doesn't seem as bad as my personal experience with Emirates...
a 40-minute flight was delayed about 6 hours, then cancelled, then re-routed, then had to stand in "customer service" line 4 hours, then got new flight (another 5 hours later), and they said they rebooked the final connecting flight, but when I landed - nothing. The connecting airline had zero record of me or my supposed-ticket. Stuck in HK airport another 6 hours.

At least I finally got there and didn't lose cost of flight ticket.

I did also have AA flight cancelled (in Barcelona), but to their credit they had entire plane (300+) rebooked within 45 minutes. And hotel+meal+shuttle.

Your video, Why You Should NEVER Fly American Airlines, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

When they are in the top 10 most dangerous jobs in America, you might have a point...but they aren't, and yet they are paid better than nearly every dangerous job on the list of dangerous jobs.
They CLAIM to have the most dangerous job in America, but it's simply not true. In fact, in an interaction with an officer, it's 10 times more likely that the officer will shoot the citizen than it is the other way around, so if danger is the pay rate metric, cops should pay US.

No, he saw NOTHING, someone who doesn't know they are allowed to ride there complained to him.

Again, if danger is the metric, cops are paid WAY too much, far more than the more dangerous jobs out there, and they also get benefits and many have special laws that allow them to do things normal citizens can't and offers protections that normal citizens don't have (like free lawyers, a blue wall, friends that will harass anyone making a charge against one, free FULL medical, vacations, bullet proof vests, Kevlar gloves, weapons, free vehicle(s), double pay-overtime, etc.).

No, it IS a median wage task, with approximately median risk, or less. If they don't want to do it for that money, don't take the job. It's NOT a job that's worth >$111 an hour + benefits. Animal care workers have a much more dangerous job, and they make <$20K per year. In fact, of the top ten most dangerous jobs, only airline pilot pays better than being an officer, which is NOT even in the top 10 most dangerous jobs.
http://www.bankrate.com/finance/personal-finance/10-most-dangerous-jobs-us-11.aspx

OMG!!!
I could not disagree more.
Trump wrote a book about how to lie your way to 'success', the truth simply is not within that man. 2 days ago he claimed to not know the KKK or David Duke, but 8-10 years ago he refused to join any organization that Duke supported...so what happened? It can't be true he doesn't remember, he said he has the best memory in the world, remember? So he's just lying again, right? It is how he said you get what you want, just lie until you get it, then forget all the lies you told and insult and attack anyone bringing them up.
He's also totally incompetent, failing over and over at businesses, including one business that's nearly impossible to lose at, casinos, he's had 3, and bankrupted all of them 4 times! Then there are Trump steaks, vodka, magazine, mortgage, the game, airlines, and even his terribly named web site...gotrump.com (supposed to be go-trump, not got-rump). He claims to be a successful builder, but he doesn't build things, he just stamps his name on things others build. I think the reason he won't release his taxes is they will show he's actually lost money, never made any, and is only rich today because he was once massively rich (thanks to a huge inheritance and before that, no interest, 'never pay it back' loans from daddy) and lost a ton of money, both his and investors, not because he ever made money or was particularly successful at anything...contrary to what he says.
So, the contention that he 'knows the best people and will put together a team of greatness' goes against his record of putting together teams that fail miserably at businesses that are idiot proof! The contention that his big mouth will let us in on what he's doing supposes that he'll tell the truth...something he never does.
Clinton may have no spine, be a liar, and may wave whatever way the wind blows (all 3 of which Trump trumps her on), but for 'more evil', Trump is definitely your man.

*backup and replaced ded video with version 2.0. Changes include more factual accuracy, more exterior shots, and more non-trademark-holding airlines. -yt

As a lifelong flight sim addict (with a decent bit of real world experience), there is a twisted part of my brain that wills exactly this scenario to happen whenever I'm on an airliner.

I have no doubt that I would swiftly regret this if it ever did happen and I was mad enough to volunteer.

@mxxcon Unless a qualified pilot happened to be on the plane it would likely be the senior attendant that takes responsibility yes.

I imagine there is some procedure in place, but the scenario is so massively unlikely and modern avionics so good that there would be little point in doing much if any formal training (I can't see most airlines warranting the expense).

I dare say they might be shown how to work the radio though.

Of course you can do that on an airliner. You'll just need god to stop the air marshals from forcefully hog tying you and taking you away when you land. Sounds like a good test of His powers.

Yeah, I need privacy when talking to god as well. You know, all that private stuff, masturbation fantasies, my kill list and dream casting for the Teletubbies movie.

Can't do that on an airliner either.

In the case of this particular example the airline did cite that reason (I remember the forum buzz about it at the time).

But, I still agree with your point there. I've never been keen on the vapers who like to belligerently assert their "right to vape" everywhere they can without engaging their brains, or a bit of basic consideration.

Doubly so when snus so easy to order online & "stealth vaping" in public spaces is so easy to do.

That said, most of the negativity I've had & seen personally over the subject has been largely moralistic in nature. Specifically either "still bad for you!" or "think of the children!".

This may have been a bad example, but I could dig you up about as many media & campaign group hit pieces as you'd care to read.

Right now it's resulting in some deeply ill conceived legislation. I recognise that some sensible legal regulation is needed, but that is not what's happening at the moment. It seems like a double pronged shafting from the tobacco/pharma cartel and the morality police.

Maybe I'm just too emotionally invested on that one.

As for the other bit's. Your dealing with classic scattershot Slavoj. He writes in a much more ordered way than he speaks, but he is still very much a stream of consciousness when he gets going.
I enjoy "truffle hunting in the forest of knowledge" like that, but I understand why it rubs a lot of people the wrong way.

