It does - and technically the aircraft should be designated FA or FB, for Fighter/Attacker or Fighter/Bomber, such as the F/A-18 Hornet, or the FB-111 (an F-111 variant with longer range intended to serve as a strategic bomber). Generally though "B" has referred more to the strategic bombing role, whereas "A" has referred to the tactical ground attack role (a la the A-10, etc). It's not universal though, and some multirole aircraft like the F-15 or F-16 are still referred to as such without a change of designation.
And speaking of the F-111, this is what happened with the last attempt at a "jack of all trades" aircraft. It was the Tactical Fighter X program, intended to fill the needs of both the Air Force and Navy. It led to the Navy backing out and canceling their part of the project altogether, while the Air Force wound up with the F-111, a "Fighter" in name only that was basically ever only used as a bomber, because it could only defend itself with missiles, and wasn't capable of dogfighting.
Meanwhile, the Navy, having decided that dogfighting was important after all due to the lessons from Vietnam, went back to the drawing board, free from having to incorporate the Air Force requirements, and came up with the F-14.
You don't have to win the primary to have an impact. All you need to do is show that you have a sufficient amount of support for your ideas, to the point that the front-runner is forced to accept at least some of your ideas, in whole or part. Do it a few times, and they'll start doing it preemptively, which makes your task even easier.
Now, is it perfect? Nope. Can you shift the party platforms and future candidates? Absolutely, just look at how effective certain insurgent forces have been within the Republican party over the past few decades.
The key thing though, is that you do it in the Democratic or Republican presidential primary. You earn some delegates, and even if you don't "win", you get your voice heard - and get some of your positions adopted in the platform. This is especially true if you're single issue focused, like Lessig is. The thing not to do is just run as an independent - I suspect Nader could have had a lot more impact had he staged a challenge to Gore in the Democratic primary, instead of getting blamed for the loss in the general (rightly or wrongly).
As cheap as the plastic back comes off, I have to think about real world uses. I almost never see the glass back of an iPhone - it's almost always ensconced in a bulky plastic/rubber protective case. The ones that don't are are riddled with cracks.
On the other hand, my S3 with its "cheap plastic back" has survived admirably without such a case, despite suffering many falls. Just last week I accidentally dropped it on an escalator of all things, and while the back popped off, it was no worse for the wear once I put the battery back in and snapped the 'cheap plastic' back in place.
Yes. If I wanted a phone with a pretty glass back that I never see or touch because I have to put it in a bulky protective case, that I can't just pop my SD card full of music/files/etc in, that I can't pop the battery out if I need to... yeah, I'd just buy an iPhone.
Anyone have any suggestions on where to go for something new, Android-wise, from the Galaxy S line instead of to the S6?
It's sort of sad to have this actually be shocking since it's out of the norm.
Far too often the financial penalties placed or threatened against companies are nowhere near what it would take to actually deter a corporation from taking action anyway, and so they're inclined to just write it off as a business cost - or at least it seems that way (anecdotally) to me.
When it comes to extortionate practices, horrible customer service, bait-and-switch special plans, secret data caps, unlimited but not really unlimited data, throttling, and any number of other things I've seen, I have oh so many more reasons to hate the cellular phone company than just this.
They should learn that the way to make it go away is to admit that it happened, refuse to apologize or accept liability, but express regret and agree to payoffs to the families. It worked for the USA, after all:
I'm just glad I got warned off from watching that awful piece of drek.
Just as an aside, the English catch-all term would be "Warship." A "Helicopter Gunship" refers to a specific type of helicopter, such as an AH-64 Apache. The specific term for a ship like this would be Amphibious Assault Ship, or Helicopter Carrier, depending on which aspect you wanted to play up.
On another note, I doubt the Russians would ever classify it as that officially, because of the Montreaux convention. Essentially, they've always designated their aircraft carriers as "Aircraft Carrying Cruisers" dating back to the time of the Soviet Union in order to be able to pass through the Bosporus and Dardanelles: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
What's even scarier is that this was apparently the standard deal for all her predecessors. Still, at least they might be able to claim some degree of ignorance - but I think it's safe to say that by 2008 anyone with half a clue could have explained what a colossally stupid idea it was, especially given that the private email servers for both the Obama and McCain campaigns had already been hacked prior to the election: http://www.theguardian.com/glo...
