gowlerk

Yes, in many ways Americans think of their country as first in the world. But they do not send Americans to their possessions to be Governors, nor do they collect Tribute. The world has moved beyond the ability of stronger nations to exert the level of control the defines Imperialism and Empire. The modern world involves coalitions of shared interests shared enemies, and trade. Nations no longer have empires. That does not mean that they don't use their power to attempt to control others. In my definition Russia was the last entity that had an empire through controlling the USSR. Albeit a short lived one. Their leader is still upset about the fact that they were too weak to hold it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Dossier https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_Dossier Now back to the "Fall of an Empire". The USA does not have an empire in the classic sense. It makes sense that British people see one because there are some commonalities between US foreign policy and running an empire. And Brits see the world through their own history. But no American has ever puffed up their chest and declared that " the sun never sets on the American Empire".

Yes, somewhat. I would consider it to be harder to pack into a small space than the equivalent sized PDR.

Well then, I can't help much myself. The R-Max is built very strongly, perhaps to the point of over built. But I've never packed an Icarus reserve so I can't compare them.

It would not make the slightest difference in my mind. I would cut away and deploy any certificated reserve parachute in those circumstances. I would not get into the aircraft to begin with if I did not have that confidence. Now, suppose you tell us why you are asking?

More Americans believed Ford than Kavanaugh. How many beaches do you have in stock? https://www.npr.org/2018/10/03/654054108/poll-more-believe-ford-than-kavanaugh-a-cultural-shift-from-1991 Many Rs believe her too. They just don't think it should matter given the ages of the young people involved and the attitudes to that kind of assault.

On the note of Media and Congress, Paul Ryan has just been appointed to the BoD of Fox Corp. A fine addition because of his extensive media and business experience? Well...no. He has been a professional politician or working for one nearly all his adult life. But I'm sure he brings a certain something to the table. https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/19/media/paul-ryan-fox-corporation/index.html

I could see a possibility of that happening. A lot depends on just how unstable that engine placement really is. Only Boeing really understands that right now, but it will be heavily scrutinized. The last time they had a large grounding it was lithium batteries that needed better containment. That's a fixable problem. They will have to convince the regulators that software will fix this problem and that turning off the MCAS does not present a large danger. Now that it's grounded there needs to be a justification for returning it to service. That's why Boeing fought so hard against grounding it. The regulators are going to be under immense pressure from all sides. But they will surely understand that if they now give the aircraft a green light, and then another one is lost, it will be very bad for them. It is also possible, but unlikely, that Boeing itself will decide it's own best interest lies in going further than a software update. Likely 100s of Billions are on the line either way. Boeing's stock is down another 2% on the day right now while the indexes are up a little. But it's still up for a one year period. I'm not buying yet.

John Wilkes Booth was a liberal because he belonged to the D party? I'm pretty sure your knowledge of history is better than that. Sometimes you make rational cogent arguments. This is not one of them.

I have not read the "manifesto". But it's clear he is a white supremacist and a white nationalist. Can you name any groups of people who share those beliefs and are also considered left wing?

So, you will deny that he is a right winger? Kick him off the team? I guess you are correct about him being delusional. But whether you can see it or not the white nationalists see Trump's embrace of Stephen Miller and Steve Bannon as catering to their beliefs. And they love the fact that people in power are simpatico.

It's the same thing as in football with deflategate. If you are a Patriot fan it's no big deal. If you are a conservative, Trumps past does not matter, or his present either. Go Team Go!!!!

True, they happened in shithole countries.

Yes, he dislikes many Trump policies. And he loves what Trump represents for the white race.

You may be correct. There is a ton of money and prestige involved. But my prediction of the effect is still the same so far. The blame game is just beginning and wil soon gather momentum. I am far from qualified to judge whether or not software is a good enough fix, or to what extent the modification of the engine placement has affected the aircraft’s stability. But I’m pretty sure Boeing should not have been too cheap to cut corners in such a massive way.

It’s pretty simple logic. Guns that are designed to shoot people get used to do just that. Who would have known?

The fundamental cause is the sheer number of guns in your country. "Good Guys With Guns" is an icon and a myth used to justify access to the tools of war to be used as toys.

Now reports are in that the bureaucracy is revving up to begin the official blame game. https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/17/politics/transportation-department-faa-boeing-investigation/index.html

Exactly, how many lost aircraft are acceptable? Everyone in the industry, including the regulators know that incidents will be rare. That is not really good enough. The cat is out of the bag, the barn door is open and the cows are in the corn, the foxes are in the hen house. Boeing is going to have to shut down the 737 Max program. Probably by this summer. It will be "temporary" until it becomes permanent. There are other aircraft available to fill the market niche. But they can't be produced fast enough to meet the demand. Boeing will move resources to increasing the production of the model before the Max and they will have to sell them at a reduced price while they redesign the Max into a new product with a different name. Of course, that will take the better part of a decade. Or maybe I'm completely wrong. But I just can't see the airlines accepting a product that the public won't want to fly on.

Well, that's what Boeing convinced the FAA to go along with. Now they have the most spectacularly failed design since the de Havilland Comet. Only the Comet was excusable given the knowledge available at the time. Two brand new airliners each with heavy pax loads into the ground (or water) within a few months. And then the FAA waiting for data, as if those two data points weren't enough. This design is finished in the commercial market. No software upgrade is going to change the engine position which is the root of the problem. No Corrective Action Plan is ever going to be sufficient to deal with the root cause. And the public, or at least large parts of the public, understand that now.

The only problem with that is that once the "feature" is disabled the aircraft is no longer stable enough that it would pass it's certification tests.

There was also a hero at the scene of the second attack who slowed him down and made him try to flee shortly before the cops got him. https://www.mprnews.org/story/2019/03/16/when-gunman-advanced-new-zealand-mosque-one-man-ran-at-him

In my mind it all starts with the decision not to redesign the airframe when they found out they could not fit the engines they wanted onto it. Their competition had the LEAP engines and they had to compete. But they did not want to spend money on a new design. The accountants won over the engineers.

Yeah sure, a "PCCS". It will more than likely produce a report recommending a wall be built to keep bad weather out of Greater America.

That doesn't answer the question, but I'm pretty sure you see the point. Bill thinks I need to be more careful about possibly insulting your wife, and I can see his point. So, I'll just ask a different question. Should all candidates for POTUS be required to provide a list of everyone they have had sex with and their reasons for doing so? Or just the female candidates?