I this case, I don't think the specific examples are as important as the idea he is expressing (to him or myself).

That said, couldn't said health organisation be seen as pushing a moral position there? I guess your arguing it was beneficial to their business in some way? (not informed enough to have a strong position either way on that, but I think I can see where your coming from)

As for it being more dangerous than overt totalitarianism. The argument would be that you can see and fight overt ideologies, as such they are considerably less of a threat in modern developed countries.

Here I think, it would be "more dangerous" simply in the sense that there is a greater danger of anything significant actually happening.

Naturally the jackboots and piano wire kind is infinitely worse in practice. But there seems considerably less danger of that kind of totalitarianism gaining a serious foothold in most of our cultures than in times past.

The policing of peoples thoughts, language and consensual behaviour on the other hand (epitomised by the PC gone mad crowd). Could perhaps be said to be more dangerous, simply in the sense that it has more potential to do actual damage.

You could accuse that of being a bit hyperbolic, but that's our Slavoj.

"The idea is that if you smoke during the flight e-cigarette you publicly display your addiction and that is not a good pedagogical example for others and so on and so on."

Or (far more likely) the airline realised that other passengers don't like people smoking around them in a confined space. You want to vape at home or outside? Knock yourself out. But kindly refrain from doing so in my cramped airspace. Otherwise, we'll test the old adage about how my right to swing my fist ends at your face.

He hasn't really presented any kind of decent argument here. Ok, the Carmen thing is stupid, but if you actually read the story behind that, it's because the Opera house was sponsored by a health company. Essentially they bowed to commercial pressure. Nothing to do with PC.

Even if WAS a "PC" decision, on what planet is that "a more dangerous form of totalitarianism"?

Someone decided they didn't want to stage an opera because there's smoking in it... oh no! Save us from opera-hitler!

Did the government step in and force them to do this? Nope, they made the decision themselves.

WTF?!? "Tangible plan"? What on earth could you possibly mean by that?
The "plan" to round up over 11 million people and deport them, but with zero details about it?
The "plan" to make Mexico pay to build a 2500 mile wall, with zero details about how?
The "plan" to illegally deny fugitives entry to states because, you know, Muslims are bad...MmmmK?
The "plan" to skew the tax system even more in favor of those in the top 5%, to the detriment of the middle and lower classes?
His "plan" to be a smarmy, dickish, douchebag to anyone that isn't in his camp...but also to completely control those people to make them do exactly what he wants...again with zero details how he plans to do so?
The "plan" to force China to...I don't know...ignore all our debt and treat us like the boss we are?

As for Clinton's being 'currently under Federal investigation by America's FBI department.'...the "email scandal" has, just like Benghazi, turned up absolutely zero illegal behavior and is nothing more than a red herring designed by the (absolutely not) "conservative" side of our political system, has gone absolutely no where, and only matters to people who would NEVER have voted for her in the first place...if you think differently, you really need to get out of the Fox bubble and look around at reality for a bit.

Little could be more disastrous for the country than having that vitriolic humanoid pumpkin as our 'leader', since the only successful leading he's ever done is leading people to hate each other, and leading far more people to hate HIM. He's a fairly terrible business man, successful only due to starting with a "tiny loan" (his words, really more of a gift from daddy) of a million dollars and being forced to allow others to take control of his investments. He's a bold faced liar, in fact the truth does not seem to be palatable to him in the least....and he's clearly admitted that in his books and sees it as a good thing to hyper exaggerate and minimize. He's a 'good Christian', who's been divorced how many times? There's no way on earth his plans would even be tried. He (and other republican candidates) don't even have a grasp of what the president does or how, claiming they'll 'repeal the ACA on day one', and they'll discard multiple government departments...somethings the president simply CAN'T just do...along with most of their other ridiculous, impossible 'plans'. They all know they wouldn't actually have that power, yet they all lie to you and tell you they will do the hateful things they've convinced you are the right thing to do by themselves. Fortunately our system is designed so that one nutjob, or even one party of nutjobs can't change laws precipitously.

I hate to tell you, but Bernie Sanders is not excluded for being honest and knowledgeable. ALL candidates are socialist, he's just honest enough to admit it. Tax breaks for the rich...socialism. Bailouts for the airlines and banks...socialism. Social security...socialism. Medicare...socialism. "jobs programs"...socialism. Public parks...socialism. Public roads...socialism. Need I go on?

Your mischaracterization of Obama's record is so patently ridiculous it's not worth contradicting.

Seems like this would be an incredibly expensive and complicated means to that end. Fly your launch aircraft close enough to an airport and you're going to arouse suspicion, and my hunch is if you're not close to an airport then intercepting a commercial airliner in a jetpack is going to be next to impossible.

Politically, maybe yes. Geographically, not so much. (I actually had thought they were closer together, but I still say it's the same region).

Of course, some people are more sensitive than others. I thought it was 'close' in the sense that it shows people almost touching an airplane in flight, which is insanely dangerous to all involved, shortly after another airplane went down, an act which is CLAIMED by terrorists to have been a terrorist act.

I thought the idea of small, private, radar invisible, personal 'aircraft' flying so incredibly close to an airliner, released right after an airliner crashed under suspicious circumstances was ill advised.
In fact, I think it's ill advised to show something like that even if there had not been a crash.
With a different title, this could have been a terrorist recruiting film showing the next level of attacks they're considering. Keep in mind that one can make (with enough technical knowledge) or purchase a set of 'wings' with no oversight, and once in the air the pilot is nearly invisible. Using them to fly right up to within touching distance of large airliners is not an idea I would have intentionally put in anyone's minds.