The thing is though, even if the car's internal network isn't currently attached to the internet/mobile access, it WILL be soon enough. That's the way the trends are going - because the world is getting more interconnected. As good as it would be for security, we're not going to be able to keep the connectivity genie stuffed in the bottle. Some executive is going to want it, some engineer is going to make it happen, and some car buyer is going to eagerly pay for it.
So what can we do? Well, for one, we can make it so that the internal networks and nodes of the car/airplane/industrial control/home appliances/etc aren't solely reliant on that single failsafe of an air gap. We can build them such that they don't get totally hosed the moment anyone so much as crosses that barrier.
This is where research like this can play a very important role, because it highlights that those things aren't secure - and if we fix them now, or even establish patterns so that the companies are ready to deal with this, then so much the better. Tesla already has a bug bounty program for instance, but they're ahead of the curve - we need all the car companies to get to that level of maturity, or at least having published policies stating they won't threaten to sue security researchers that come to them.
I fail to see what's invalid about that argument, though.
"X is better than Y for the use cases I'm seeing" is a perfectly valid argument. Now, it's best to clarify as such, and not simply extrapolate out to every single possible use under the sun, a la "Well, Nvidia/AMD gets 3 more frames per second on $GAME, so therefore it's better for EVERYTHING." That's stupid - but something like my recent experience where I had major crash problems with AMD drivers on some of the games I like to play, and none with Nvidia (one desktop, the other laptop), I'm strongly inclined to go with Nvidia on my next major purchase, because I have a very visceral (if anecdotal) sense that one is going to work better for what I'm using it for than the other.
Now, you may not be using them for the same thing - but that in no way invalidates the specific point that it's better for what he's using it for.
Hydrofluoric acid is also particularly nasty stuff.
Nasty, as in, spill a single mini-drop of it on your finger, and you'll be lucky if all you lose is the finger. At least, that's the take I got when I visited a lab that worked with the stuff, from their safety protocols and overview.
That's interesting - I'd never even seen anything beyond that datamined, so I'd sort of lumped the two together in my mind. Either way, there has never been any such "only one item per server" deal in actual play, though it may have been discussed in some of the initial dev plans. There's a lot of stuff that vanilla WoW intended to put in that was eventually tossed - stuff like houses, guild halls etc, learning languages (hence why the languages were initially shown as a 'skill'). These were legacy things they'd taken from Everquest, and originally planned to emulate, but later decided to drop, at least as I understand it.
In a way it's sort of fascinating to look at some of the old ideas they had, and realize that WoW could have gone down very different development paths.
They weren't entirely one person per server - most of them were just ridiculously hard to get.
To get ones like Thunderfury or Sulfuras, you had to be in a (likely top-tier) raid group that was clearing the top level raids. This took 40 people to accomplish, so even just getting that many people vaguely coordinated was a challenge, especially since it wasn't a mega loot-fest like today's raids are. Items for the quests to assemble those would (very rarely) drop in certain 40 man raids, and would generally go to one of the top players of the guild/group.
But nothing stops anyone from going back and getting them. You can jump up to level 100, and go back and solo-faceroll those raids once a week until the items drop. A few quest steps later, and there you go, a shiny artifact to sit in your bank.
This changed over time, to where they tinkered with dropping the quest entirely and making it an ultra rare end boss drop (Burning Crusade), a steadier but more grindy quest (Lich King, Cataclysm) to the model they have now, where basically everyone and their brother who does enough raids (even on the lowest possible difficulty) will eventually earn the artifact.
To me this is sort of emblematic of how WoW has changed over time. It used to be that the top tier stuff meant you really were top tier - now all you're doing is spending tons of time to get something that everyone else will get 6+ months later.*
*There are a few rare exceptions, mostly in terms of things that were taken out - artifacts/items from the original Naxxramas 40 man raid, certain titles, or any of the rewards from the event for the opening of the Gates of Ahn-Qiraj, which is about the only thing I can think of that's ever been one person per server. Even then, others could get it, but only if they did a turn-in of all the quest items within 1 hour or so of the first person turning it in. You can imagine how well THAT worked in practice, which is probably why Blizzard never did that again.
Back then, both parties had liberal and conservative wings, and northern and southern wings. There was a lot more ideological diversity in the parties, for good and bad.
