Interesting Articles...

[ExGingi]

The Concorde used ancient technology and was never updated due to lack of competition. It was the last airplane to still employ a flight engineer.
Additionally the design was inherently flawed, which led to the AF4590 disaster.
The sonic booms were too loud due to old tech.
The post 9/11 slowdown was the nail in the coffin.
Finally, Mach2 just wasn't fast enough to move the needle. Mach5 is a very different story.

IINM the #1 reason was that the economics just didn't make any sense. It was a fuel guzzler, and was subsidized for keeping the prestige. At some point the appetite for that went away, along with restrictions on where it could fly. It's actually a wonder that it lasted that long.

[ExGingi]

The problem is, if it is successful they'll never release award space...

That's what you have CSR and AMEX BP for. On the bright side, you'll probably earn quite a bit of points paying for a trip on it.

[ExGingi]

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2018/06/26/us/sonia-sotomayor-dissent-travel-ban.html

I haven't read the arguments, the majority decision or the full dissent. However, it seems so unfortunate that a supreme court judge could be such a political hack. In classic liberal/progressive style, it's pure symbolism over substance, not only in the decision process, but even in quoting your nemesis trying to prove your point. At this point anyone who takes a Trump tweet and draws serious conclusions based on its wording, shouldn't really be sitting on the bench of any court, let alone the SCOTUS, due to limited intellectual capacity.

Let's talk some substance. If this was truly a Muslim ban, how come Indonesia isn't on the list? What about Turkey?

[ExGingi]

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-06-27/soros-backs-personal-injury-lawsuits-in-market-with-20-returns

[ChaimMoskowitz]

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2018/06/26/us/sonia-sotomayor-dissent-travel-ban.html

I haven't read the arguments, the majority decision or the full dissent. However, it seems so unfortunate that a supreme court judge could be such a political hack. In classic liberal/progressive style, it's pure symbolism over substance, not only in the decision process, but even in quoting your nemesis trying to prove your point. At this point anyone who takes a Trump tweet and draws serious conclusions based on its wording, shouldn't really be sitting on the bench of any court, let alone the SCOTUS, due to limited intellectual capacity.

Let's talk some substance. If this was truly a Muslim ban, how come Indonesia isn't on the list? What about Turkey?

I believe the issue is the majority said you can only look at what's in the EO and nothing else. Do you really expect a EO to say we are doing this because we hate A, B and C?

[ExGingi]

I believe the issue is the majority said you can only look at what's in the EO and nothing else. Do you really expect a EO to say we are doing this because we hate A, B and C?

That's great. That's what courts are supposed to do.

Samuel I 16:7.
אין לדיין אלא מה שעיניו רואות

[ChaimMoskowitz]

Samuel I 16:7.
אין לדיין אלא מה שעיניו רואות

You proving my point?

[ExGingi]

You proving my point?

Your point being? That the EO won't give a reason for doing it? Yes! And it should be judged solely on its merits.

[ChaimMoskowitz]

Your point being? That the EO won't give a reason for doing it? Yes! And it should be judged solely on its merits.

The passage you posted says to look at what is ones "heart". That is not what was done. The problem is everyone wants to make this about Trump.

[ExGingi]

The passage you posted says to look at what is ones "heart". That is not what was done. The problem is everyone wants to make this about Trump.

The passage says that G-d (and only G-d) can see what's in one's heart. A judge can only go by what's in front of his eyes. (The Hebrew talmudic text I quoted).

[Abey]

The Concorde used ancient technology and was never updated due to lack of competition. It was the last airplane to still employ a flight engineer.
Additionally the design was inherently flawed, which led to the AF4590 disaster.
The sonic booms were too loud due to old tech.
The post 9/11 slowdown was the nail in the coffin.
Finally, Mach2 just wasn't fast enough to move the needle. Mach5 is a very different story.

I think that airlines pretty much figured out the economics of air travel, look at the failures of the new 747 and A380s
For this to be successful they need to be able to fly a seat trans Atlantic at a similar price point than a 787 for example and I don’t think that’s happening anytime soon.
Imo a business only product will be a huge failure and with such a small cabin space is going to be scarce so I can’t imagine seats/personal space being the same than current business/first class products and I personally would rather sit in a j seat for 8 hours than a y for 2, but that could just be me...
But Hey it’s not slated until 2030 a lot of things can change till then

[aygart]

I think that airlines pretty much figured out the economics of air travel, look at the failures of the new 747 and A380s
For this to be successful they need to be able to fly a seat trans Atlantic at a similar price point than a 787 for example and I don’t think that’s happening anytime soon.
Imo a business only product will be a huge failure and with such a small cabin space is going to be scarce so I can’t imagine seats/personal space being the same than current business/first class products and I personally would rather sit in a j seat for 8 hours than a y for 2, but that could just be me...
But Hey it’s not slated until 2030 a lot of things can change till then

Why would this be less successful than euro J? It would be a shorter flight.

[Abey]

Why would this be less successful than euro J? It would be a shorter flight.

I personally would rather sit in a j seat for 8 hours than a y for 2, but that could just be me...


What would you rather ?

[Abey]

I personally would rather sit in a j seat for 8 hours than a y for 2, but that could just be me...


What would you rather ?

AND that is assuming that they are both the same price which I don’t think will happen so fast....

[ChaimMoskowitz]

The passage says that G-d (and only G-d) can see what's in one's heart. A judge can only go by what's in front of his eyes. (The Hebrew talmudic text I quoted).

Can you link to the text were it says "only G-d" as mine does not say that. My reading is pretty clear that Samuel should not consider his appearance but what is in his heart.

The ruling is extremely dangerous since it seems if you say it is for national security you can really discrimante against anyone you want (I am looking at the bigger picture and not just this case).

[Boruch999]

http://www.businessinsider.com/all-about-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-who-beat-crowley-in-ny-dem-primary-2018-6#this-was-ocasio-cortezs-first-run-for-office-but-she-had-experience-in-politics-in-college-she-worked-for-democratic-sen-ted-kennedy-of-massachusetts-on-immigration-issues-and-she-was-an-organizer-for-bernie-sanders-2016-campaign-6

[Boruch999]

The ruling is extremely dangerous since it seems if you say it is for national security you can really discrimante against anyone you want (I am looking at the bigger picture and not just this case).

A future EO could presumably be challenged in court with a claim that the national security claim is bogus.  No one claimed that here.

[ChaimMoskowitz]

A future EO could presumably be challenged in court with a claim that the national security claim is bogus.  No one claimed that here.

To challenge this EO would have to be on a case by case basis. The challenge to this EO is it was based on discrimination. They basically said the discrimination has to be in the EO and nothing else matters.

[Boruch999]

To challenge this EO would have to be on a case by case basis. The challenge to this EO is it was based on discrimination. They basically said the discrimination has to be in the EO and nothing else matters.

I don't understand what you mean by the first sentence.  The latter two seem true but I would present it differently.

The challenge to this EO was that it was motivated by illegal discrimination.  They said that for an EO to be illegal the policies the EO directs must themselves discriminate in a way forbidden by law. 

[ChaimMoskowitz]

I don't understand what you mean by the first sentence. 

You can challenge the EO in federal court on a case by case basis. You need to show you are not a security risk.