lookin

Can't speak for everyone but, for me, it's because, as I mentioned in an earlier post, the 787's lead engineer, Mike Sinnett, said that Boeing's system had "computerized controls" and "multiple layers of protection that it thought would keep the batteries from overheating and contain any problem". And the regulators bought it. This image, which is currently in the public domain, shows pretty clearly that Boeing thought wrong. According to this article in the New York Times, all eight cells in the charred battery sustained varying degrees of thermal damage. So, irrespective of what the 'experts' find in future weeks and months, there's clear evidence that Boeing has not successfully designed a battery that does not present a fire danger. Nor is it likely that the FAA will cut them much slack if they come back any time soon with an "All fixed now!" pronouncement. The Times article goes on to report that the very procedures the FAA uses to certify aircraft safety are now headed for a federal investigation and for Senate hearings. Again, there just does not appear to be anything the 'experts' can find that will cause the FAA to re-certify the 787 anytime soon. And, the longer it drags out, the more damage is done to the reputation of the aircraft, the reputation of the company, and perhaps the whole concept of massive outsourcing. If there could be something - anything - that the 'experts' could find to circumvent this process, I'd be delighted to hear it. All that said, if I were given the opportunity for a free trip in a 787 today, I'd take it. Either Bangkok or Rio would do. But I think it will be quite a long time before I'll have that opportunity. This has moved from the area of 'expert' findings to one of public perception and political cover. That's my admittedly non-expert opinion anyway and one which I would be only too happy to have proved wrong.

Indeed it is! Thanks for posting it.

I was once caught on camera during Freshman Weekend at a nearby community college. It was only a timely note from a doctor friend regarding the anguish of 'sudden leg cramp syndrome' that kept me off the evening news.

In fact, there is a recent thread on cultured foreskins here on this very site!

Well, I sure hope this thread doesn't turn into one of those. And there's a long-held belief that greater communication is a gateway to greater understanding. Some good input so far, and I'm glad that you yourself are up for getting linked. I'm still not sure if I'd like it or not. On the one hand, the more views the merrier. But then there's the benefit of keeping it all in the immediate family. Still hope OZ and others will weigh in.

Possibly for a smackdown between his butt and a peach.

Earlier, I made a post on the other site in a thread on the gun control issue. My views were very much informed by a couple of posts that AdamSmith made here a few days ago: one on How the gunmakers own the NRA and one on How the NRA went from pro-gun-control to where it is today. I read his posts, then the articles, then some more articles, did a bit of thinkin', and then a bit of postin', first there and then here. When I posted over there, my first impulse was to link to AdamSmith's threads over here. He had some things to say which were very insightful and would have been of benefit to the folks over there. But, while I praised the poster, and his posts, I decided not to use AdamSmith's screen name, nor to link to his threads. I'm not sure what the right thing to do is, so I'm asking you folks for your opinions. The first issue is whether or not OZ would appreciate a link coming from the other site over here. I've thought about this over the years. On the plus side, it could bring eyeballs from that site to this one and, not only eyeballs, but the same kind of eyeballs that OZ may seek to attract here. On the other hand, there may be a desire to keep to a minimum the cross-pollination, you should pardon the expression, between the two sites. It's really not my call to make. And the second issue is whether or not a poster here would appreciate being linked over there. As I said in my post, AdamSmith is an esteemed poster, and that is true on both sites. He might like folks over there to see something great he did over here. But what if he doesn't? If he wanted his posts to be seen over there, he could have decided to post in that thread. Again, it really didn't seem my call to make. So, I went with the conservative approach, and didn't link the threads. What would you all have done? It's not too late to go back and add the links in another post in that thread. But I'm not sure what's the etiquette for this sort of thing. Anyone have any thoughts?

AdamSmith, what a good article and what a good couple of posts you have made about the NRA recently! I read what you referenced and a bit more besides, and made a post on the other site in a gun-related thread that seemed to be petering out. Thanks to you, I hope it will get some new life. Here's a copy of the post I made over there. I hope it might help move the topic forward over here too. Haven't previously posted in this thread about the issue itself as it seemed like the same old debate with not much in the way of news, other than the latest mass killings that revive the discussion on an unfortunately rather predictable basis. However, thanks to an esteemed poster who started a couple of new threads on the other site, I personally have come across some info I didn't have before and it seems to point the way toward breaking the stalemate, if the politicians can only keep their attention focused on keeping more of their constituents alive. The first article cited by the poster outlines the late-seventies takeover of the NRA by a group of guns-for-all militants and their decision to spend liberally on Congressional lobbying and to move a re-interpreted version of the Second Amendment into the center of the political discussion. Warren Burger, the Nixon-appointed conservative U. S. Supreme Court Chief Justice, called it "one of the greatest pieces of fraud - I repeat the word 'fraud' - on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime." This began in 1977, and was the earlier of two major shifts in the role of the NRA in American politics. The second shift happened more recently, as the poster cites in another thread the same day, and it is a further takeover of the NRA by gun manufacturers. He links to a Mother Jones article that describes how the CEO of the company that makes the Bushmaster rifle used in the Newtown school shootings has inserted himself into the upper ranks of the NRA's 'Nominating Committee'. This is the group that decides who the candidates are going to be when members vote on the senior officers who will determine the NRA's official policy. As such, this individual whose day job it is to increase sales of high-powered weapons, gets an outsized voice in how the NRA spends its lobbying dollars. What's more, when the NRA speaks, it can also say that it speaks for four million members, although not only may the closely-held membership number be smaller, but only about 7% of them vote, and then only for the handpicked slate of candidates. This article also references a poll done last summer by GOP Frank Luntz which shows that rank-and-file NRA members overwhelmingly support background checks for all buyers, barring terror suspects from gun ownership, and required reporting of lost and stolen guns. These views by NRA members are in contrast with the NRA's official positions on these issues. What all this suggests to me is that a very few people, some of them industry insiders, are playing a very large role in the national debate on gun safety and control and are not only out of step with the American public but are also out of step with most of their organization's own members. In my opinion, the sooner our politicians wise up to this and start listening to the majority voices in the country and even in the NRA, the sooner they can start saving the lives of the folks who put them in office. And, if they don't, we are all going to be held hostage to a small group whose special interests are very different from our own.