The Civil Rights act was passed with votes from both parties, but it was also championed by a Democratic President. They took ownership of it - and, rather than fight them over that, the trend in the Republican party was instead to court the southern/white/conservative vote that was alienated by that ownership. You can see it in so many things, starting with Nixon's Southern Strategy.
Look at those numbers of Southern Representatives and Senators - at the time they were overwhelmingly Democratic. Who's the current party of the South? Even when you factor in the representatives from the majority-minority districts pushed by the Voting Rights Act, the South is still overwhelmingly Republican in terms of its Representatives and Senators.
Loan words often change in meaning from what the word in the original language meant.
Attend, in english, means "to be present at" or "deal with". In French, it's a form of the verb for "to wait" (the French use the verb "assister" for the english meaning of attend).
Another fun one is "Arbeit", which in German is the word for work, but in Japanese and Korean, it specifically means "part time job".
And so much of it goes back to the edition wars when 4th edition provoked a schism, leading to the creation of Pathfinder as an entirely separate and incompatible branch of the mainstream fantasy gaming hobby. In some ways it's come full circle now with Paizo (Pathfinder) taking WotC's place at Gencon, because for a large number of people now, Pathfinder IS the true successor to D&D in everything but the name and IP.
It's the insistence on basically hijacking the display with all kinds of ridiculous crap. I don't mind a reasonable banner ad across the top or down the side. When they started using flash, putting autoplay video/audio, waving popups and inserts that get in the way of what I'm doing... no, just no.
Every so often I take a look at casual browsing without, just for comparison, usually when on someone else's computer. The amount of crap from ad traffic noticeably slows down page load times. In some cases I'd guess the ad traffic is actually larger than the pages I'm surfing, sometimes vastly moreso.
Maemo was awesome. I loved my N900, and I never understood the unwillingness to follow it up. I'd have gladly gone for a more modern touchscreen version with a bigger screen as a follow on.
Maemo that would run Android apps would have been the best of both worlds.
Slashdot Mirror
It does - and technically the aircraft should be designated FA or FB, for Fighter/Attacker or Fighter/Bomber, such as the F/A-18 Hornet, or the FB-111 (an F-111 variant with longer range intended to serve as a strategic bomber). Generally though "B" has referred more to the strategic bombing role, whereas "A" has referred to the tactical ground attack role (a la the A-10, etc). It's not universal though, and some multirole aircraft like the F-15 or F-16 are still referred to as such without a change of designation.
And speaking of the F-111, this is what happened with the last attempt at a "jack of all trades" aircraft. It was the Tactical Fighter X program, intended to fill the needs of both the Air Force and Navy. It led to the Navy backing out and canceling their part of the project altogether, while the Air Force wound up with the F-111, a "Fighter" in name only that was basically ever only used as a bomber, because it could only defend itself with missiles, and wasn't capable of dogfighting.
Meanwhile, the Navy, having decided that dogfighting was important after all due to the lessons from Vietnam, went back to the drawing board, free from having to incorporate the Air Force requirements, and came up with the F-14.
You don't have to win the primary to have an impact. All you need to do is show that you have a sufficient amount of support for your ideas, to the point that the front-runner is forced to accept at least some of your ideas, in whole or part. Do it a few times, and they'll start doing it preemptively, which makes your task even easier.
Now, is it perfect? Nope. Can you shift the party platforms and future candidates? Absolutely, just look at how effective certain insurgent forces have been within the Republican party over the past few decades.
The key thing though, is that you do it in the Democratic or Republican presidential primary. You earn some delegates, and even if you don't "win", you get your voice heard - and get some of your positions adopted in the platform. This is especially true if you're single issue focused, like Lessig is. The thing not to do is just run as an independent - I suspect Nader could have had a lot more impact had he staged a challenge to Gore in the Democratic primary, instead of getting blamed for the loss in the general (rightly or wrongly).
It's the Campaign Platform Anyone can Edit!
As cheap as the plastic back comes off, I have to think about real world uses. I almost never see the glass back of an iPhone - it's almost always ensconced in a bulky plastic/rubber protective case. The ones that don't are are riddled with cracks.
On the other hand, my S3 with its "cheap plastic back" has survived admirably without such a case, despite suffering many falls. Just last week I accidentally dropped it on an escalator of all things, and while the back popped off, it was no worse for the wear once I put the battery back in and snapped the 'cheap plastic' back in place.
