Article: America Has Grounded the Wright Brothers

In article ,
wrote:

Allrighty, then. Try Seven Seventyseven?

Oh, the one where the finally also used fly-by-wire like Airbus after
bad-mouthing the concept for years? Innovation?

Apparently Boeing figured out how to make it work properly


This is fun g

Note: My comments are tongue-in-cheek.

indeed.

--
Bob Noel

Mark opined

"Tom Sixkiller" wrote:
Your solution mixes civil and criminal law...a really bad situation.

Yes, but the very concept of "punitive damages" is already an
unhealthy mixture of civil and criminal law.

No, it is not.

Reserving the punitive
damages for the taxpayers will help to restore the punitive aspect
to its proper sphere.

....and make sure the the deep-pockets cases become even more prolific.

"Thomas Borchert" wrote in message
...
Jim,

Allrighty, then. Try Seven Seventyseven?


Oh, the one where the finally also used fly-by-wire like Airbus after
bad-mouthing the concept for years? Innovation?

Fly-by-wire WAS a bad idea for a LONGGGGG time until they got the kinks
worked out.


This is fun g

Note: My comments are tongue-in-cheek.

Hopefully not foot-in-mouth!!

"Thomas Borchert" wrote in message
...
Jim,

Two words: Seven Sixtyseven.


Are those the ones they bribed into the USAF tanker deal even though
Airbus was cheaper? That hardly counts as innovative!

Cheaper to buy (after MASSIVE subsidy from the taxpayers...an now Boeing is
getting into that as well), but more expensive to operate (since it was
designed for state run airlines).

Ranks right up there with having your embassy's 'high security rooms'
constructed by a foreign government...
Denny
"G.R. Patterson III" wrote in message
...


Thomas Borchert wrote:

Are those the ones they bribed into the USAF tanker deal even though
Airbus was cheaper?

I doubt they had to bribe anyone. Having your military use combat gear
made by a
foreign country is a *really* bad idea.

George Patterson
Great discoveries are not announced with "Eureka!". What's usually
said is
"Hummmmm... That's interesting...."

Tom,

Fly-by-wire WAS a bad idea for a LONGGGGG time until they got the kinks
worked out.


Says who? Or what?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Tom,

(after MASSIVE subsidy from the taxpayers...an now Boeing is
getting into that as well)

Uh, now? Those defense contracts have been coming for decades.

but more expensive to operate (since it was
designed for state run airlines).


Huh?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

G.R.,

Are those the ones they bribed into the USAF tanker deal even though
Airbus was cheaper?

I doubt they had to bribe anyone. Having your military use combat gear made by a
foreign country is a *really* bad idea.


You may want to look into the recent firings at Boeing and the relation to the
tanker contract, which, AFAIK, has been put on hold because of that.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Thomas Borchert wrote:

Are those the ones they bribed into the USAF tanker deal even though
Airbus was cheaper?

I doubt they had to bribe anyone. Having your military use combat gear made by a
foreign country is a *really* bad idea.

George Patterson
Great discoveries are not announced with "Eureka!". What's usually said is
"Hummmmm... That's interesting...."

"Tom Sixkiller" wrote:
Mark opined

"Tom Sixkiller" wrote:
Your solution mixes civil and criminal law...a really bad situation.

Yes, but the very concept of "punitive damages" is already an
unhealthy mixture of civil and criminal law.

No, it is not.

It is, if you believe that "compensation" should be in the sphere of civil
law, while "punishment" should remain in the sphere of criminal law.
Only the State can impose criminal penalties. "Punitive" damages
should only be imposed as a criminal sanction, and should require a
criminal trial--with appropriate rules of evidence and procedure.