You won't be alone tonight.

It was a slow day.

Concerned Lady Macbeth was a bit of a buzzkill, The Bard feels a sonnet coming on.

I learned that OZ will wait until everyone has stopped posting in a thread, and then close it.

Numbers aside, let's just say I've been invited to sit on the Cialis Board of Directors.

Two weeks ago, Boeing had a hardware problem. I think today they also have a public relations problem and a regulatory problem. Which is the toughest to solve remains to be seen. Having been caught with its pants down once, I doubt the FAA will bend over so willingly again. Boeing needs a five-star fix fast. And the longer the planes stay grounded, the lower public opinion goes, and the longer the airlines lose money. Which brings up the liability issues. With so much outsourcing, who pays any damages that may be piling up? Can't advise the Boeing experts what to do, but I would encourage them to feel a sense of urgency.

Perhaps we could offer ourselves up as expert witnesses. If anyone can tell a good set of genitals from damaged ones, it's us.

A consummation devoutly to be wished, no doubt, but while we're waiting, it may just take us bozos to give the Feds the hotfoot they need to start scorching Boeing's vitals. And, in our defense, the experts aren't doing all that much better. According to this Forbes article, in spite of lithium-ion batteries' long history of burning up, the 787's lead engineer, Mike Sinnett said Boeing's system had "computerized controls" and "multiple layers of protection that it thought would keep the batteries from overheating and contain any problem." He managed to convince the regulators, and the rest is history. Those computerized controls offered tremendous promise. They would shut down the battery if it developed a problem and operate as a firewall that would stop a short in one of the battery’s eight cells from spreading to the other seven. What’s more, Boeing claimed, the 787′s pressurized air system would keep flames or smoke from the burning battery from getting into the passenger cabin. So much for the expert opinions. Apparently, Cessna replaced its lithium-ion batteries with safer nickel-cadmium batteries after a fire a year or so ago, but Boeing has convinced some 'experts' that the extra forty pounds and extra effort to switch to safer batteries would make the 787 commercially unviable. Well, that may be an expert's opinion, but it sure smells like bullshit to me. And bullshit just happens to be a field of expertise in which I'm prepared to go toe-to-toe with the very best in the business.

Array for Hollywood! That screwy, ballyhooey Hollywood! Where any office boy Or young mechanic Can be a panic .

Ah. At least I was allowed a few moments of wide-eyed optimism. Thanks for the effort. Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go try to center myself.

OZ, it might be helpful if you asked the programmers themselves to test the fixes they made, so they can see whether or not they worked. For example, after they 'fix' the formatting issue, try it to see if they can now center an image. And, after they 'fix' the 'Show New Content' button, try it to see if all posters are still named 'Array' or if they have now reverted to their actual screen names. It might also be useful for you yourself to try the 'Show New Content' button and see what user name shows up for you. If TotallyOz shows up as expected, then it's most likely my issue alone. Right now, the highly welcome 'fixes' don't seem to be working for me, but that could be a result of a funky cache, an incompatible browser, user error, or some other self-inflicted wound and it may be up to me to take the appropriate action.

Now that was fun!

I certainly hope he'll send you back to us in one piece.

A Tel Aviv BoyToy named Nate Thought he lived on the Eurasian Plate. When he learned it's a fault, He exclaimed, Oy, gevalt! I should probably double my rate!

You're not only informed, but gracious and open-minded to a fault!

And the prison lobby. At $166 a night for a single bed in a bad neighborhood, they can afford to influence a lot of legislation. Plus, they have a built-in loyalty program and can even offer a weekend getaway to select customers.

Mebbe so but, in my book, anyone who can use 'pecksniffian' in a post is worth a second look. I had to look it up, but am I glad I did! I make no judgment, by the by, as to whether or not the word was used in fairness; merely that it was used at all.