Yes. If I wanted a phone with a pretty glass back that I never see or touch because I have to put it in a bulky protective case, that I can't just pop my SD card full of music/files/etc in, that I can't pop the battery out if I need to... yeah, I'd just buy an iPhone.
Anyone have any suggestions on where to go for something new, Android-wise, from the Galaxy S line instead of to the S6?
It's sort of sad to have this actually be shocking since it's out of the norm.
Far too often the financial penalties placed or threatened against companies are nowhere near what it would take to actually deter a corporation from taking action anyway, and so they're inclined to just write it off as a business cost - or at least it seems that way (anecdotally) to me.
That was Oracle though. They're probably contractually obligated to make the company look bad.
If they didn't, it just wouldn't be Oracle.
When it comes to extortionate practices, horrible customer service, bait-and-switch special plans, secret data caps, unlimited but not really unlimited data, throttling, and any number of other things I've seen, I have oh so many more reasons to hate the cellular phone company than just this.
This is Slashdot, you expected anyone to actually RTFA? :)
They should learn that the way to make it go away is to admit that it happened, refuse to apologize or accept liability, but express regret and agree to payoffs to the families. It worked for the USA, after all:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
I'm just glad I got warned off from watching that awful piece of drek.
Just as an aside, the English catch-all term would be "Warship." A "Helicopter Gunship" refers to a specific type of helicopter, such as an AH-64 Apache. The specific term for a ship like this would be Amphibious Assault Ship, or Helicopter Carrier, depending on which aspect you wanted to play up.
On another note, I doubt the Russians would ever classify it as that officially, because of the Montreaux convention. Essentially, they've always designated their aircraft carriers as "Aircraft Carrying Cruisers" dating back to the time of the Soviet Union in order to be able to pass through the Bosporus and Dardanelles:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
What's even scarier is that this was apparently the standard deal for all her predecessors. Still, at least they might be able to claim some degree of ignorance - but I think it's safe to say that by 2008 anyone with half a clue could have explained what a colossally stupid idea it was, especially given that the private email servers for both the Obama and McCain campaigns had already been hacked prior to the election:
http://www.theguardian.com/glo...
The thing is though, even if the car's internal network isn't currently attached to the internet/mobile access, it WILL be soon enough. That's the way the trends are going - because the world is getting more interconnected. As good as it would be for security, we're not going to be able to keep the connectivity genie stuffed in the bottle. Some executive is going to want it, some engineer is going to make it happen, and some car buyer is going to eagerly pay for it.
So what can we do? Well, for one, we can make it so that the internal networks and nodes of the car/airplane/industrial control/home appliances/etc aren't solely reliant on that single failsafe of an air gap. We can build them such that they don't get totally hosed the moment anyone so much as crosses that barrier.
This is where research like this can play a very important role, because it highlights that those things aren't secure - and if we fix them now, or even establish patterns so that the companies are ready to deal with this, then so much the better. Tesla already has a bug bounty program for instance, but they're ahead of the curve - we need all the car companies to get to that level of maturity, or at least having published policies stating they won't threaten to sue security researchers that come to them.
Something like this, then, perhaps?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
I fail to see what's invalid about that argument, though.
"X is better than Y for the use cases I'm seeing" is a perfectly valid argument. Now, it's best to clarify as such, and not simply extrapolate out to every single possible use under the sun, a la "Well, Nvidia/AMD gets 3 more frames per second on $GAME, so therefore it's better for EVERYTHING." That's stupid - but something like my recent experience where I had major crash problems with AMD drivers on some of the games I like to play, and none with Nvidia (one desktop, the other laptop), I'm strongly inclined to go with Nvidia on my next major purchase, because I have a very visceral (if anecdotal) sense that one is going to work better for what I'm using it for than the other.
Now, you may not be using them for the same thing - but that in no way invalidates the specific point that it's better for what he's using it for.
Hydrofluoric acid is also particularly nasty stuff.
Nasty, as in, spill a single mini-drop of it on your finger, and you'll be lucky if all you lose is the finger. At least, that's the take I got when I visited a lab that worked with the stuff, from their safety protocols and overview.
