Shalhoub

> We ban accounts like this one that are created just to violate the guidelines. Please don't do this.

Surely you mean, rather than come back with a logically worked-out refutation, you ban accounts that don't conform with the editors mindset.

Yes I have read the article, but I'm still confused as to the who and the how of his $50 million fortune vanishing. Could someone please put the salient details into a single paragraph.

"Within 10s of the forward stick input, the A330 had reached a 17˚ nose-down attitude. Its automatic high-speed protection system was triggered 3s later"

What exactly did this 'automatic high-speed protection system ' do?

"As the aircraft pitched down, the aircraft’s captain – who was alone in the cockpit – attempted to disengage the autopilot and pull back on his sidestick"

Surly the autopilot would have disengaged when the pilot moved his seat forward and pushed the sidestick forward at the same time?

"With dual inputs being delivered, the A330’s flight protection system was automatically engaged"

I thought the 'flight protection system' was already engaged. Why would dual imputs trigger the ' flight protection system'

“The initial recovery from the dive was the result of the aircraft’s own protection measures, and not the product of pilot inputs.”

What exactly did the computer do to initiate 'initial recovery'?

> Not sure what your comment has to do with mine.

Someone doesn't agree with your comment, but rather than come back with a refutation they voted you down instead :)

And someone else don't agree with my comment .. modded down -4

I do appreciate long form writing, but not when it's done badly, as in all the salient details are scattered about the page. That article would be good as part of a biography. Having never heard of Jane Jacob, I too had to consult wikipedia. They should do what Time Magazine does and have a separate info-box with a brief synopsis of the salient details.

According to my limited understanding, some time back Poettering called for udev to be subsumed into systemd. When systemd.udev breaks something his response is. It shouldn't be in udev in the first place, it isn't my problem, we lack the skills to make it work. Going on Poetterings past utterances in response to criticisms of systemd, I have to say I am not impressed. It demonstrates an arrogance, immaturity and lack of people skills. Perhaps someone else should take over the helm.