would pay $3. The seventh would pay $7. The eighth would pay $12. The ninth would pay $18. The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59. So, that’s what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve ball. “Since you are all such good customers,” he said, “I’m going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20”. Drinks for the ten men would now cost just $80. The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men ? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share? They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody’s share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill by a higher percentage the poorer he was, to follow the principle of the tax system they had been using, and he proceeded to work out the amounts he suggested that each should now pay. And so the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% saving). The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% saving). The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28% saving). The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% saving). The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% saving). The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% saving). Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But, once outside the bar, the men began to compare their savings. “I only got a dollar out of the $20 saving,” declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man,”but he got $10!” “Yeah, that’s right,” exclaimed the fifth man. “I only saved a dollar too. It’s unfair that he got ten times more benefit than me!” “That’s true!” shouted the seventh man. “Why should he get $10 back, when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!” “Wait a minute,” yelled the first four men in unison, “we didn’t get anything at all. This new tax system exploits the poor!” The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up. The next night the tenth man didn’t show up for drinks so the nine sat down and had their beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn’t have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!
  4. 1 point
    You can end the drawn out conversation at any time by presenting a viable alternative that isn't worse. I will even settle for a few ideas that aren't worse. How about political rhetoric that doesn't border on complete lunacy; I can even work with that. Even a bit of basic kindness would go along way; they could simply stop the fake expressions of indignation and outrage over the very sort of things they are the purveyors of. https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/big-bang-theory-creator-mocks-sarah-sanders-appearance-christian-faith-in-show-credits Democrat and Liberal policies and conduct are currently unsupportable and that's why I don't (and won't). They only need to return to the centre and stop trying to out crazy the crazies. Even if they could muster the will to behave in accordance with their own stated values I might relent. I don't know a lot, but on those topics I'm familiar with, the lies and manipulations are deliberate, repugnant and now occurring at a frequency I have never previously encountered. So yes, Trump is far and away the least dangerous choice IMO and he is getting a lot of stuff done despite deliberate, mindless opposition in the house. It's like the Democrats are actively working on his re-election efforts and I predict they will be successful in this regard.
  5. 1 point
    It remains to be examined and stated by the NTSB whether Boeing actually did the testing required. Whether they knew this was a potential single-point-of-failure, (like "O-rings"), made an assessment and felt they had accounted for the potential, or knew about the potential and satisfied themselves that the risk was in the neighbourhood of 10-9 , is a question that must be answered by the investigation. Even though they are contributory I don't think that this is primarily a "human-factors" accident. Airline training issues, reasons why a crew didn't write up a snag that mentioned the continuous stall warning and the control difficulty which they resolved by using the stabilizer cut-off switch and so on, cannot be cited as primary causes. In my view as a retired pilot, Boeing was not forthright in their work. Given the underlying fundamental design change in a primary flight control system which behaved differently than expected by B737 pilots, should the airplane have been declared a new type rather than falling under the same rules that governed the issuing of the original B737-100 type certificate? The question is a natural one to submit, and is intended to point to an area of investigation that should be part of the overall examination of the Lion Air accident. I hope it will be. (text in blue is edited)
  6. 1 point
    Systems like this are designed to be "invisible" to the pilot. The system "just works"....until it doesn't. Boeing must have known that faulty inputs from the AOA would cause the system to react in unexpected ways. They also probably deduced that the risk was minimal of a failure...until it failed. Risk management 101