That's interesting - I'd never even seen anything beyond that datamined, so I'd sort of lumped the two together in my mind. Either way, there has never been any such "only one item per server" deal in actual play, though it may have been discussed in some of the initial dev plans. There's a lot of stuff that vanilla WoW intended to put in that was eventually tossed - stuff like houses, guild halls etc, learning languages (hence why the languages were initially shown as a 'skill'). These were legacy things they'd taken from Everquest, and originally planned to emulate, but later decided to drop, at least as I understand it.
In a way it's sort of fascinating to look at some of the old ideas they had, and realize that WoW could have gone down very different development paths.
They weren't entirely one person per server - most of them were just ridiculously hard to get.
To get ones like Thunderfury or Sulfuras, you had to be in a (likely top-tier) raid group that was clearing the top level raids. This took 40 people to accomplish, so even just getting that many people vaguely coordinated was a challenge, especially since it wasn't a mega loot-fest like today's raids are. Items for the quests to assemble those would (very rarely) drop in certain 40 man raids, and would generally go to one of the top players of the guild/group.
But nothing stops anyone from going back and getting them. You can jump up to level 100, and go back and solo-faceroll those raids once a week until the items drop. A few quest steps later, and there you go, a shiny artifact to sit in your bank.
This changed over time, to where they tinkered with dropping the quest entirely and making it an ultra rare end boss drop (Burning Crusade), a steadier but more grindy quest (Lich King, Cataclysm) to the model they have now, where basically everyone and their brother who does enough raids (even on the lowest possible difficulty) will eventually earn the artifact.
To me this is sort of emblematic of how WoW has changed over time. It used to be that the top tier stuff meant you really were top tier - now all you're doing is spending tons of time to get something that everyone else will get 6+ months later.*
*There are a few rare exceptions, mostly in terms of things that were taken out - artifacts/items from the original Naxxramas 40 man raid, certain titles, or any of the rewards from the event for the opening of the Gates of Ahn-Qiraj, which is about the only thing I can think of that's ever been one person per server. Even then, others could get it, but only if they did a turn-in of all the quest items within 1 hour or so of the first person turning it in. You can imagine how well THAT worked in practice, which is probably why Blizzard never did that again.
Murder is the killing of human beings, yes - but we're talking about lawyers here.
Back then, both parties had liberal and conservative wings, and northern and southern wings. There was a lot more ideological diversity in the parties, for good and bad.
The Civil Rights act was passed with votes from both parties, but it was also championed by a Democratic President. They took ownership of it - and, rather than fight them over that, the trend in the Republican party was instead to court the southern/white/conservative vote that was alienated by that ownership. You can see it in so many things, starting with Nixon's Southern Strategy.
Look at those numbers of Southern Representatives and Senators - at the time they were overwhelmingly Democratic. Who's the current party of the South? Even when you factor in the representatives from the majority-minority districts pushed by the Voting Rights Act, the South is still overwhelmingly Republican in terms of its Representatives and Senators.
Loan words often change in meaning from what the word in the original language meant. Attend, in english, means "to be present at" or "deal with". In French, it's a form of the verb for "to wait" (the French use the verb "assister" for the english meaning of attend). Another fun one is "Arbeit", which in German is the word for work, but in Japanese and Korean, it specifically means "part time job".
It's definitely sad.
And so much of it goes back to the edition wars when 4th edition provoked a schism, leading to the creation of Pathfinder as an entirely separate and incompatible branch of the mainstream fantasy gaming hobby. In some ways it's come full circle now with Paizo (Pathfinder) taking WotC's place at Gencon, because for a large number of people now, Pathfinder IS the true successor to D&D in everything but the name and IP.
Meanwhile, Nikola Tesla is spinning in his grave (probably at about 120hz).
It's not just the malicious crap, either.
It's the insistence on basically hijacking the display with all kinds of ridiculous crap. I don't mind a reasonable banner ad across the top or down the side. When they started using flash, putting autoplay video/audio, waving popups and inserts that get in the way of what I'm doing... no, just no.
Every so often I take a look at casual browsing without, just for comparison, usually when on someone else's computer. The amount of crap from ad traffic noticeably slows down page load times. In some cases I'd guess the ad traffic is actually larger than the pages I'm surfing, sometimes vastly moreso.
Maemo was awesome. I loved my N900, and I never understood the unwillingness to follow it up. I'd have gladly gone for a more modern touchscreen version with a bigger screen as a follow on. Maemo that would run Android apps would have been the best of both worlds.