-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Mxsmanic wrote:
A Guy Called Tyketto writes:

Best case in point: winglets. Airbus, with the exception of a
very aircraft in the -100 family, were delivered with winglets, long
before Boeing caught on and was able to offer them to the 737 and 757
family. From that alone, Boeing was behind the curve on reducing fuel
consumption. Like I said earlier, you may want to read up on the facts
before saying something you can't back up.

As I said, Boeing is conservative. I consider safety much more
important than fuel economy.

Safety can not be weighed against fuel economy. Apples to
oranges. Weigh the fuel economy of the B737 without the winglets and
vortices to the A319/A320 with the winglets, then see how Boeing was
behind, and finally caught up.

Then I suggest you learn a bit more about computers, because
they run a lot more things than you realize.

I already know too much about them, which is why I worry. The people
who recklessly put them into everything need to learn a lot more about
how and why they fail.


People who put them in already understand the pros and cons for
what they are doing, and know when and when not to put them where they
are. Until you decide to use them to your advantage instead of letting
your fear and paranoia of them rule you, you will always look, feel,
and appear to be ignorant. But if that is how you want to run your
life, so be it. No bother to me. Oh, btw.. be sure to use the crank
next time you start your car, and to take out the computer modules that
help you start your engine.

BL.
- --
Brad Littlejohn | Email:
Unix Systems Administrator, |
Web + NewsMaster, BOFH.. Smeghead! | http://www.wizard.com/~tyketto
PGP: 1024D/E319F0BF 6980 AAD6 7329 E9E6 D569 F620 C819 199A E319 F0BF

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFFOHejyBkZmuMZ8L8RAl/9AKDMjZ3EVkRP9u7p4FaG9Hi7MlxO3gCgzcgW
t9X6w9HmZ2DJ0fVPrI4KtlQ=
=vE0l
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----