geonineties

I ran Windows 95 on a 386SX-16 with an 80387, with 5MB of ram for a year as my main machine. It ran about as well as 3.1 did. The only real drawback was the disk space required for 95 over 3.1 + DOS.

AFAIK worker bees are female. Drones are male and don't actually gather any honey, but just go around looking for a queen to mate with.

You are still conflating the process of manufacturing vs able to design a safe aircraft. The ability of Boeing to correctly manufacture an aircraft to it's design was not the cause of 737 Max 8 crashes. The ability of Boeing to create a safe design was. (As an aside: I don't think self certification of a design should be a thing)

I perused that document. It says quite a bit on how the FAA needs to work on type certificates, but seems limited to that. It says nothing on airworthiness certificates. I'm assuming you know this, but the reason people say there's a hard difference on this is because they really are two different topics covering two different things.

For the uninitiated, and simplified. For a particular aircraft you are about to board to be legally allowed to fly it needs an airworthiness certificate. An airworthiness certificate says _that_ particular airplane is essentially _identical_ to a prototype (or set of identical prototypes) that the manufacture has flight tested and demonstrated is safe to the certifying authority. The formal acceptance of the prototypes safety is called a "Type" certificate.

The ability to say "we made this identical to our prototypes" is what the FAA is restoring the authority of Boeing to self certify, and is a _normal_ thing for a manufacturer to have. It's _abnormal_ for a manufacturer to not have that, as it's the certifying authority basically saying "you don't know how to physically construct airplanes".

The document referenced says the FAA essentially accepted proofs / was pressured to accept assertions from Boeing that the type was actually safe, when it was not. That's basically saying Boeing didn't know how to _design_ aircraft.

Are you thinking of Daisy wheel? Dot matrix uses a set of pins arranged in a matrix that they ram forward to press the ribbon against the paper. Daisy wheel uses a raised character glyph and slams it forward into the ribbon. Every typewriter I've used has full glyphs.

The thing to remember about US states is that conceptually they are countries bound together in a Federation. There's a crap ton of complicated rules, but generally your state has a lot more power over your life than the US Federal Government does.

If you want just load the dos net ios/smb stack (or a tcp stack) and go to town.

Maybe a dipshit blonde wasn't paying attention and caused the problem? Sometimes facts really do follow stereotypes.

I would say something a little different. The kernel is a _library_ that has an init routine you can provide the function for. Or put another way, without the kernel your go program would have to have drivers statically compiled into it. This was the world of DOS, btw.

Don't be a professionally offended troll. Man is the generic word for the species.

How exactly are you going to use a service that requires login if the login requires an authorized device you don't have?

If we're going full reductio ad absurdum and taking snipes instead of conversation, then maybe the appropriate response is: You can be poor all you want, but don't expect someone else to subsidize your life.

Unfortunately, that's not true. Article 1 gives congress very broad budgetary powers. Basically congress can spend money how they want, including bribing universities.

(dropped the snark) Racist means grouping according to race, or potentially geographic origins. The word for what you're describing is probably closest to discriminatory, or prejudicial.

However, misanthropic is probably more correct as the paper applies to all people negatively.

Your username is surprisingly fitting.